Hello All,
Here is a description of the trickiest judging situation I've had to
deal with in a long time.
The Setup:
PLAYER A, Pool: 7
Volker, Blood: 2/5, Monster, Preternatural Strength, Vessel, Ivory
Bow, The Rack
Theo Bell , Blood: 6/7, TAPPED
Dre, Leader of the Cold Dawn , TAPPED
PLAYER B, Pool: 8
2x Ashur Tablets
New Carthage
Karen Suadela , Blood: 2/7, Blood Doll, TAPPED
Tomaine, Blood 4/6, TAPPED
Torpor: Tara, with a Vessel, Blood: 0/6
PLAYER C, Pool: 1
Arika , Blood: 10/11, TAPPED
J. Oswald "Ozzy" Hyde-White , Blood: 5/8, TAPPED
PLAYER D, Pool: 5
Nergal , Blood: 8/10, Merged, Pulse of the Canaille
PLAYER E, Pool: 10
Beast, Blood: 8/8, TAPPED, Anarch, Villein, Fortitude
Jeremy MacNeil (advanced) , Blood: 8/10, 2x Fortitude
Player C needed to leave the tournament unexpectedly, so I've been
playing for Player C intermittently. It's player B's turn, and
Tomaine is currently bleeding for the oust. I decline to block, and
I'm picking up the last pool, when player D says, "I'll just cycle
this Eagle Sight," plays it, redraws, then declines to block the bleed
(thinking that Eagle Sight still had its old card text.) I point out
that Eagle Sight requires a block attempt, and if Player D wants to
take it back for not knowing the current card text, we should hear
from everyone at the table. (Note: The card Player D had in his hand
was the current card text of Eagle's Sight. If he had an old version,
would it change your opinion of this situation?)
I get an urgent phone call, so I stand up and move away for a minute
to answer it. As I'm leaving, I hear Player D say to Player B, "Do
you have stealth, or should I take it back? Nevermind, your stealth is
big fist."
When I come back to the table, the following things have happened:
Player D took the Eagle's Sight back in his hand, and shuffled his
deck.
Player B proceeded to gain 6 pool, decrypt, and discard.
Player D took his turn, bleeding for 8 and cycling several cards.
Player E started his turn, rushing Nergal and cycling several cards.
Player A mentioned quietly that they should get a judge, but everyone
else played on.
I return during the middle of combat between Beast and Nergal. I'm
most upset with Player B for continuing without me. Player D
threatens to leave the tournament if he has to continue waiting for me
to play as Player C so slowly. Player D says he's OK with the current
situation.
I make the following ruling:
- I apologize to everyone that they've had to deal with a slower game
due to Player C's absence, though I point out that they're still very
likely to finish the game in the time remaining.
- While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
Players B, D, and E played on.
- Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
- I give Player D a warning for poor sportsmanship, since it's not
acceptable to leave a tournament simply because you don't like a
ruling.
Since I was the judge and I used my judgment, my ruling was correct.
Then again, if you were the judge, you could have made a different
ruling that would have also been correct! So, what would you have
done? LSJ, I'm especially curious to hear your thoughts on this
situation, and what you would have done in my place.
Thanks,
Ira
On Jun 25, 3:48 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I make the following ruling:
> - I apologize to everyone that they've had to deal with a slower game
> due to Player C's absence, though I point out that they're still very
> likely to finish the game in the time remaining.
> - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
> Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
> Players B, D, and E played on.
> - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
> - I give Player D a warning for poor sportsmanship, since it's not
> acceptable to leave a tournament simply because you don't like a
> ruling.
I am hardly to be considered a great VTES judge, but I have run many
official events for other games at serious competitive levels.
1) You should not be playing for C. C should have packed their things
and left. Just dropped out; all cards they own immediately returned
and out of play and left the game and the event. Their predator does
not get an oust. C should get a strong reprimand for leaving an event
early and disrupting play for the others. If C makes a habit of this,
they should be removed from future events.
2) The play of the Eagle's Sight most definitely should not stand.
You voluntarily gave up your ability to contribute to the discussion
of the take-back by leaving the table during the discussion. In your
absence as player, the other players made the decision to allow the
take-back, which you yourself explicity suggested to them as a fair
and acceptable solution to the misunderstanding. Further, it is
impossible to undo it as many things have happened since; the general
gaming principle on take-backs is always "if nothing significant has
happened, then allowed, else play it as it stands"
3) Penalties of all sorts to all players were vindictive and
unnecessary, serving only to alienate players and disrupt the flow of
the game even further. Play should have stood. And not the least
because that was best for everyone involved, but that it also removes
the very awkward situation of you playing as judge.
Next time, don't play for players and don't leave the table while
playing.
> Since I was the judge and I used my judgment, my ruling was correct.
It was the ruling, it was neither correct nor incorrect. I myself
would have been very unlikely to be happy with such rulings, to the
point I would consider not returning to such an event.
Just callin' em like I sees 'em.
Eric Jome
On Jun 25, 3:21 pm, Eric Jome <eric.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 3:48 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I make the following ruling:
> > - I apologize to everyone that they've had to deal with a slower game
> > due to Player C's absence, though I point out that they're still very
> > likely to finish the game in the time remaining.
> > - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> > of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> > and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
> > Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
> > Players B, D, and E played on.
> > - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> > consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> > penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
> > - I give Player D a warning for poor sportsmanship, since it's not
> > acceptable to leave a tournament simply because you don't like a
> > ruling.
>
> I am hardly to be considered a great VTES judge, but I have run many
> official events for other games at serious competitive levels.
Thanks for taking the time to reply! Remember that other games often
have more serious competition than VTES. A comparison to a high level
Magic tournament isn't necessarily the best comparison.
> 1) You should not be playing for C. C should have packed their things
> and left. Just dropped out; all cards they own immediately returned
> and out of play and left the game and the event.
That is certainly one valid approach, though it often creates a much
more imbalance in the game for a player to disappear, than for someone
to take over for them. The ideal situation is that a new player would
take over for the old player. Another reasonable option is for the
judge to take over.
> 2) The play of the Eagle's Sight most definitely should not stand.
> You voluntarily gave up your ability to contribute to the discussion
> of the take-back by leaving the table during the discussion.
I see your point, but I was still the judge, and it was unfair to
Player A for Players B, D, and E to continue without getting an
official ruling.
> In your absence as player, the other players made the decision to allow the
> take-back, which you yourself explicity suggested to them as a fair
> and acceptable solution to the misunderstanding.
Perhaps I did empower the players too much by suggesting that I would
like to hear their thoughts before making a ruling, but it's certainly
not normally acceptable for players to make a decision after the judge
has become involved.
> Further, it is
> impossible to undo it as many things have happened since; the general
> gaming principle on take-backs is always "if nothing significant has
> happened, then allowed, else play it as it stands"
In VTES, if the judge is called over, the game state should be
corrected and repaired. If it's too hard to takeback, then other
adjustments to the gamestate should be made if necessary. Also,
normally takebacks aren't allowed at all in tournaments.
> 3) Penalties of all sorts to all players were vindictive and
> unnecessary, serving only to alienate players and disrupt the flow of
> the game even further.
I certainly didn't feel "vindictive" when making the ruling. I was
trying to craft a resolution that was most fair to all players, and
gave no advantage to players who broke the rules. If no penalty was
given, then Player A would have been most hurt via the "play it as it
stands" game state, through no fault of his own. It seemed to me that
-6 Pool and -1 VP was the least disruptive way of fixing the gamestate
(interestingly, that would have been pretty similar to simply
eliminating Player C when Player C left. :))
> Play should have stood. And not the least
> because that was best for everyone involved, but that it also removes
> the very awkward situation of you playing as judge.
I agree it was awkward because I was playing, but that couldn't be
avoided in this case, unless we called over another judge. There
weren't any other judges at this event, though perhaps we could have
gotten another player (who also would have been biased, since they
were in the tournament, too.) Maybe it would be best to get an
impartial other judge, who wasn't involved.
Leaving the play as it stood was bad for Player A, since if Nergal
actually blocked the bleed, Player A might have gotten Player B first.
> Next time, don't play for players and don't leave the table while playing.
A fair guideline, but obviously this was an extenuating circumstance.
I expected the players to wait for my return, instead of taking the
matter into their own hands. I could have been more clear, "Please
wait for my return before continuing."
> > Since I was the judge and I used my judgment, my ruling was correct.
>
> It was the ruling, it was neither correct nor incorrect.
If the judge uses judgment, then the ruling is correct.
> I myself would have been very unlikely to be happy with such rulings, to the
> point I would consider not returning to such an event.
If you were Player A, would you have been unhappy? Without the
ruling, Player A was unhappy, and he wanted me to do something to fix
the mess. Player A didn't want to allow the takeback, but was less
vocal than the other Players.
Ira
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Player C needed to leave the tournament unexpectedly, so I've been
> playing for Player C intermittently. It's player B's turn, and
> Tomaine is currently bleeding for the oust. I decline to block, and
> I'm picking up the last pool, when player D says, "I'll just cycle
> this Eagle Sight," plays it, redraws, then declines to block the bleed
> (thinking that Eagle Sight still had its old card text.) I point out
> that Eagle Sight requires a block attempt, and if Player D wants to
> take it back for not knowing the current card text, we should hear
> from everyone at the table. (Note: The card Player D had in his hand
> was the current card text of Eagle's Sight. If he had an old version,
> would it change your opinion of this situation?)
Take it back. It was illegally played (illegally announced). No question there.
> I get an urgent phone call, so I stand up and move away for a minute
> to answer it. As I'm leaving, I hear Player D say to Player B, "Do
> you have stealth, or should I take it back? Nevermind, your stealth is
> big fist."
It takes no time to say "pause" as you leave. In any event, nothing should
happen at any table when not all of the players (including proxy players) are
present.
> When I come back to the table, the following things have happened:
> Player D took the Eagle's Sight back in his hand, and shuffled his
> deck.
> Player B proceeded to gain 6 pool, decrypt, and discard.
> Player D took his turn, bleeding for 8 and cycling several cards.
> Player E started his turn, rushing Nergal and cycling several cards.
> Player A mentioned quietly that they should get a judge, but everyone
> else played on.
>
> I return during the middle of combat between Beast and Nergal. I'm
> most upset with Player B for continuing without me. Player D
> threatens to leave the tournament if he has to continue waiting for me
> to play as Player C so slowly. Player D says he's OK with the current
> situation.
Depends on the state.
It sounds as if you're stretched too thin as a judge, proxy player, and
emergency phone call handler, in which case D's complaint is understandable.
If not (and you weren't being stretched too thin), D's complaint may have been
less forgivable. Up to the judge to say.
> I make the following ruling:
> - I apologize to everyone that they've had to deal with a slower game
> due to Player C's absence, though I point out that they're still very
> likely to finish the game in the time remaining.
> - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
But it was misplayed, so the misplay should be corrected.
> Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
> Players B, D, and E played on.
> - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
Seems likely to be severe overcorrecting. I doubt if it garnered him anywhere
near that much over what he would have gotten had everything been played correctly.
> - I give Player D a warning for poor sportsmanship, since it's not
> acceptable to leave a tournament simply because you don't like a
> ruling.
Sounds fine.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]> Ira- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't there a "standing ruling" that all players are to be aware of
deals made by players on the table?
I think that it is fair that there was a penalty applied because play
continued "mid-ruling".
Maybe you should have had another player (for example the "first non-
finalist") to take over Player C.
[Draws on Highschool Teaching Experiences]
Possibly on the "time limit" front: "I have to leave to answer this,
the clock has stopped we will recoup the extra time at the end."
Maybe also just deliberately say "I am going to come back and make a
ruling on this, so don't continue play".
Eric Jome <eric...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I am hardly to be considered a great VTES judge, but I have run many
>official events for other games at serious competitive levels.
In that context, I find the following answer quite odd.
>1) You should not be playing for C. C should have packed their things
>and left.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e3863df43cd4c1cc
The thing to do that is fair for everyone is to have one of the
judges take over for the absent player and finish playing the game
for him. Not always an option (if you don't have enough judges for
example), but it is the cleanest solution.
Just having a player evaporate is likely to be unfair to all concerned.
Sometimes it may be necessary - a player storms off with their cards,
say - but the judge should be trying to establish the fairest solution
for the remaining players.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Jun 25, 6:11 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> Just having a player evaporate is likely to be unfair to all concerned.
> Sometimes it may be necessary - a player storms off with their cards,
> say - but the judge should be trying to establish the fairest solution
> for the remaining players.
Having the judge play in an event compromises the integrity of the
judge. And yes, I say this knowing full well I was a "judge" in a
VTES event and played in it less than 2 weeks ago. This was, however,
at the insistence of the players in an informal setting. And,
luckily, I was easily the weakest player in the room and not called on
to actually evaluate anything, as the others were far more versed in
the nuances of VTES than I am.
Judges don't play. Conflict of interest. Right in the VEKN rules,
no?
It is unfortunate that a player must leave an event. But providing
any in game benefit to other players leads to possible collusion. I
stand by my assessment that the player should have just left and the
game been reduced by a player - no player accomplished an oust within
the context of the game, so no player deserves points or pool. As
"fair" as that is to the predator, how is that fair to anyone else at
the table, people who may be much closer to winning or losing the game
and now the game state is invalidated by arbitrary awards of points
and pool.
It's no big. It's just a game. But the OP asked for opinions, so I
gave mine. It's cool with me if not everyone shares my opinion...
Eric Jome
On Jun 25, 5:55 pm, Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you were Player A, would you have been unhappy?
Perhaps this is weird, but yeah. I'm a gamer. The integrity of the
game and the event matter to me, no matter whether that is to my
benefit or not. I would have been in favor of C leaving the game when
it happened, regardless of the game state. I would have been in favor
of leaving play where it was and just continuing play, win or lose...
I feel that the call on what to do should have absolutely nothing to
do with the game state, other than to say that if meaningful game play
has occurred, you cannot unwind it, so play on.
Players opinions don't really matter though. Not everyone can be
trusted to make a fair and balanced call - they may just decide in
their own favor. That's why we have judges. To remain impartial and
come up with what they believe to be the best result. As you noted,
the judges call is final.
Eric Jome
Eric Jome wrote:
> Judges don't play. Conflict of interest. Right in the VEKN rules,
> no?
Judges don't play. Sure. Judges can play by proxy, though. They have nothing
vested in the game, so no conflict of interest. And proxy playing is the best
way to handle early departure of a player (due to DQ or emergency or whatever).
> It is unfortunate that a player must leave an event. But providing
> any in game benefit to other players leads to possible collusion. I
> stand by my assessment that the player should have just left and the
> game been reduced by a player - no player accomplished an oust within
> the context of the game, so no player deserves points or pool.
That would be "providing a in-game benefit to other players" in the extreme.
About to be ousted? Don't like your predator as much as your grand-predator?
Then just pick up and leave. *poof* goes the VP and 6 pool that your predator
expended all of those resources to acquire. Extreme benefit to the
grand-predator (and possibly to the prey of the absent player as well).
LSJ schrieb:
> Eric Jome wrote:>> Judges don't play. Conflict of interest. Right in the VEKN rules,
>> no?>
> Judges don't play. Sure. Judges can play by proxy, though. They have
> nothing vested in the game, so no conflict of interest. And proxy
> playing is the best way to handle early departure of a player (due to DQ
> or emergency or whatever).
I would prefer pointing out someone else to take over for the player
instead of the judge. Or make someone else the judge after the original
judge took over.
Why? I think to represent a fair game to everybody the judge should play
to win and that will bias him in any judgement call he has to make (not
the card text questions so much as actual judgement calls, e.g rolling
back things after misplay).
If there is no other person available there is obviously not much choice.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Gameplay should always stop if one of the players are absent. I can see
how the players assumed that the absent player was ousted, and played
on. What you could've made clear is that the ruling was still pending,
and they should wait for you.
Also, I try to make a point of not allowing players to discuss the
game if any player is missing from the table. Hard to enforce in
this case as you were proxying as the player, but generally useful
advice.
> When I come back to the table, the following things have happened:
> Player D took the Eagle's Sight back in his hand, and shuffled his
> deck.
> Player B proceeded to gain 6 pool, decrypt, and discard.
> Player D took his turn, bleeding for 8 and cycling several cards.
> Player E started his turn, rushing Nergal and cycling several cards.
> Player A mentioned quietly that they should get a judge, but everyone
> else played on.
>
> I return during the middle of combat between Beast and Nergal. I'm
> most upset with Player B for continuing without me. Player D
> threatens to leave the tournament if he has to continue waiting for me
> to play as Player C so slowly. Player D says he's OK with the current
> situation.
>
> I make the following ruling:
> - I apologize to everyone that they've had to deal with a slower game
> due to Player C's absence, though I point out that they're still very
> likely to finish the game in the time remaining.
A token of courtesy - good.
> - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
> Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
> Players B, D, and E played on.
Scott is right on this one - it was misannounced.
If you say the play should stand, you are penalizing D for confusing what
his card does. On one hand, I don't think you should penalize this kind
of error, on the other hand, current practice is to link the takeback
to misannouncement, so you leave those players screwed who make such a
mistake but don't misannounce. But then again, that's a whole new can
of worms, so I think eventually Scott is quite right on this one.
Misannounced - illegally played - you may consider issuing a caution to D.
> - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
Would C have been able to oust D had C received another turn? I would
hinge my judgement on this. If C would have been able to make the oust,
then the correction of the game state was too severe, because B was
realistically in reach of the oust. I would have Warned him.
> - I give Player D a warning for poor sportsmanship, since it's not
> acceptable to leave a tournament simply because you don't like a
> ruling.
I probably would have skipped on this one. It just doesn't feel right.
Of course perhaps the written recollections miss the undertone.
> Since I was the judge and I used my judgment, my ruling was correct.
I'm not sure that this is a given... :)
> Then again, if you were the judge, you could have made a different
> ruling that would have also been correct! So, what would you have
> done? LSJ, I'm especially curious to hear your thoughts on this
> situation, and what you would have done in my place.
I would have WARNED players B, D and E for playing on.
But, as the Eagle's Sight was misplayed, I would take no other
corrective action.
--
Regards,
Daneel
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not that it was needed in this case, but doesn't JOL have some sort of log that
makes rolling back game state much easier?
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello All,>
>
> I make the following ruling:
>
I have a problem with this. If you are playing, you should be playing
with Multi-judge, which means that at least one of the other judges not
involved in the game should have made the ruling.
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
In the example I provided, I was the sole judge at an event, like a
regional qualifier. I was not playing, and I only stepped in
temporarily to take over for a player that had to leave.
If it were a non-qualifier event, I'm sure I would have been playing,
and multi-judge absolutely would be used. But the example given could
be possible.
Ira
On Jun 26, 10:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Jozxyqk wrote:
> > Ira,
> > Why did you not mention that this was a JOL game in the JOL tournament?
> > Seems like a significant variable.
I thought it would be more meaningful to the VTES community and the
readers of this newsgroup if I constructed a case study based on my
experience. You're right, though - I should have mentioned in my
original post that some facts were modified to make it a more valuable
case study.
I think it's more useful to VTES judges to study real-world case
studies than JOL examples.
> Not that it was needed in this case, but doesn't JOL have some sort of log that
> makes rolling back game state much easier?
If enough time has passed and players played many cards, it's
difficult to know if they played a card that they redrew, or if it was
already in their hand. It's often easier to rewind on JOL than in
real life, but even on JOL it's possible to play too much to make it
difficult to rewind.
Ira
On Jun 25, 4:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Player C needed to leave the tournament unexpectedly, so I've been
> > playing for Player C intermittently. It's player B's turn, and
> > Tomaine is currently bleeding for the oust. I decline to block, and
> > I'm picking up the last pool, when player D says, "I'll just cycle
> > this Eagle Sight," plays it, redraws, then declines to block the bleed
> > (thinking that Eagle Sight still had its old card text.) I point out
> > that Eagle Sight requires a block attempt, and if Player D wants to
> > take it back for not knowing the current card text, we should hear
> > from everyone at the table. (Note: The card Player D had in his hand
> > was the current card text of Eagle's Sight. If he had an old version,
> > would it change your opinion of this situation?)
>
> Take it back. It was illegally played (illegally announced). No question there.
OK, that is definitely a key point that I'm missing. Since the player
tried to play Eagle Sight and not block, that's illegal and should be
rewound. Obvious enough now. Not sure why I felt differently before.
> It takes no time to say "pause" as you leave. In any event, nothing should
> happen at any table when not all of the players (including proxy players) are
> present.
Indeed, I should have said that. (It was actually a JOL game, but I
could have also said it there, too. In real life, I feel more
confident that I would have said something to that effect.)
> > - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> > of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> > and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
>
> But it was misplayed, so the misplay should be corrected.
OK. I understand that now, and will keep it in mind for the future.
If the player attempts to play something and it's obvious they didn't
understand the effect of the card or intended a different effect, it's
considered a misplay and they should take it back.
> > - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> > consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> > penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
>
> Seems likely to be severe overcorrecting. I doubt if it garnered him anywhere
> near that much over what he would have gotten had everything been played correctly.
Understood. If the Eagle Sight was actually played, then I don't
think it was overcorrecting. If the Eagle Sight was not played, then
surely it was vast overcorrecting.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, LSJ. That was very illuminating.
Ira
On Jun 26, 9:44 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:48:05 -0700 (PDT), ira...@gmail.com> > - While I would rather Player C be ousted since he's absent, the play
> > of the Eagle Sight should stand. The card text was changed long ago,
> > and Player D had the current card text in front of him.
> > Unfortunately, it's too difficult to rewind to that point since
> > Players B, D, and E played on.
>
> Scott is right on this one - it was misannounced.
>
> If you say the play should stand, you are penalizing D for confusing what
> his card does. On one hand, I don't think you should penalize this kind
> of error, on the other hand, current practice is to link the takeback
> to misannouncement, so you leave those players screwed who make such a
> mistake but don't misannounce. But then again, that's a whole new can
> of worms, so I think eventually Scott is quite right on this one.
>
> Misannounced - illegally played - you may consider issuing a caution to D.
Agreed.
> > - Since Player B was the one that made the decision to play on without
> > consulting the judge, and that decision benefitted him the most, I
> > penalize Player B 6 Pool and 1 VP.
>
> Would C have been able to oust D had C received another turn? I would
> hinge my judgement on this. If C would have been able to make the oust,
> then the correction of the game state was too severe, because B was
> realistically in reach of the oust. I would have Warned him.
It's likely that C would have ousted D if C had another turn. But as
LSJ pointed out, the Eagle Sight was misplayed, and if the Eagle Sight
was taken back, then surely C was ousted.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Ira
Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 10:57 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Jozxyqk wrote:
> > > Ira,
> > > Why did you not mention that this was a JOL game in the JOL tournament?
> > > Seems like a significant variable.> I thought it would be more meaningful to the VTES community and the
> readers of this newsgroup if I constructed a case study based on my
> experience. You're right, though - I should have mentioned in my
> original post that some facts were modified to make it a more valuable
> case study.
Well, JOL adds some factors:
1) The judge does not have physical access to talk to the players.
2) Pauses and time limits are less meaningful.
3) You're not actually staring at the cards and their texts. You need to
click on the card name to read it. And if you assume that the card works
a certain way, it's easy to misplay it and nobody realizes.
...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure, if he were playing. But he wasn't.
The player who left was playing. The Judge was just proxying.
In this case, you do not need to switch to multi-judge in the middle of a round
(nor can you), and it is immediately proper for the judge to make the judgments.
On Jun 25, 4:48 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I get an urgent phone call, so I stand up and move away for a minute
> to answer it.
If this is a game in real life, you *don't answer the phone*.
That, or you do answer the phone, and say "Can I call you back in 10
minutes?" Or you say "Hey, guys, pause the game for 5. As I'm the
judge too, I'll hold the clock for us."
On the other hand, if this is actually JOL and "I have to answer the
phone" is a convenient stand in for "I left the game, and when I came
back 18 hours later, a lot had changed", then you chalk it up to it
being JOL where usually a great deal of stuff happens when a given
player isn't around, and then don't hold it against people when they
continue the game without you.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
True, though I was trying to create a plausible real-world case study.
From the input from everyone, and because it was based on a JOL game,
I simply reversed my decision and assigned no penalties. It was nice
to be able to make a better ruling.
Ira
On Jun 29, 1:19 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 4:48 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I get an urgent phone call, so I stand up and move away for a minute
> > to answer it.
>
> If this is a game in real life, you *don't answer the phone*.
>
> That, or you do answer the phone, and say "Can I call you back in 10
> minutes?" Or you say "Hey, guys, pause the game for 5. As I'm the
> judge too, I'll hold the clock for us."
Indeed. I think that's a worthy take-away from this case study.
> On the other hand, if this is actually JOL and "I have to answer the
> phone" is a convenient stand in for "I left the game, and when I came
> back 18 hours later, a lot had changed", then you chalk it up to it
> being JOL where usually a great deal of stuff happens when a given
> player isn't around, and then don't hold it against people when they
> continue the game without you.
I don't think it's nearly as useful to discuss JOL case-studies, but I
agree with much of what you wrote, Peter. The complicating factor in
the actual JOL situation was that the person who decided to play on
without the judge/replacement player benefited the most. But since it
was best to take back the Eagle's Sight, and that's exactly what
happened, the consequences of playing on were effectively zero.
Ira
On Jun 29, 4:37 pm, Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. I think that's a worthy take-away from this case study.
True that :-)
> I don't think it's nearly as useful to discuss JOL case-studies, but I
> agree with much of what you wrote, Peter. The complicating factor in
> the actual JOL situation was that the person who decided to play on
> without the judge/replacement player benefited the most. But since it
> was best to take back the Eagle's Sight, and that's exactly what
> happened, the consequences of playing on were effectively zero.
Yeah, JOL is certainly a weird environment for this sort of
discussion.
-Peter