Judging Criteria for the European Championship 2003 (advice needed)

These are the judging criteria we have been working on until now. Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list will be appreciated :) JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines will be implemented according to the following criteria: ILLEGAL DECKS: Decks will be inspected at random during the 3 preliminary rounds of both the Spanish Qualifier and the European Championship. And all of the finalists' decks will be inspected before the start of the final. If a player's deck is proven illegal after the third round has finished (before the start of the final), and the appropriate penalty for the infraction in the V:EKN Judges Guidelines is a game loss, judges will disqualify that player instead. The next highest ranked player in the tournament will then take his or her place in the final round. DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more victory points by not making such deals. SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: Unless each player at a given table speaks the same language, each player will have to speak English during their games. In the case that there are players who don't speak English, they sould call a judge as a translator. IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave the room where games of the current round are still running. Thanks in advance for your help. Greetings, Damnans

In message <3F5333A2...@ono.com-antispam>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> writes: >DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are >perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to >disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason >supporting them. There doesn't need to be a "powerful" reason, whatever that is, just that the deal is legal for both players. That is not powerful, that is just simply factual. Nor should a judge ever be approaching any situation from a biased stand point of "disapproval", lest it discourage players from perfectly legal play. If the judges cannot impartially enforce the rules whether they "approve" of them or not, whether the players can give "powerful" reason or not, they should resign and allow someone less incompetent to do the job. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > until now. > > Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list > will be appreciated :) Uh... why not just use the standard VEKN rules? Something wrong with them? > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > supporting them. If they are "perfectly legal" then why would judges tend to disapprove of such deals? Certain persons (who may happen to be judges) may tend to disapprove of such deals, as they are biased against some legal parts of the game. Those persons need to get over it and let the players play. They also need to admit to themselves that "deals" are terrible and that they hate them and they should ask LSJ to outlaw them, if that's what they want. At least that would be honest. > For this reason, before any player makes a deal > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This is complete bullshit and not supported by the rules anywhere that I can see. Personally, I would never push this artifical crap on the players in any tournament I'd ever judge. Maybe your players have asked for such crap, and I suppose you're correct to implement it if this is the case. Why is the idea that judges have to be everywhere at once and following every single play of every single player beginning to take hold in this game? Just let the players play, for god sake! If they ASK for a judge, then go over there and judge, but if they can figure it out THEMSELVES then why create an artificial situation for judges? I've never played with VTES players that are such fucking babies that they'd need rules such as this. > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals Of course it is. What else could it be for? > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > victory points by not making such deals. Maybe in YOUR mind they have real chances to get more VPs. What if THEY believe they cannot get any further VPs, and this deal is their best bet? You're never going to be a mindreader, so why try? You're just going to upset yourself (since you'll have to be several places at once) and the players (since you aren't leaving them alone to play the game) so why not just let the players play the game? If they need a judge, then let them ask for one, and THEN you can asses the situation and make the best ruling that you can. Your wording is also pretty dishonest, since you say "when they actually have real chances to get more victory points" when you really mean "when they actually have a tiny chance to get the Game Win." It would be more honest to just say "We plan on not allowing any deals that do not give the player the Game Win." And since the natural conclusion of such an attitude is that deals cannot exist, you may want to just eliminate EVERYTHING and just say "Deals will not be allowed." It'll certainly save space on your tournament flyers. > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a > judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > him or herself. LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. LET THEM FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES. LET THE PLAYERS CALL FOR A JUDGE IF THEY DECIDE THEY NEED ONCE. LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > running. This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within reason, do whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to stop "scouting" has been tried before (with that other CCG) and failed MISERABLY. Again, if your players have asked for such crap, I suppose you're correct to implement it, but it would be more honest if they just admitted that they hate people watching their games, and then asked LSJ to outlaw it. > Thanks in advance for your help. Probably wasn't helpful, I dunno. This attitude that has taken hold the last year (or so) that judges need to be omnipotent mindreaders and everywhere at once is extremely disturbing. Why not just follow LSJ's advice? | From: LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> | Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad | Subject: Re: The Nature of Collusion | Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:38:37 -0400 | | Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, | then one is free to choose from among those paths. | | If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. | If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs | one can get, then one is free to choose. | | If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is | "0 more than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire | those 0 more VPs in any manner one wishes. | | -- | LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. | Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: | http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Derek Ray has the right attitude for all you anti-deal guys out there. Admit to yourselves that "deals" are terrible and that you hate them and then ask LSJ to outlaw them, if that's what you want. At least what you'd be doing would be honest, and not this omnipotent judges rules crap that you're trying to stuff into the standard set of rules. > Greetings, > Damnans Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

"Kevin M." wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: > > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > > until now. > > > > Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list > > will be appreciated :) > > Uh... why not just use the standard VEKN rules? Something wrong with them? I think these criteria do not contradict the V:EKN rules. However, I see that these criteria need some rewording. > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > > supporting them. > > If they are "perfectly legal" then why would judges tend to disapprove of > such deals? Maybe I should reword that and say: "judges will keep a close eye to such deals", since those deals are sometimes "problematic". > Certain persons (who may happen to be judges) may tend to > disapprove of such deals, as they are biased against some legal parts of the > game. Those persons need to get over it and let the players play. They > also need to admit to themselves that "deals" are terrible and that they > hate them and they should ask LSJ to outlaw them, if that's what they want. > At least that would be honest. Well, I actually happen not to dislike deals. But player's freedom has boundaries. For instance, a judge must not allow an illegal deal to be made, regardless of how free a player is. :-) > > For this reason, before any player makes a deal > > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > > This is complete bullshit and not supported by the rules anywhere that I can > see. Personally, I would never push this artifical crap on the players in > any tournament I'd ever judge. Maybe your players have asked for such crap, > and I suppose you're correct to implement it if this is the case. How does this "crap" interfere with the V:EKN Tournament Rules? :-) > Why is the idea that judges have to be everywhere at once and following > every single play of every single player beginning to take hold in this > game? Just let the players play, for god sake! I can't see why the judges being everywhere does interfere with players' freedom. If players are playing according to the rules, they should not worry about judges. > If they ASK for a judge, > then go over there and judge, but if they can figure it out THEMSELVES then > why create an artificial situation for judges? I've never played with VTES > players that are such fucking babies that they'd need rules such as this. Maybe you live in Wonderland >:) You'll agree with me that players are not always so great. Some players might agree on making illegal deals, or taking illegal actions, etc... That's why the supervision of a judge is necessary. Are you suggesting that the referee of a baketball match should only intervene when players tell him to do so? :-P > > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals > > Of course it is. What else could it be for? Why?. > > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > > victory points by not making such deals. > > Maybe in YOUR mind they have real chances to get more VPs. What if THEY > believe they cannot get any further VPs, and this deal is their best bet? What a players thinks is always relevant, but the it's the judge's (not the player's task) to determine if a deal is legal or not. > You're never going to be a mindreader, so why try? Should I? >:) > You're just going to > upset yourself (since you'll have to be several places at once) No, because there will hopefully be one judge per table. > and the > players (since you aren't leaving them alone to play the game) As I said earlier, players have nothing to fear if they play according to the rules. [...] > Your wording is also pretty dishonest, since you say "when they actually > have real chances to get more victory points" when you really mean "when > they actually have a tiny chance to get the Game Win." Are you a mindreader? :) I meant what I meant (i.e., if a player makes a losing deal giving him or her 1 VP, and that player has chances to get 1,5 or 2 VPs, that deal should be considered illegal). > It would be more > honest to just say "We plan on not allowing any deals that do not give the > player the Game Win." And since the natural conclusion of such an attitude > is that deals cannot exist, you may want to just eliminate EVERYTHING and > just say "Deals will not be allowed." It'll certainly save space on your > tournament flyers. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Deals are an inherent and necessary part of the game. And I am not against deals. > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a > > judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more > > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > > him or herself. > > LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. Sure. > LET THEM FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES. Sure. And they should be told when they are doing something illegal. > LET THE PLAYERS CALL FOR A JUDGE IF THEY DECIDE THEY NEED ONCE. Sure. > LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. Sure. > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > > running. > > This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within reason, do > whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to stop "scouting" has > been tried before (with that other CCG) and failed MISERABLY. Why? [...] > Why not just follow LSJ's advice? > | From: LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> > | Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > | Subject: Re: The Nature of Collusion > | Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:38:37 -0400 > | > | Players must play to win. If one has multiple paths to victory, > | then one is free to choose from among those paths. > | > | If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's VPs. > | If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most VPs > | one can get, then one is free to choose. > | > | If one cannot win, and the most VPs one can acquire is > | "0 more than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire > | those 0 more VPs in any manner one wishes. I fully implement LSJ's advice. Greetings, Damnans

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3F5333A2...@ono.com-antispam>, Damnans > <damna...@ono.com-antispam> writes: > >DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > >perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > >disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > >supporting them. > > There doesn't need to be a "powerful" reason, whatever that is, just > that the deal is legal for both players. That is not powerful, that is > just simply factual. True. > Nor should a judge ever be approaching any > situation from a biased stand point of "disapproval", lest it discourage > players from perfectly legal play. True. [...] I will make the necessary corrections to the Judging Criteria to reflect that. Thanks, James. Damnans

This criteria had been already tested, in the Camarilla Conclave tournament we had last august. From a player point of view, I might asure you I really disliked the fact I couldn't stroll all over the room after ending a game, but to some extend it avoided a collateral common effect: Players who are not in the game commenting a match, or remarking some fact a player might have overseen, such as earning the edge, forgotting the HG, etc. So it granted some kind of fairiness to such games. Also, the fact that Damnans anounced he would supervise any deal involving VP, granted another side effect: Only real VPs dealswere ever attempted. Damnans didn't had to overrule any deal during the whole tournament. BUT some players who are used to dealmaking a lot and without even a positive clue for it, who used to offer table-splitting deals from the first influence phase, didn't attempted to. Thus, lots of deal speeching and dealing were avoided. The result? It was the tournament with LESS time-out tables from a year or so in spain. And it was a 52 players tournament. And it included 12 italians, so i had an additional handicap (as we all had to speak slowly for them to understand what we were attempting, and viceversa) But I might say that perhaps some rewording should be needed, in order to enforce such facts, yes, but not at such compulsory level. Smiling Tom Someone is going to attend in Modena at the Italian Qualifier?

I think that one rule you could (and if legal I would) try to enforce is the "no deal involving price" (You help me win and I give you half my price) in the finals, as from what I last read these are left in the "foggy area" of rules : a judge can rule that such a deal involves unsportsmanship, for instance, which it does IMHO, turning this game into a game of money, which it should never be. > Smiling Tom > Someone is going to attend in Modena at the Italian Qualifier? I will, with some of my players. Will we meet there ? Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> escribió en el mensaje news:3f53bd97$0$27025$626a...@news.free.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] About 8 spaniards will do, 4 from barcelona, 4 from palma - me among them. We are booking a few rooms at some apart-hotels in modena. So yes, I guess we'll meet there :-) Got to tune up some new decks. Been playing the whole summer with 3 anarch decks and i'm just tired of them, but.... Well, it seems that's it is only me who supports this guys at tournaments. Perhaps I should try to build up a new one... But then I won't have time to test it. Damn!!! Temporis anyone? Smiling Tom Ummmm.... Let me see what is in my chest... 5 brujah decks, turbo-parity, vic-tories...Oh, god! Rob treasure's Karsh carnage!-No, should try something original... rock cats again? Cryptic missions? Hey! THIS ONE! Lucita's Rant.. Got 10 days to decide.

> > > Someone is going to attend in Modena at the Italian Qualifier? > > > > I will, with some of my players. Will we meet there ? > > > > Orpheus > > > > About 8 spaniards will do, 4 from barcelona, 4 from palma - me among them. > We are booking a few rooms at some apart-hotels in modena. So yes, I guess > we'll meet there :-) Great ! Well, I hope around as many southern frenchmen will be able to come... > Got to tune up some new decks. Been playing the whole summer with 3 anarch > decks and i'm just tired of them, but.... Well, it seems that's it is only > me who supports this guys at tournaments. Perhaps I should try to build up a > new one... But then I won't have time to test it. Damn!!! Temporis anyone? Never try Temporis, it's addictive and highly dangerous... But didn't I tell you that already next month ? > Smiling Tom > Ummmm.... Let me see what is in my chest... 5 brujah decks, turbo-parity, > vic-tories...Oh, god! Rob treasure's Karsh carnage!-No, should try something > original... rock cats again? Cryptic missions? Hey! THIS ONE! Lucita's > Rant.. Got 10 days to decide. LOL. Tell me about it. I am known throughout France for dismantling my tested decks at the last possible moment (once : 5 minutes before the tournie !!!) and making another one because I want to try a new idea... But I think for Modena I'll have to play Giovanni : I'll play 3 or 4 Storylines with them prior to Italy, so I guess I won't have the time to test anything else. And then, I dismantle that deck and make another one (voting Sabbat Necromancers with Dominate ?! You must be kidding...). Orpheus, who still has to wonder what type of Gio deck he'll play this month and what he'll play at the FC and EC each day...

In message <bj04op$bil$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>, Smiling Tom <t...@almadrava.net> writes: >Also, the fact that Damnans anounced he would supervise any deal involving >VP, granted another side effect: Only real VPs dealswere ever attempted. How do you know what *didn't* happen? Who's your psychic? Bear in mind that we have a judge who "disapproves" of legal play and requires "powerful" reasons to convince him that I should, in fact, be able to play legally. If I'm not gifted at "powerful" explanations of why I should be able to do something that is entirely legal, will I even bother to suggest it? I know it's legal, but I'm very easily tongue- tied *especially* in a situation where I could be speaking in a foreign language. I couldn't do "powerful" if I tried, because my English is limited or unexpressive relative to what I *know*. Or just that the two of us are crap at explaining ourselves, even when both fluent, but we both know what we want do and can both see that it's in our mutual interests. But it's still legal (or illegal), whether I can explain it or not. Deals don't suddenly become more legal when I become better at being powerful, or more illegal because I can't. A legal deal is a legal deal, whether I can explain my reasons powerfully to a judge who disapproves or not. Impeding legal play with warnings of disapproval and the need to explain yourself powerfully are counter-productive to finding a European Champion. The idea is find the best player. The best player is the one who can play the game best. The game consists of many legal plays and play styles and situations - including some which might want to be looked at for future revisions, but are part of the game *now*. Biasing a tournament against certain forms of legal play stops it being a tournament to find the best player, but the best player who can play under not-quite-the-actual-rules. Why anyone should want to prejudice a tournament in this fashion is beyond me. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> escribió en el mensaje news:kmHRoCyk+8U$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <bj04op$bil$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>, > Smiling Tom <t...@almadrava.net> writes: > >Also, the fact that Damnans anounced he would supervise any deal involving > >VP, granted another side effect: Only real VPs dealswere ever attempted. > > How do you know what *didn't* happen? Who's your psychic? The common sense. If someone in that tournament thought that a deal could have gone trhough, he/she would have still proposed it. As it already was done. If any of them haven't got the wits to propose it its for their sake, not the directives one. I proposed a deal, but wasn't taken into consideration by the other player, but if he had taken it, surely damnans wouldn't have objected at all upon it. Perhaps I haven't explained quite well or you haven't read my whole post. The fact is that VP deals took place, without damnans requiring at all from any of the players to explain themselves. But no irregular table-splitting deals were done. Not a single one. And for irreagular table splitting i mean those vps deals seen throughout spain in the last year, where 2 players agreed to split a table EVEN BEFORE putting in play their first vamp. I guess that relys more under unsportsmanlike than legal deal making. And thus this directive proposed by damnans goes in that way, more on the topic of enforcing that unsportsmanlike deals are not wellcome, rather than legal deals. The fact is that in the tournament players who used to offer/rake such deals backed up, and only dealed so when the deal had some kind of enforcement based on the actual state of the game. And the extra fact that games flowed with more efficiency, and less of them reached time is something that was something more than wellcome by most of the players > > Bear in mind that we have a judge who "disapproves" of legal play and > requires "powerful" reasons to convince him that I should, in fact, be > able to play legally. If I'm not gifted at "powerful" explanations of > why I should be able to do something that is entirely legal, will I even > bother to suggest it? I know it's legal, but I'm very easily tongue- > tied *especially* in a situation where I could be speaking in a foreign > language. I couldn't do "powerful" if I tried, because my English is > limited or unexpressive relative to what I *know*. Or just that the two > of us are crap at explaining ourselves, even when both fluent, but we > both know what we want do and can both see that it's in our mutual > interests. But it's still legal (or illegal), whether I can explain it > or not. Deals don't suddenly become more legal when I become better at > being powerful, or more illegal because I can't. > Agreed. But you are misleading the spirit of the directives. It's not to nullify any given deal it's proposed, it's just as simple as a warning to those players who borderline unsportmanlike deals. Not to those who do -or break- any deals at all. > A legal deal is a legal deal, whether I can explain my reasons > powerfully to a judge who disapproves or not. > Yes, but it's the judge work to supervise if any deal *is* legal under current VEKN directives. A deal isn't legal just if you say it is. Perhaps is that we are used to play against spanish, and there are a fair amount of them who are allways attempting to push the rules too farn and to squeeze them to every bit in order to take advantage. It must be in their nature. Perhaps. And a bit unsportsmanlike. So we have come to these directives in order to stop them without having to put warnings against them or granting them game loss at every tournament they go. This year iberian championship (luis duarte was in the final round, he could explain it far much better than me) a loosing deal took place by a player with enough advantage to win the game on its own. Yes, it was his choice, and his fault, but in the end it demoted a fair and competent final round to a disgusting one. Thus a discussion rose up around deal making. I asure you, I hope this wasn't necessary at all, and every player at a tournament used to be fair and the like. You are really lucky if that's the environment in which you use to play. > > > Impeding legal play with warnings of disapproval and the need to explain > yourself powerfully are counter-productive to finding a European > Champion. The idea is find the best player. The best player is the one > who can play the game best. The game consists of many legal plays and > play styles and situations - including some which might want to be > looked at for future revisions, but are part of the game *now*. Biasing > a tournament against certain forms of legal play stops it being a > tournament to find the best player, but the best player who can play > under not-quite-the-actual-rules. > It's not the purpouse of the suggested directives to avoid people making deals or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: > > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > > until now. > > [snip other stuff] > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > > running. > > This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within reason, do > whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to stop "scouting" has > been tried before (with that other CCG) and failed MISERABLY. Please explain with examples - I can only take your word, but without really knowing in what way it failed "Miserably", we can't really discuss it. > Again, if > your players have asked for such crap, I suppose you're correct to implement > it, but it would be more honest if they just admitted that they hate people > watching their games, and then asked LSJ to outlaw it. > Why is this bull? At the Southwest qualifier, I asked all players who had finished their games to not observe other games. It's fair for the players who are currently in games who can't go and watch other player's decks. Those who happened to either oust quickly or get ousted quickly have an advantage over those who have a longer game. This advantage has very little to do with their skill at the V:TES table. It's a simple request, and I felt that most understood, even though of course as players they wanted to watch the good games. I don't think anyone felt bad about it, and when it came time for the final, and folks choosing where to sit, it made a difference. I don't do it at most of my tournaments, but in a tournament as important and intense as a qualifier, or certainly a continental championship, I can understand the need for it. On the subject of letting the players play, I agree with you. In fact I opened my mouth at the SWQ, and caused a big ruckus, which probably hosed Robert Goudie. If I had just let Joe, Ira, and Robert play out the action, then all would have been well. best - chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) prince of torrance, california *** Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus Into the eyes of the night - watching me go Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple Enter the risen Osiris - risen again - Dickinson

> Perhaps I haven't explained quite well or you haven't read my whole post. > The fact is that VP deals took place, without damnans requiring at all from > any of the players to explain themselves. But no irregular table-splitting > deals were done. Not a single one. And for irreagular table splitting i mean > those vps deals seen throughout spain in the last year, where 2 players > agreed to split a table EVEN BEFORE putting in play their first vamp. I > guess that relys more under unsportsmanlike than legal deal making. This is coalition. It is illegal, and players proposing to do it in such a big tournament should be excluded. I had a case of coalition in the first game of a tournament, and explained to the 2 players - among whom a Prince !! - the rule, and they looked very surprised : they just hadn't bothered reading the rules. I warned them that they would lose all VPs if they were suspected of doing it again. They didn't make it to the finals (their deal granted each half the table, no GW...). So now I warn every new group of players, especially if they play at the same table. In a game such as the EC, you can't afford that, so everyone must know the rules, and judges must issue warnings and / or exclusions in case of illegal or unsportmanslike behavior. Not an easy task, judging / organising such an event, uh ?! > And thus > this directive proposed by damnans goes in that way, more on the topic of > enforcing that unsportsmanlike deals are not wellcome, rather than legal > deals. The fact is that in the tournament players who used to offer/rake > such deals backed up, and only dealed so when the deal had some kind of > enforcement based on the actual state of the game. And the extra fact that > games flowed with more efficiency, and less of them reached time is > something that was something more than wellcome by most of the players I think it just has to be stated that deals will be closely inspected in order to determine their legality, and that is all (under "current rules", at least). Yours, Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

> Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list > will be appreciated :) > > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines > will be implemented according to the following criteria: > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > victory points by not making such deals. > I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions I guess.. >Unless the chance for a player to get more > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > him or herself. IMHO, your chances are never 0, untill you get ousted. :-) > In the case that there are players who don't speak > English, they sould call a judge as a translator. Any specific penalty in mind for people who simply ignore this rule?(I love it BTW) > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > running. > Like this one as well One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so when they have no cards left! I've seen several occasions where people just say: "we all agree to withdraw", and that's that, just because either they don't want to play out a gridlock situation, or because they realise they don't have enough time left, which leads them to a withdraw with half their decks left, and abot 2 minutes to withdraw.. This takes away all the danger of withdrawing. I think you should clearly remind them at the start of the tournament that they will have to discard all cards in a legal manner before announcing a withdraw.. Greetings to you as well.. Jo

> > > > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > > > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > > > running. > > > > This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within reason, do > > whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to stop "scouting" has > > been tried before (with that other CCG) and failed MISERABLY. > > Please explain with examples - I can only take your word, but without really > knowing in what way it failed "Miserably", we can't really discuss it. > I disagree strongly with this being bullshit, and COMPLETELY agree with Damnans here! Indeed, I wouldn't do it in smaller, or more "homely" tournaments where you know all the players, and evrybody speaks the same language. Nor would I implement it in tournaments where you can trust all players. However, and I did tihs on the Belgian Qualifier: I would request players to leave the playing area in tournaments such as this. A number of reasons: (Bearing in mind that not everybody in the room speaks the same language.) You might *want* to enforce the use of English as manfdatory language, but in a room that can hold over 100 people, there is no way you can phisically prevent remarks from being made, signs being given... Not necessarily a bad thing,supposing it's just one player telling his buddy he's going for a drink, since he got ousted. A very bad thing however, when you take into account that other players/judges might misinterpret it, or even worse, **when that player already being ousted has a possibly huge impact on the game at hand!** This can happen very often, and will, if it happens at the wrong table/between the wrong players, completely turn around you tournament. The possibilities for exchanging information between "innocent bystanders" and players in a game are enormous, and impossible to keep in check. Trusting their good hearts, I'm sad to say, just doesn't do it. But proving it happened, or if they purposefully tried to cheat,even figuring out if they would have had the knowledge and realised they gave additional info can be really really hard. Also, if this happens, who will you sanction? The evildoer (can't do that, that would be a really easy way to change the standings),or the one who got the benefits from it (can't do that either, it would be too easy to get rid of the competition)? Hence,I really, strongly support this decision of not allowing players in the playing area. For the record: I enforced a similar rule at the Belgian qualifier last month, and it sure as hell influenced the games at hand. I know of at least 1 player who would *not* have taken that GW if he'd have had certain spectators at his back throughout the game, simply because he felt physically intimidated by their presence (even though those spectators really didn't do anything except stand around, and are nice guys who just look impressive) Also: during the 3rd round, as we had an exceptionally low number of GW's in round 1 and 2, everybody with 1 GW and 4.5VP could still get into the finals (mathematically,at the start of round 3). In such cases, every whisper, every remark can change the course of a game.. Also, I'm quite sure some players would have tried to pass on information about their own-finished-games had they been allowed to remain. So, really Damnans has a very good point here IMHO. Greetz Jo

wolflord wrote: > > > Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list > > will be appreciated :) > > > > > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > > > Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines > > will be implemented according to the following criteria: > > > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > > supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal > > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals > > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > > victory points by not making such deals. > > > I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player > "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just > been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to > break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions > I guess.. He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to break the "losing" deal to the judge. > > >Unless the chance for a player to get more > > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > > him or herself. > > IMHO, your chances are never 0, untill you get ousted. :-) Mostly :-) > In the case that there are players who don't speak > > English, they sould call a judge as a translator. > > Any specific penalty in mind for people who simply ignore this rule?(I > love it BTW) Nothing specific. In case a player involuntarily speaks another language, the penalties issued should be as follows: Caution (first time) Warning (second time) Game Loss (third time) Disqualification (fourth time) If a player is voluntarily using another language (i.e., voluntarily cheating), then the penalty should be Game Loss. [...] > One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so > when they have no cards left! [...] I WILL. Thanks, Jo ;-) Greetings, Damnans

Damnans expounded: > > One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so > > when they have no cards left! > > [...] > > I WILL. Thanks, Jo ;-) Advice on mutually withdrawing successfully I have found this to be much th fastest method: 1) PLace 6 cards (from your hand) face down on the table. 2) Hold one card A (from hand) in one hand just above your ash heap. Put your other hand on your Library. 3) Await your turn 4) Discard card A and draw immediately with your other hand. 5) Say "Done." 6) Transfer your new card to your discard hand. 7) If you still have a full hand goto 3 8) Announce your withdrawal. I reckon you can take a turn in under a second if you are paying attention to your predator. Things that will KILL your withdrawal deal: Choosing your discard. Taking time to hunt/bloat/do anything else It may only take a moment and it may make you feel more secure but you will trigger an arms race. One everyone is doing it you have quadrupled your time requirement. Anyone have any other advice? Just had another thought on breaking this sort of deal. You might need to wait for your prey to withdraw and then be able to oust your new prey ;-)

In message <bj0nuj$dqb$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>, Smiling Tom <t...@almadrava.net> writes: >Agreed. But you are misleading the spirit of the directives. The spirit of the directives is irrelevant, biased, prejudicial bullshit. Biased, prejudiced judges who use tournaments to enforce their own personal views on how the game should be played shouldn't be judging tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3f544071$0$26825$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@free.fr> writes: >> Perhaps I haven't explained quite well or you haven't read my whole post. >> The fact is that VP deals took place, without damnans requiring at all >from >> any of the players to explain themselves. But no irregular table-splitting >> deals were done. Not a single one. And for irreagular table splitting i >mean >> those vps deals seen throughout spain in the last year, where 2 players >> agreed to split a table EVEN BEFORE putting in play their first vamp. I >> guess that relys more under unsportsmanlike than legal deal making. > >This is coalition. It is illegal, and players proposing to do it in such a >big tournament should be excluded. I had a case of coalition in the first >game of a tournament, and explained to the 2 players - among whom a Prince >!! - the rule, and they looked very surprised : they just hadn't bothered >reading the rules. First of all, the word you are looking for is "collusion". This would normally not matter. However, "coalition" is a term which could easily refer to entirely legal deals. A "coalition government" is one where two parties form an alliance in order to gain a majority to pass mutually beneficial legislation, for instance. So the term "coalition" is unfortunately confusing here. Second of all, you need to understand what the collusion rules are about. Collusion is: Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game. However, this needs to be clarified, of course. Any discussion (potentially) alters the results of the game in some fashion. Hence: * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, or other items. * No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside of the current game. * No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the winner. * The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN Tournament Rules. In a situation along the lines of the one you present, neither player is offering bribes, cards or whatever. No part of the agreement is secret, as far as we can tell. There is no random selection. 5.2 refers to Unsportsmanlike Conduct - which this *could* be. But that's a separate offence to collusion and there is no need to bring collusion in. An illegal deal is an illegal deal, collusion or no. And collusion is *HARD* to prove with any satisfaction. Why do I say this *could* be Unsportsmanlike Conduct? One simple reason is that two decks could know full well they're about to mutually annihilate each other. It is *not* collusion to rely on previously known information. For instance, if you know that someone is playing a Turbo-Wynn deck and so are you, there could be grounds for some sort of agreement taking place. I could contest you and screw up your game. It would be unusual, but two such decks could have knowledge that the other one is playing - perhaps, in a small tournament[0], they faced each other in an earlier round. Or you bring out Wynn and I discuss with you that I'm about to bring him out too, and so we talk and come to some arrangement. A similar situation could have occurred (but didn't) at the European qualifiers run here last week - four Salubri decks in one tournament. Very horrible. You *can't* rule against previous knowledge, it's simply not possible in any meaningful fashion. And previous knowledge does not mean collusion. It's collusion when playing for an external goal, not when playing with external knowledge which, let's face it, everyone gathers over time. (Like "Rob Treasure will play Dramatic Upheaval at some point".) However, early deals *can* mean Unsportsmanlike Conduct, but don't necessarily have to in extreme cases. [0] Remember that in an under 20 tournament, only a 16 player tournament (4 lots of 4) can sufficiently mix up the tables so that you never see anyone again. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <bj0nuj$dqb$1...@nsnmrro2-gest.nuria.telefonica-data.net>, > Smiling Tom <t...@almadrava.net> writes: > >Agreed. But you are misleading the spirit of the directives. > > The spirit of the directives is irrelevant, biased, prejudicial > bullshit. > > Biased, prejudiced judges who use tournaments to enforce their own > personal views on how the game should be played shouldn't be judging > tournaments. Agreed, but note that judges are not machines, they are human, and their task is often related to interpretation, which is not an exact science. Greetings, Damnans

So I take it these are these non-sanctioned events? Since you've decided to trample all over players' rights to play the game as they legally, via the rule book, see fit. It's an interesting variant for sure. -joe at warghoul.com

In message <3F54BF8D...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes: >Agreed, but note that judges are not machines, they are human, and their >task is often related to interpretation, which is not an exact science. If you believe that telling people they need powerful reasons for entirely legal play which the judge disapproves of is "interpretation", you are deluding no-one but yourself. Which part of the rules even begin to allow for the deluded, invented "interpretation" which contradicts many multiple rulings on this subject? What next? Damnans doesn't like stealth and bleed and so "interprets" the Unsportsman-like Conduct rules to suit himself? After all, it's not very sporting to play a deck that's so cheesy. You're attempting to rule against play-styles you don't like. Admit that, resign and move on. Let someone competent do the judging, who can allow players to compete fairly. You, quite simply, can't. This is not interpretation, this is Damnans not liking the rules so rewriting them as he goes along. Players should expect a fair environment. You have shown that you are determined not to give them one. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know what you really mean, but thanks to the help of other constructive members of this newsgroup, I have made some modifications to the Judging Criteria for the EC, which stay as follows: JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUEOPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines will be implemented according to the following criteria: THE GOAL OF THE GAME (REMINDER): Players must play to win. - If one has multiple paths to victory, then one is free to choose from among those paths. - If one cannot win, then one is obliged to maximize one's Victory Points. - If there are multiple paths available to achieve the most Victory Points one can get, then one is free to choose. - If one cannot win, and the most Victory Points one can acquire is "0 more than currently acquired", then one is free to acquire those 0 more Victory Points in any manner one wishes. ILLEGAL DECKS: Decks will be inspected at random during the 3 preliminary rounds of both the Spanish Qualifier and the European Championship. And all of the finalists' decks will be inspected before the start of the final. If a player's deck is proven illegal after the third round has finished (before the start of the final), and the appropriate penalty for the infraction in the V:EKN Judges Guidelines is a game loss, judges will disqualify that player instead. The next highest ranked player in the tournament will then take his or her place in the final round. DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is a factual reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more victory points by not making such deals. SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. WITHDRAWALS: Note that a player has the option to withdraw from the game ONLY if he or she has exhausted his or her library and begins his or her turn with less than a full hand. Players who want to withdraw from a game and do not meet those requirements will have to discard all of their cards in a legal manner before announcing their withdrawal. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: Unless each player at a given table speaks the same language, each player will have to speak English during their games. In the case that there are players who don't speak English, they sould call a judge as a translator. IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave the room where games of the current round are still running. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans wrote: > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > until now. > > Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list > will be appreciated :) > > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines > will be implemented according to the following criteria: > > ILLEGAL DECKS: Decks will be inspected at random during the 3 > preliminary rounds of both the Spanish Qualifier and the European > Championship. And all of the finalists' decks will be inspected > before the start of the final. If a player's deck is proven > illegal after the third round has finished (before the start > of the final), and the appropriate penalty for the infraction > in the V:EKN Judges Guidelines is a game loss, judges will > disqualify that player instead. The next highest ranked player > in the tournament will then take his or her place in the final > round. OK. You may wish to include a provision for an improperly reassembled deck (if you accidentally scoop up a Haven Uncovered on one of your minions and place it in your library resulting in a 91-card library between rounds, for instance). Or not. > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > victory points by not making such deals. If you mean that you will follow the rules and rulings set forth already regarding such deals (that is, players must play to win), OK. The wording chosen seems to be implying a bit more than that, however, judging by others' reactions to this paragraph. It might need to be reworded to avoid giving the wrong impression. > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a > judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > him or herself. Zero needn't be necessary. Even transferring out has a non-zero chance of getting more VPs, thanks to Life Boon. All that is necessary is that transferring out not reasonably reduce one's chances at getting more VPs (i.e., "play to win"). > OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: Unless each player at a given table speaks > the same language, each player will have to speak English during > their games. In the case that there are players who don't speak > English, they sould call a judge as a translator. OK. > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > running. OK. Clarify: ousted players of games in progress are considered to have finished their games or no? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3F54BF8D...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > writes: > >Agreed, but note that judges are not machines, they are human, and their > >task is often related to interpretation, which is not an exact science. > > If you believe that telling people they need powerful reasons for > entirely legal play which the judge disapproves of is "interpretation", > you are deluding no-one but yourself. Which part of the rules even > begin to allow for the deluded, invented "interpretation" which > contradicts many multiple rulings on this subject? As your supreme intelligence will have already realized, my first post was just a request for advice ;-) since I wanted to know others' opinions on the issue. My intend has never been going against the rules. That's why, after having read each reply to my post, I have made some modifications to the Judging Criteria for the EC, which I have just posted in a reply to Joe C. > What next? Damnans doesn't like stealth and bleed and so "interprets" > the Unsportsman-like Conduct rules to suit himself? After all, it's not > very sporting to play a deck that's so cheesy. I see interpretation is not your forte >:-) > You're attempting to rule against play-styles you don't like. Admit > that, resign and move on. Let someone competent do the judging, who can > allow players to compete fairly. You, quite simply, can't. This is not > interpretation, this is Damnans not liking the rules so rewriting them > as he goes along. Players should expect a fair environment. You have > shown that you are determined not to give them one. No doubt. Interpretation is not your forte, since I like the current rules, oh perfect one ;-P Greetings, Damnans

In message <3F54D325...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes: >No doubt. Interpretation is not your forte, since I like the current >rules, oh perfect one ;-P If you like the current rules, why would you even attempt to enforce extra, unfounded, bullshit "interpretations" that are nothing to do with the rules on top of them? [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3F549F87...@ono.com>... > wolflord wrote: > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > > > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > > > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > > > supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal > > > of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a > > > judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > > > This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals > > > (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye > > > to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them > > > the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > > > victory points by not making such deals. > > > > > I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player > > "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just > > been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to > > break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions > > I guess.. > > He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to > break the "losing" deal to the judge. How do i do that without at least raising suspicions in the player i deal with that i intend to break the deal later, if not making him back off from the deal? i mean, i can't say it loud to everyone, and taking the judge to the side to tell him something noone should hear is a real giveaway in my opinion, especially if the judge then allows me to make a deal he just declared probably illegal from my side. Michael

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F54D16D...@white-wolf.com... > Damnans wrote: > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a > > judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more > > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > > him or herself. > > Zero needn't be necessary. Even transferring out has a non-zero > chance of getting more VPs, thanks to Life Boon. All that is > necessary is that transferring out not reasonably reduce one's > chances at getting more VPs (i.e., "play to win"). So should probably be reworded: "Players may not self-oust unless they have no reasonable chance to get more VPs by not self- ousting." This is just a restatement of the "play to win" rule, really, but maybe it adds some value, I don't know. :-) > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > > running. > > OK. > Clarify: ousted players of games in progress are considered to > have finished their games or no? "A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round." [V:EKN Tournament Rules 2.4] Presumably they are saying that no spectators will be permitted at this event? If non-playing spectators *are* allowed, it seems that this additional rule would be going beyond the VEKN rules' treatment of ousted players. Which may be OK, I suppose. Josh is sad when he can't spectate

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>OK. >>Clarify: ousted players of games in progress are considered to >>have finished their games or no? > > "A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for > the remainder of the round." [V:EKN Tournament Rules 2.4] Well, if you're ousted and some of your cards are still in play, spectator or no, you might have a reasonable claim to at least watch over your possessions (moreso in light of the legal deck rules). A player in a non-finished game could reasonably be considered not to be in the group of "players who have already finished their games" (that is, the latter set includes only players of finished games). > Presumably they are saying that no spectators will be permitted > at this event? If non-playing spectators *are* allowed, it seems > that this additional rule would be going beyond the VEKN rules' > treatment of ousted players. Which may be OK, I suppose. It isn't against the V:EKN rules to do so, no. [ quoted text not captured ]

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.0309...@posting.google.com>... <snip> > For the record: I enforced a similar rule at the Belgian qualifier > last month, and it sure as hell influenced the games at hand. <snip> I'm with Jo on this one. Why? 1. It's just less disturbing to play without distractions. I don't want to be annoyed by the blabbermouth behind my predator - I want to be annoyed just by my predator. 2. Comments/accidents will happen with spectators around. Easy enough to send those players out. Let them start a pickup game or something. 3. Enforcing this seemed not to be a problem at all. That's all. Tobias Deventer

Michael Deflize wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3F549F87...@ono.com>... > > wolflord wrote: [...] > > > > > > > I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player > > > "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just > > > been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to > > > break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions > > > I guess.. > > > > He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to > > break the "losing" deal to the judge. > > How do i do that without at least raising suspicions in the player i > deal with that i intend to break the deal later, if not making him > back off from the deal? i mean, i can't say it loud to everyone, and > taking the judge to the side to tell him something noone should hear > is a real giveaway in my opinion, especially if the judge then allows > me to make a deal he just declared probably illegal from my side. What a judge could do in such a case is privately talking to the player AND telling other players at the table to privately talk to him/her (the judge) as well. Greetings, Damnans

"Damnans" wrote in message > I don't know what you really mean, but thanks to the help of other > constructive members of this newsgroup, I have made some modifications > to the Judging Criteria for the EC, which stay as follows: I'm sure it has more to do with wording than anything else but the biggest problem with your implementation will be IMO: > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > a factual reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to > penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game > win), but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals > not giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get > more victory points by not making such deals. - Possible Legal stalling tactic of deal making for VPs every turn added to game. - No knowledge if the person intends to keep his VP deal or not. > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge > in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is > zero, judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. - Instead of being able to play say Anarchist Uprising ousting myself and my prey I'd have to call the judge over to make sure it's legal to call that vote? Really need to tidy up your thoughts here specifically. > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have > to leave the room where games of the current round are still running. - I sometimes like to watch game I've played in to it's finish to ensure proper reporting of VPs to judge etc. So I take that's out or do you mean game as the entire game at your table is finished? -Joe C. joe at warghoul.com

Joe wrote: > > "Damnans" wrote in message > > I don't know what you really mean, but thanks to the help of other > > constructive members of this newsgroup, I have made some modifications > > to the Judging Criteria for the EC, which stay as follows: > > I'm sure it has more to do with wording than anything else but the biggest > problem with your implementation will be IMO: > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: [...] > - Possible Legal stalling tactic of deal making for VPs every turn added to > game. The judge has always the chance to add more time to the game. > - No knowledge if the person intends to keep his VP deal or not. That person's intentions should be reported to the judge (privately). > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge > > in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is > > zero, judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. > > - Instead of being able to play say Anarchist Uprising ousting myself and > my prey I'd have to call the judge over to make sure it's legal to call > that vote? Really need to tidy up your thoughts here specifically. This point will be modified according to LSJ and Joshua Duffin's corrections and suggestions. > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have > > to leave the room where games of the current round are still running. > > - I sometimes like to watch game I've played in to it's finish to ensure > proper reporting of VPs to judge etc. [...] A player will be permitted to watch the game he or she had played in. Greetings, Damnans

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3F54D0A5...@ono.com>... > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > a factual reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. [snip] > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in > advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, > judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. In either case, there really shouldn't be any need for a judge to be contacted in advance. If all the players agree that the play is legal, then there's no need to contact a judge. If any one player has an issue, then its their right to call over a judge for a ruling. Rulings in these matters are based on the judge's extended knowledge of the game(player's hands) and should be used only when neccessary. In the case of deals, even a proper ruling from the judge can give players too much information (oh, the judge approved the deal? now I know that player is capable of following through on...) -Matt

Mongrel Matt Hirsch wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<3F54D0A5...@ono.com>... > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > > a factual reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a > > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. > [snip] > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in > > advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, > > judges will not allow that player to oust him or herself. > > In either case, there really shouldn't be any need for a judge to be > contacted in advance. If all the players agree that the play is > legal, then there's no need to contact a judge. The point is that it's not the players' task to determine if a play is legal or not. > If any one player has > an issue, then its their right to call over a judge for a ruling. Sure, but take into account what I have said above. > Rulings in these matters are based on the judge's extended knowledge > of the game(player's hands) and should be used only when neccessary. Agreed. > In the case of deals, even a proper ruling from the judge can give > players too much information (oh, the judge approved the deal? now I > know that player is capable of following through on...) A judge should be subtle in such cases; giving other players not enough information or even none. Greetings, Damnans

On 2 Sep 2003 03:52:56 -0700, jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) scrawled: >One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so >when they have no cards left! >I've seen several occasions where people just say: "we all agree to >withdraw", and that's that, just because either they don't want to >play out a gridlock situation, or because they realise they don't have >enough time left, which leads them to a withdraw with half their decks >left, and abot 2 minutes to withdraw.. >This takes away all the danger of withdrawing. I think you should >clearly remind them at the start of the tournament that they will have >to discard all cards in a legal manner before announcing a withdraw.. in the canberra qualifier two players were left on one of the tables and they'd agreed to withdraw with about 1 min 30 secs remaining. they started discarding, and then i mentioned to one of them he wasn't allowed to discard, as he hadn't finished doing his madatory untaps. Made them both quite edgy with the time ticking down. They did it though, legally, if somewhat messilly...their discard piles became a little strewed about the place.. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Collusion is: > > Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally > establish the results of a game. > > However, this needs to be clarified, of course. Any discussion > (potentially) alters the results of the game in some fashion. > > Hence: > > * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such > as cash, cards, or other items. Just so everyone is clear (and if they didn't already know this, since I'm sure that most of you won't like it): at the final table, the tournament prize support is fair game for deal-making, since it's part of the current "game". [VEKN PG 161] > James Coupe > PGP Key: > 0x5D623D5D Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 So you don't confuse them with mountains. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: > >> Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: >> > These are the judging criteria we have been working on >> > until now. >> > >> > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will >> > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still >> > running. >> >> This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within >> reason, do whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to >> stop "scouting" has been tried before (with that other CCG) and >> failed MISERABLY. > > Please explain with examples - I can only take your word, but without > really knowing in what way it failed "Miserably", we can't really > discuss it. Sorry about that. :P Besides the cumbersome task of finding a "waiting" area, and then having to police it (ridiculously difficult at best) or having to assign other judges or players to police it, the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck will just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details from someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck. So why bother? It makes no logical sense. >> Again, if >> your players have asked for such crap, I suppose you're correct to >> implement it, but it would be more honest if they just admitted that >> they hate people watching their games, and then asked LSJ to outlaw >> it. > > Why is this bull? At the Southwest qualifier, I asked all players > who had finished their games to not observe other games. It's fair > for the players who are currently in games who can't go and watch > other player's decks. Not. See above. > Those who happened to either oust quickly or > get ousted quickly have an advantage over those who have a longer > game. Until the metagame changes to support your point, this argument doesn't hold water. > This advantage has very little to do with their skill at the > V:TES table. It's a simple request, and I felt that most understood, > even though of course as players they wanted to watch the good games. > I don't think anyone felt bad about it, and when it came time for the > final, and folks choosing where to sit, it made a difference. I > don't do it at most of my tournaments, It bugs me a teeny tiny bit that you're inconsistent, but whatever. :) > but in a tournament as > important and intense as a qualifier, or certainly a continental > championship, I can understand the need for it. Huh. I don't see how, but OK. > On the subject of letting the players play, I agree with you. In > fact I opened my mouth at the SWQ, and caused a big ruckus, which > probably hosed Robert Goudie. If I had just let Joe, Ira, and Robert > play out the action, then all would have been well. That happened to me at Origins 2000, and it was the LAST time it'll ever happen. > best - > > chris Nice talking to you, Chris! Ill get out to LA one of these days. Maybe you can tell me to go outside the garage so I can't watch your game. ;) > chris shorb > <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) > prince of torrance, california > *** > Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus > Into the eyes of the night - watching me go > Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple > Enter the risen Osiris - risen again > - Dickinson [ quoted text not captured ]

wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote: >>>> IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will >>>> have to leave the room where games of the current round are still >>>> running. >>> >>> This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within >>> reason, do whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to >>> stop "scouting" has been tried before (with that other CCG) and >>> failed MISERABLY. > > I disagree strongly with this being bullshit, and COMPLETELY agree > with Damnans here! > Indeed, I wouldn't do it in smaller, or more "homely" tournaments > where you know all the players, and evrybody speaks the same language. > Nor would I implement it in tournaments where you can trust all > players. > However, and I did tihs on the Belgian Qualifier: I would request > players to leave the playing area in tournaments such as this. > A number of reasons: 1. You're completely inconsistent. 2. ... [ quoted text not captured ] Holy crap! Wherever you're from must have a big bunch of fucking cheaters, huh? Or just a big bunch of assholes. The way you talk, it can't be anyting else! Dios Mio! =) > For the record: I enforced a similar rule at the Belgian qualifier > last month, and it sure as hell influenced the games at hand. > I know of at least 1 player who would *not* have taken that GW if he'd > have had certain spectators at his back throughout the game, simply > because he felt physically intimidated by their presence (even though > those spectators really didn't do anything except stand around, and > are nice guys who just look impressive) So instead of making the player aware of the rule that he can ask you (the judge) to ask ANYONE to stop watching his game, and then enforcing that rule, you just created some rule(s) up as you went along. Great. :P > Also: during the 3rd round, as we had an exceptionally low number of > GW's in round 1 and 2, everybody with 1 GW and 4.5VP could still get > into the finals (mathematically,at the start of round 3). > In such cases, every whisper, every remark can change the course of a > game.. Fucking cheaters? Big bunch of assholes? > Also, I'm quite sure some players would have tried to pass on > information about their own-finished-games had they been allowed to > remain. Holy bajezus your playgroup/area is ripe with cheaters and assholes! Where are you from, again? > So, really Damnans has a very good point here IMHO. Ummm NO. > Greetz > Jo [ quoted text not captured ]

Tobias <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote: > jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message > news:<88f9561d.0309...@posting.google.com>... > >> For the record: I enforced a similar rule at the Belgian qualifier >> last month, and it sure as hell influenced the games at hand. > > I'm with Jo on this one. Why? > > 1. It's just less disturbing to play without distractions. I don't > want to be annoyed by the blabbermouth behind my predator - I want to > be annoyed just by my predator. > 2. Comments/accidents will happen with spectators around. Easy enough > to send those players out. Let them start a pickup game or something. THEN ASK THEM TO LEAVE YOUR PLAY AREA. [2.4] Spectator Responsibilities Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any person, other than tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge. > 3. Enforcing this seemed not to be a problem at all. That's because I (and others like me, who like to WATCH games, something that the rules currently ALLOW) wasn't there. > That's all. > > Tobias > Deventer Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:3F549F87...@ono.com... > wolflord wrote: >> >>> Any help to improve them or to add more of them to the list >>> will be appreciated :) >>> >>> JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 >>> >>> Judges will be as strict as fair. The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines >>> will be implemented according to the following criteria: >>> >>> DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are >>> perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to >>> disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason >>> supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a deal >>> of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a >>> judge; the judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. >>> This rule is not meant to penalize players making winning deals >>> (i.e., deals giving them the game win), but to keep a close eye >>> to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not giving them >>> the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more >>> victory points by not making such deals. >> >> I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player >> "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just >> been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to >> break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions >> I guess.. > > He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to > break the "losing" deal to the judge. OK, so now you're going to force players to give away whatever advantage they have and "signal" the judge that they intend to break the deal?? What what what!?!?! > > One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so > > when they have no cards left! > > I WILL. Thanks, Jo ;-) You mean, make sure people FOLLOW THE RULES???? Great. > Greetings, > Damnans [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<AZf5b.40315$nf3.2658@fed1read07>... > Tobias <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message > > news:<88f9561d.0309...@posting.google.com>... > > > >> For the record: I enforced a similar rule at the Belgian qualifier > >> last month, and it sure as hell influenced the games at hand. > > > > I'm with Jo on this one. Why? > > > > 1. It's just less disturbing to play without distractions. I don't > > want to be annoyed by the blabbermouth behind my predator - I want to > > be annoyed just by my predator. > > 2. Comments/accidents will happen with spectators around. Easy enough > > to send those players out. Let them start a pickup game or something. > > THEN ASK THEM TO LEAVE YOUR PLAY AREA. > > [2.4] Spectator Responsibilities > Spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are > not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in > progress. A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for > the remainder of the round. Spectators who believe that they have observed > rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the > game. Players have the right to request that any person, other than > tournament officials, not observe their game. All such requests must be made > through a judge. > > > 3. Enforcing this seemed not to be a problem at all. > > That's because I (and others like me, who like to WATCH games, something > that the rules currently ALLOW) wasn't there. So basically, looking at the above, you´d stand at my table, just to watch, and then when I ask you to leave, you would? Without hard feelings? Tobias Deventer

[ quoted text not captured ] Assuming you didn't treat me any differently than you treated anyone else who was acting the way I was, sure. I'd certainly wonder why you'd want me to leave, since all I was doing was quietly watching you and everyone else at your table play your game, but I'd just go watch someone else. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3F54D325...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > writes: > >No doubt. Interpretation is not your forte, since I like the current > >rules, oh perfect one ;-P > > If you like the current rules, why would you even attempt to enforce > extra, unfounded, bullshit "interpretations" that are nothing to do with > the rules on top of them? Because I love reading your posts :-) Greetings, Damnans

"Kevin M." wrote: [...] > >> > >> I keep thinking there's a very thin line between: telling a player > >> "he's making a losing deal" or "informing a stupid player he's just > >> been duped".Also,when a player makes a "losing" deal he intends to > >> break, whatthen.. Anyway, just wishing you good luck withthe questions > >> I guess.. > > > > He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to > > break the "losing" deal to the judge. > > OK, so now you're going to force players to give away whatever advantage > they have and "signal" the judge that they intend to break the deal?? What > what what!?!?! I am sure you can find ways for a judge to be subtle in such cases. Don't be so negative ;-) > > > One suggestion: make sure people who wish to withdraw can only do so > > > when they have no cards left! > > > > I WILL. Thanks, Jo ;-) > > You mean, make sure people FOLLOW THE RULES???? Great. Exactly. Greetings, Damnans

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message [snip oodles of stuff I agree strongly with from Mr. Coupe] > You *can't* rule against previous knowledge, it's simply not possible in > any meaningful fashion. And previous knowledge does not mean collusion. > It's collusion when playing for an external goal, not when playing with > external knowledge which, let's face it, everyone gathers over time. > (Like "Rob Treasure will play Dramatic Upheaval at some point".) *sigh* Or maybe "James Coupe will bring sexual innuendo to the judging process at some point" :o)

Kevin M. expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Presumably the judge will always take the person on the losing end of the deal aside and ask if they intend to keep it and why they think it's legal. If the judges are going to do this for all such deals then it doesn't give anything away. Dammans may want to make that a bit more explicit so people understand...

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<u9qj+taW$NV$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3F54D325...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > writes: > >No doubt. Interpretation is not your forte, since I like the current > >rules, oh perfect one ;-P > > If you like the current rules, why would you even attempt to enforce > extra, unfounded, bullshit "interpretations" that are nothing to do with > the rules on top of them? I hope this isn't going to bias you against all the UK players coming to the EC Damnams... :) James, quit while you're ahead, before the whole of Europe hates us more than they already do. We're going over there to play them in October, and I for one don't wanna be lynched. :) Marty

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message [snip normal tourney stuff] > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > a factual reason supporting them What on earth does this actually mean? >. For this reason, before any player makes a > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to > penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), > but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not > giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > victory points by not making such deals. I do understand why but is this not a bit..... anal? Surely if there is a judge at every table and if other players feel at all wronged they will call the judge anyway? I don't see why we need to run these deals past the judge at all, could really slow things down as well. > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in > advance. > Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, judges will > not > allow that player to oust him or herself. Fair enough. This is a tricky thing when coupled with 'play to win' *sigh* [snip] > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave > the > room where games of the current round are still running. I am totally 50/50 on this. 50 of me says yep, good idea cos nothing .... NOTHING is more annoying than people commenting / coaching from the sidelines (you know who you are). BUT and this is a huge but, banishing players from the hall when games are finished is real extreme with regard to this. As many others have said, nothing will stop the outside talk on what is being played at other tables and why oh why not use the judge to get rid of any problem 'commenting' players? Dish out warnings or DQ's whatever it takes but don't ban people looking around, it's half the fun man. Any word on the final time limit ?? Rob

> > > Anyone have any other advice? > Everyone on the table must mutually agree to withdraw otherwise it wont happen. > > > > > Just had another thought on breaking this sort of deal. You might need > to wait for your prey to withdraw and then be able to oust your new prey > ;-) How to win friends and influence people. You did this at a tourney and your name would be mud.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F54E986...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>OK. > >>Clarify: ousted players of games in progress are considered to > >>have finished their games or no? > > > > "A players who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for > > the remainder of the round." [V:EKN Tournament Rules 2.4] > > Well, if you're ousted and some of your cards are still in play, > spectator or no, you might have a reasonable claim to at least > watch over your possessions (moreso in light of the legal deck rules). I always thought that was what VEKN section 4.5 "Proxy Cards" was for: "...if the owner of the card must leave prior to the conclusion of a game, the judge may provide a proxy replacement card..." I mean, I've never run a tournament where a player was forced to leave the table they'd been playing on, but it isn't that uncommon for players to choose to leave the venue and proxies to be created for their cards that are still in play. :-) Josh curse my metal body, i wasn't fast enough!

In message <CSf5b.40292$nf3.40152@fed1read07>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: >Besides the cumbersome task of finding a "waiting" area, and then having to >police it (ridiculously difficult at best) or having to assign other judges >or players to police it, the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck >will just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details from >someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck. So why bother? It makes no >logical sense. Having to get details secondhand allows for either outright lying, or the "chinese whispers" problem where information gets distorted in the transmission. (i'm sure everyone's played the game where you stand in a circle, whisper a nonsense phrase to the person to your left, and so on, and when it comes back to you it doesn't even remotely resemble what you said?) With regards to a previous post about "what if the player is making a deal with the intent to break it?"... If the player is making a legal deal, then the judge doesn't have to pull anyone aside or change his ruling, and the treachery can continue unabated. If the player is making an ILLEGAL deal that can only become legal if broken, then it should immediately be obvious to everyone at the table that such a deal can only be legal if not kept, and therefore is not really a deal at all. No need for the judge to pull anyone aside here either; he simply rules the deal illegal. It doesn't matter how you arrange for a judge to pull someone aside, as soon as he does anything but speak to all the players in public, it should be an instinctive reaction to flag the deal as "will be broken". -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

rob treasure wrote: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message > > [snip normal tourney stuff] > >>DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, >>players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is >>a factual reason supporting them > > What on earth does this actually mean? It means that English is not his first language, and he's having difficulty wrinting exactly what he means. ;) >>. For this reason, before any player makes a >>deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the >>judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to >>penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), >>but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not >>giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more >>victory points by not making such deals. > > I do understand why but is this not a bit..... anal? Surely if there > is a judge at every table and if other players feel at all wronged > they will call the judge anyway? I don't see why we need to run these > deals past the judge at all, could really slow things down as well. The point, I believe, is that not everyone will complain to a judge even if they feel somewhat wronged. Plus, some players may think that a deal is legal, even when it's not. Forcing a judge to rule on every such deal ensures the game is played according to the rules (assuming the judge does his job properly). Flux

Damnans wrote: > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP > <snip> > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > a factual reason supporting them. For this reason, before any player makes a > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to > penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), > but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not > giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > victory points by not making such deals. Here's my suggested wording: DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Deals involving the distribution of victory points will require approval by a judge. Any such deal must be properly justified to the judge by all parties. Each player may choose to give his justification to the judge in private. The judge will then rule on the legality of the deal according to the VEKN guidelines, paying close attention to the 'play to win' rule. In case of a failure to justify the deal properly and completely, the deal will be disallowed. Flux

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Well, if you're ousted and some of your cards are still in play, >>spectator or no, you might have a reasonable claim to at least >>watch over your possessions (moreso in light of the legal deck rules). > > I always thought that was what VEKN section 4.5 "Proxy Cards" > was for: "...if the owner of the card must leave prior to the > conclusion of a game, the judge may provide a proxy replacement > card..." No. That's for players who have to leave (and not return). Certainly the judge could proxy in this case, but it won't come up, as Damnans has already said that players can continue to observe their own games after they are ousted. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:0TK4b.38397$nf3.28146@fed1read07... > Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: > > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > > until now. > Uh... why not just use the standard VEKN rules? Something wrong > with them? The standard VEKN rules allow the judge a great deal of latitude for interpretation. As they should, since it's the nature of judging that it requires judgement. Damnans seems to be writing a document that will tell people ahead of time what the judges' approach to judging will be like at this tournament. > > JUDGING CRITERIA FOR THE EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP: BARCELONA 2003 > > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are > > perfectly legal, players must know that judges will tend to > > disapprove of such deals unless there is a powerful reason > > supporting them. > > If they are "perfectly legal" then why would judges tend to disapprove of > such deals? Certain persons (who may happen to be judges) may tend to > disapprove of such deals, as they are biased against some legal parts of the > game. Those persons need to get over it and let the players play. They > also need to admit to themselves that "deals" are terrible and that they > hate them and they should ask LSJ to outlaw them, if that's what they want. > At least that would be honest. Not all deals are perfectly legal. Proc_F made a good point that multiplayer games like VTES tend to involve deals and often involve one player throwing the game in favor of another (by accident or on purpose). This is why VTES can never be a really serious game. I suspect that almost no multiplayer game (any that allow a lot of player interaction) can. But people try to play VTES in a serious way anyway, at things like the Continental Championships and the regional qualifiers. Because it can be fun to play some "serious" VTES games once in a while. But this can only work well when everyone involved in the games is willing and able to play in the spirit of trying to win and not being a jerk or a dork about the game. It's probably not realistically possible to force or legislate or convince people, through announcements like Damnans', to be "good" players (not necessarily in the sense of skilled, but in the sense of being good sports and approaching the game in the spirit of competitive fun). But I can certainly understand if Damnans wants to at least try to encourage people to play the game rather than do random junk when they get bored or lazy or disheartened. > Your wording is also pretty dishonest, since you say "when they actually > have real chances to get more victory points" when you really mean "when > they actually have a tiny chance to get the Game Win." It would be more > honest to just say "We plan on not allowing any deals that do not give the > player the Game Win." And since the natural conclusion of such an attitude > is that deals cannot exist, you may want to just eliminate EVERYTHING and > just say "Deals will not be allowed." It'll certainly save space on your > tournament flyers. Deals that give someone else the game win are mostly bullshit. You know that's my opinion. The only reason I can see that people are willing to take second place in games is that the tournament environment raises the stakes to the point that it can be worth getting second place so you get more prizes or a chance at making it to the finals or whatever. In a "normal" game of VTES, second place just means you're one of the people that didn't win. (I know that some people are willing to throw games even in pickup, but it's an alien concept to me. I guess second place is better than fifth, but not enough to be worth throwing in the towel and conceding that first is impossible.) In other words, to me, it's tournament VTES that distorts the "ideal" version of the game. Helping someone else win is borderline unsportsmanlike at best and is never fun or cool. > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a > > judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more > > victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust > > him or herself. > > LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. > > LET THEM FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES. > > LET THE PLAYERS CALL FOR A JUDGE IF THEY DECIDE THEY NEED ONCE. > > LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. It's a cute slogan, Kevin, but I don't think it is in any way a useful approach to judging. Players make mistakes *all the time*. I rarely see a game of VTES where no one misplays even a single card or rule. I've even been known to do it myself, and I'll bet you have too. :-) Players can't figure out everything for themselves: they don't know the rules that intimately and they can make mistakes even if they do. And that's assuming that nobody's *trying* to cheat. (Which of course we *hope* will be the case, but it's probably ridiculously optimistic to assume that it never will be.) Josh words, words, words...

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<lIi5b.41088$nf3.17880@fed1read07>... [ quoted text not captured ] I probably wouldn't do it for just little ol' well-behaved you. But I might, depending on my mood and the amount of pressure I'm feeling in the game. And whether there's a bunch more people standing around as well. It's all about mood, I guess. If all spectators are well-behaved, I probably wouldn't mind. Tobias Deventer

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:06g5b.40342$nf3.10400@fed1read07... > "Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message > news:3F549F87...@ono.com... > > He, he... In such a case, that player should report his intention to > > break the "losing" deal to the judge. > > OK, so now you're going to force players to give away whatever advantage > they have and "signal" the judge that they intend to break the deal?? What > what what!?!?! Well, come on. Stupid players are at enough of a disadvantage already just from being stupid. Could it really hurt that much for it to be pointed out when someone is taking advantage of their stupidity? Does it make you feel smart to exploit stupid people? :-) Josh advocate for the devil

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3F55EF7...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>Well, if you're ousted and some of your cards are still in play, > >>spectator or no, you might have a reasonable claim to at least > >>watch over your possessions (moreso in light of the legal deck rules). > > > > I always thought that was what VEKN section 4.5 "Proxy Cards" > > was for: "...if the owner of the card must leave prior to the > > conclusion of a game, the judge may provide a proxy replacement > > card..." > > No. That's for players who have to leave (and not return). > Certainly the judge could proxy in this case, but it won't come up, > as Damnans has already said that players can continue to observe > their own games after they are ousted. Sorry, I had posted that before reading Damnans' response saying that ousted players could stay at the table they were playing at. I just meant that if players *do* leave the venue (by their choice or by being forced to), VEKN rules already provide for replacing their cards in play with proxies. Which you probably already knew anyway. :-) Josh now with 25% more proxies!

"rob treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:a0c24b2e.03090...@posting.google.com... > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message > > SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a judge in > > advance. > > Unless the chance for a player to get more victory points is zero, judges will > > not > > allow that player to oust him or herself. > > Fair enough. This is a tricky thing when coupled with 'play to win' > *sigh* How so? Isn't it just part of "play to win"? I mean, yeah, it's always kind of tricky judging whether or not players have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs or having a chance at the game win. But to me, this is just a reiteration of the rule, always in effect in every tournament game, that players must play to win. > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave > > the > > room where games of the current round are still running. > > I am totally 50/50 on this. 50 of me says yep, good idea cos nothing > .... NOTHING is more annoying than people commenting / coaching from > the sidelines (you know who you are). BUT and this is a huge but, > banishing players from the hall when games are finished is real > extreme with regard to this. As many others have said, nothing will > stop the outside talk on what is being played at other tables and why > oh why not use the judge to get rid of any problem 'commenting' > players? Dish out warnings or DQ's whatever it takes but don't ban > people looking around, it's half the fun man. I totally agree that watching games is fun, but I can also understand if in a "high-stakes" event like this one, they want to go for the "preemptive shh" policy of keeping the venue empty of people not currently playing games. It's a lot easier to keep coaching from happening (accidentally or otherwise) if there's no one around to kibitz in the first place. Enforcing total silence on the spectators would probably accomplish most of the same thing, but it's also kind of hard to do. Josh ah, the many problems associated with making vtes "high stakes"...

On 3 Sep 2003, Tobias wrote: > So basically, looking at the above, you´d stand at my table, just to > watch, and then when I ask you to leave, you would? > Without hard feelings? Speaking for myself, exactly. While at DragonCon, I asked the players of the other games if they minded if I watched, and then I made sure I didn't say another word. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

>>IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave >>the >>room where games of the current round are still running. > > > I am totally 50/50 on this. 50 of me says yep, good idea cos nothing > .... NOTHING is more annoying than people commenting / coaching from > the sidelines (you know who you are). BUT and this is a huge but, > banishing players from the hall when games are finished is real > extreme with regard to this. As many others have said, nothing will > stop the outside talk on what is being played at other tables and why > oh why not use the judge to get rid of any problem 'commenting' > players? Dish out warnings or DQ's whatever it takes but don't ban > people looking around, it's half the fun man. > At the EC 2002 in Vienna we had all finished players move out of the main playing area. It worked well and there have been no problems with that. Everyone understood that a lot was at stake and everyone was treated the same. There were enough game to watch in the side events. Scouting leads to problems when groups of several players are involved. Carl

Marty wrote: > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<u9qj+taW$NV$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > > In message <3F54D325...@ono.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> > > writes: > > >No doubt. Interpretation is not your forte, since I like the current > > >rules, oh perfect one ;-P > > > > If you like the current rules, why would you even attempt to enforce > > extra, unfounded, bullshit "interpretations" that are nothing to do with > > the rules on top of them? > > I hope this isn't going to bias you against all the UK players coming > to the EC Damnams... :) Uhm... I have already alerted the Inquisition about UK players >:-) > James, quit while you're ahead, before the whole of Europe hates us > more than they already do. We're going over there to play them in > October, and I for one don't wanna be lynched. :) Don't worry about it ;-) You'll just be sadistically tortured by the Spanish Inquisition, not lynched >:) (he, he...) Greetings, Damnans

Derek Ray expounded: is making an ILLEGAL deal that can only become legal if > broken, then it should immediately be obvious to everyone at the table > that such a deal can only be legal if not kept, and therefore is not > really a deal at all. No need for the judge to pull anyone aside here > either; he simply rules the deal illegal. It doesn't matter how you > arrange for a judge to pull someone aside, as soon as he does anything > but speak to all the players in public, it should be an instinctive > reaction to flag the deal as "will be broken". Which is why you (the judge rather) pull(s) the losing player (in the deal) aside every time and announce(s) in advance that you (they) will do so. Alternatively don't bother to announce it in advance and let everyone assume that their deals will be broken ;-D The judge also shouldn't announce that the deal is illegal (except perhaps to the player for whom it is illegal) until such time as the player would have to play illegally to honour it.

Jon Cooper expounded: > > Just had another thought on breaking this sort of deal. You might need > > to wait for your prey to withdraw and then be able to oust your new prey > > ;-) > > How to win friends and influence people. > > You did this at a tourney and your name would be mud. I thought people might like that thought ;-D Can't see that it's much worse than breaking any other sort of deal though...

Joshua Duffin expounded: > Josh > > advocate for the devil The writs are in the post.

rob treasure wrote: > > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message > > [snip normal tourney stuff] > > > DEALS INVOLVING VICTORY POINTS: Although these deals are perfectly legal, > > players must know that judges will disapprove of such deals unless there is > > a factual reason supporting them > > What on earth does this actually mean? Not sure :P Well, I have posted on the NG a revisited version of the judging criteria for the EC. I think that point is properly clarified there. > > >. For this reason, before any player makes a > > deal of this kind, the involved players must report that deal to a judge; the > > judge will determine if the deal is legal or not. This rule is not meant to > > penalize players making winning deals (i.e., deals giving them the game win), > > but to keep a close eye to those players making losing deals (i.e., deals not > > giving them the game win) when they actually have real chances to get more > > victory points by not making such deals. > > I do understand why but is this not a bit..... anal? Surely if there > is a judge at every table and if other players feel at all wronged > they will call the judge anyway? During the Spanish Qualifier there might not be a judge per table. > I don't see why we need to run these > deals past the judge at all, could really slow things down as well. If there is a judge at your table when making a deal of that kind, then you may make that deal if the judge makes no objection. In such a case, the judge needn't be called, obviously. [...] > > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will have to leave > > the > > room where games of the current round are still running. > > I am totally 50/50 on this. 50 of me says yep, good idea cos nothing > .... NOTHING is more annoying than people commenting / coaching from > the sidelines (you know who you are). BUT and this is a huge but, > banishing players from the hall when games are finished is real > extreme with regard to this. As many others have said, nothing will > stop the outside talk on what is being played at other tables and why > oh why not use the judge to get rid of any problem 'commenting' > players? Dish out warnings or DQ's whatever it takes but don't ban > people looking around, it's half the fun man. I understand your point, Rob. But you must also understand mine. As a head judge, I want to minimize infractions and conflictive situations during the EC events. > Any word on the final time limit ?? 2 hours and a half, as far as I know. Greetings, Damnans

> >This is coalition. It is illegal, and players proposing to do it in such a > >big tournament should be excluded. I had a case of coalition in the first > >game of a tournament, and explained to the 2 players - among whom a Prince > >!! - the rule, and they looked very surprised : they just hadn't bothered > >reading the rules. > > First of all, the word you are looking for is "collusion". This would > normally not matter. However, "coalition" is a term which could easily > refer to entirely legal deals. A "coalition government" is one where > two parties form an alliance in order to gain a majority to pass > mutually beneficial legislation, for instance. So the term "coalition" > is unfortunately confusing here. Yes, sorry, Coalition is the french exact term. Just a matter of language here. > Second of all, you need to understand what the collusion rules are > about. I know and understand those rules. Please see below. > Collusion is: > > Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally > establish the results of a game. > > However, this needs to be clarified, of course. Any discussion > (potentially) alters the results of the game in some fashion. > > Hence: > > * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as > cash, cards, or other items. > * No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place > outside of the current game. > * No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the > winner. > * The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN > Tournament Rules. > > > In a situation along the lines of the one you present, neither player is > offering bribes, cards or whatever. No part of the agreement is secret, > as far as we can tell. There is no random selection. 5.2 refers to > Unsportsmanlike Conduct - which this *could* be. But that's a separate > offence to collusion and there is no need to bring collusion in. An > illegal deal is an illegal deal, collusion or no. And collusion is > *HARD* to prove with any satisfaction. There was one factor I didn't mention (because this particular case wasn't the issue) : they both came from the same city !! And it was obvious to everyone at the table that they were (what ? collusing ?? ;-). But the players didn't call me during the game about it, they complained after it. And when I went to the Prince he didn't deny, he thought it was normal to help each other against my players !! So, this was collusion, no possible doubt. Thanks for your interesting examples of tournament cases, Orpheus

> > James, quit while you're ahead, before the whole of Europe hates us > > more than they already do. We're going over there to play them in > > October, and I for one don't wanna be lynched. :) > > Don't worry about it ;-) You'll just be sadistically tortured by > the Spanish Inquisition, not lynched >:) (he, he...) When they're dead, can you give me one of their personnal belongings for necromancing studies ? I'll torture James's soul and get all his playing tricks out of him (not to mention revenge for Azincourt...). Orpheus

In message <MPG.19c0274c7...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray expounded: >is making an ILLEGAL deal that can only become legal if >> broken, then it should immediately be obvious to everyone at the table >> that such a deal can only be legal if not kept, and therefore is not >> really a deal at all. No need for the judge to pull anyone aside here >> either; he simply rules the deal illegal. It doesn't matter how you >> arrange for a judge to pull someone aside, as soon as he does anything >> but speak to all the players in public, it should be an instinctive >> reaction to flag the deal as "will be broken". > >Which is why you (the judge rather) pull(s) the losing player (in the >deal) aside every time and announce(s) in advance that you (they) will >do so. No, you NEVER do so. There's no need. Either it's legal and it can be broken or not as necessary, or it's not legal and MUST be broken to be made at all. >Alternatively don't bother to announce it in advance and let everyone >assume that their deals will be broken ;-D > >The judge also shouldn't announce that the deal is illegal (except >perhaps to the player for whom it is illegal) until such time as the >player would have to play illegally to honour it. Usually that's going to be on the very first action after the deal is made. In any case, it's a bad idea to allow people to sharply modify their play in response to an illegal deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > > > > James, quit while you're ahead, before the whole of Europe hates us > > > more than they already do. We're going over there to play them in > > > October, and I for one don't wanna be lynched. :) > > > > Don't worry about it ;-) You'll just be sadistically tortured by > > the Spanish Inquisition, not lynched >:) (he, he...) > > When they're dead, can you give me one of their personnal belongings for > necromancing studies ? Of course >:-D > I'll torture James's soul and get all his playing > tricks out of him (not to mention revenge for Azincourt...). That would be great!. But I should ask for my Infernal masters' permission, which they'll surely grant >:-) Greetings, Damnans

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:49:00 -0400, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Deals that give someone else the game win are mostly bullshit. >You know that's my opinion. The only reason I can see that >people are willing to take second place in games is that the >tournament environment raises the stakes to the point that it >can be worth getting second place so you get more prizes or >a chance at making it to the finals or whatever. In a "normal" >game of VTES, second place just means you're one of the people >that didn't win. (I know that some people are willing to throw >games even in pickup, but it's an alien concept to me. I guess >second place is better than fifth, but not enough to be worth >throwing in the towel and conceding that first is impossible.) >In other words, to me, it's tournament VTES that distorts the >"ideal" version of the game. Helping someone else win is >borderline unsportsmanlike at best and is never fun or cool. Amen. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:06:32 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <CSf5b.40292$nf3.40152@fed1read07>, >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: > >>Besides the cumbersome task of finding a "waiting" area, and then having to >>police it (ridiculously difficult at best) or having to assign other judges >>or players to police it, the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck >>will just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details from >>someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck. So why bother? It makes no >>logical sense. > >Having to get details secondhand allows for either outright lying, or >the "chinese whispers" problem where information gets distorted in the >transmission. (i'm sure everyone's played the game where you stand in a >circle, whisper a nonsense phrase to the person to your left, and so on, >and when it comes back to you it doesn't even remotely resemble what you >said?) simpsons! "Skinner says you guys will crack any minute".... ... ... ... "Skinner says you guys will crack any minute purple monkey dishwasher" (the episode where the teachers go on strike) >With regards to a previous post about "what if the player is making a >deal with the intent to break it?"... > >If the player is making a legal deal, then the judge doesn't have to >pull anyone aside or change his ruling, and the treachery can continue >unabated. > >If the player is making an ILLEGAL deal that can only become legal if >broken, then it should immediately be obvious to everyone at the table >that such a deal can only be legal if not kept, and therefore is not >really a deal at all. ah, but you're assuming here everyone playing is smart. basically, the judge is giving stupid people outside asistance by leting the players know when a deal has to be broken to be legal. Say I have 5 pool, and my predator has 4 minions, all with DOM, and their ashheap consists of govern, threats, threats, conditioning. If i tap out bleeding my prey, because i am stupid, thinking my predator can only bleed me for 4 (knowing i can't oust my prey this turn but maybe next turn), should the judge rule that illegal because they're not playing to win? No, they're just playing stupid. Judges shouldn't have to be ruling against stupid. Just illegal. Note: the above example is used for illustrative purposes only. please accept it on face value and don't pick it apart with 'but if this' or 'if that' thingies. > No need for the judge to pull anyone aside here >either; he simply rules the deal illegal. It doesn't matter how you >arrange for a judge to pull someone aside, as soon as he does anything >but speak to all the players in public, it should be an instinctive >reaction to flag the deal as "will be broken". as Timlagor said, if the judge pulls everyone aside on each losing-end of the deal, regardless of whether the deal is legal on surface value or not, should mean that the other players will have to use their brain to work out whether the deal will have to be broken or not for the deal making to be legal. which i think is better than just telling people outright. Make them think, and make the stupid people suffer. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:33:57 +0100, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm in. :) Mutual withdraws indeed......soft is what it'd get called around here. SOFT. Like Toreador ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:0TK4b.38397$nf3.28146@fed1read07... >> Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: >>> These are the judging criteria we have been working on >>> until now. >>> >>> SELF-OUSTS: Self-ousts of any kind should also be reported to a >>> judge in advance. Unless the chance for a player to get more >>> victory points is zero, judges will not allow that player to oust >>> him or herself. >> >> LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. >> >> LET THEM FIGURE THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES. >> >> LET THE PLAYERS CALL FOR A JUDGE IF THEY DECIDE THEY NEED ONCE. >> >> LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. > > It's a cute slogan, Kevin, but I don't think it is in any > way a useful approach to judging. Players make mistakes > *all the time*. I rarely see a game of VTES where no one > misplays even a single card or rule. I've even been known > to do it myself, and I'll bet you have too. :-) Players > can't figure out everything for themselves: they don't know > the rules that intimately and they can make mistakes even > if they do. And that's assuming that nobody's *trying* to > cheat. (Which of course we *hope* will be the case, but it's > probably ridiculously optimistic to assume that it never will > be.) The logical conclusion of your opinion is that judges need to be everywhere at once, which is, of course, impossible -- which, of course, renders your point moot. I can't be everywhere at once. Since I can't be everywhere at once, I let the players play, and let them call me when needed. Whatever mistakes are made, I will catch them when I can, but mainly I have to rely upon the players themselves to know how to play the game that they have chosen to sit down and play. This is the only logical, consistent, rational choice that a judge (of a 20+ players tournament) can make. Nothing else makes any sense. > > Josh > > words, words, words... Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

salem wrote: [...] > Say I have 5 pool, and my predator has 4 minions, all with DOM, and > their ashheap consists of govern, threats, threats, conditioning. If i > tap out bleeding my prey, because i am stupid, thinking my predator > can only bleed me for 4 (knowing i can't oust my prey this turn but > maybe next turn), should the judge rule that illegal because they're > not playing to win? No, they're just playing stupid. Judges shouldn't > have to be ruling against stupid. Just illegal. Agreed. Players are free to play as they choose to win the game. Some players may play better than others, but all of them must play according to the rules. [...] Greetings, Damnans

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:03:58 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> scrawled: [snip] >>> LET THE PLAYERS PLAY. >> >> It's a cute slogan, Kevin, but I don't think it is in any >> way a useful approach to judging. Players make mistakes >> *all the time*. I rarely see a game of VTES where no one >> misplays even a single card or rule. I've even been known >> to do it myself, and I'll bet you have too. :-) Players >> can't figure out everything for themselves: they don't know >> the rules that intimately and they can make mistakes even >> if they do. And that's assuming that nobody's *trying* to >> cheat. (Which of course we *hope* will be the case, but it's >> probably ridiculously optimistic to assume that it never will >> be.) > >The logical conclusion of your opinion is that judges need to be everywhere >at once, which is, of course, impossible -- which, of course, renders your >point moot. Damnans is hoping to have a judge for every table for the EC, iirc. So, while the Head Judge may not be ale to be everywhere at once, _A_ judge should be, in this case. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'm quite sure that you and damnans don't talk about the same things. You are talking about tournaments of an reasonable size (15 to 50 players), with a lot of pepople you knew themselves for a long times, and people they want to take a lot of fun, and only that: if they can win, it's OK, if it's not, too bad ! and let's take a beer with the others dudes!!! Damnans is talking about a tournament of 100+ players (perhaps 130 players), with high stakes, from ten differents countries. For damnans, and you, collusion should be not allowed, and he wants to prevent that type of things by being sure that deals involving victory points, will be guaranted by judge. What is the problem ? A deal without guarantee of the referee that the deal is legal, is not a deal, it's just a thing that let others players with the feeling to be f***, and it's not a good feeling for this type of tournament. I have no trust in others players to play according the rule. That's why i check the pool of the others players, and the blood on their vamps. You do the same, i'm quite sure of that. (and, i agree with others players doing the same with me, of course...). But, in a tournament, i trust only one person : the judge (and his team)... Damnans wants to be sure that his guidelines for judging are clear. I think he've take the good way. I'm quite sure damnas disaprove deals involving vps...when they're made before the start of the game (collusion) or before, let's say, the fourth turn. Arent' you in the same case ? If you say : you have to play to win, as a rule, you need a referee to enforce that rule. Damnans just explain how it will be made in the EC: by calling a judge, to create a mood of trust in that tournament... Really, i dont' see why it's a problem. On the question of spectators, points of vue are different, but Damnans have the right to prevent spectators to stay int the tournament hall. Perhaps, its not a good solution, perhaps yes. .. I'm agree with Carl Pilhastsch (remember the day i've say that lol), on that point, if all players get out the tournament place, and if they can discuss somewhere (near a bar, for exemple ;-)) A lot of things have happened during the ECs, but, on the judging aspect of vps, i'ven't see any problem for a judge to enforce the rule to play to win. Even on the last EC, what i've say a lot about it. The strict "judging aspect" was clear, without any major problems, and it' was fine. I'm quite sure that in Barcelona, even with that big discussion, it will be the same... (Remember the EC in Paris, in 2001 : Players from England started the same discussion, about the future event. Ok, parisians judges were quite strict, perhaps too hard, and Legbiter have bad take some remarks (i apologize again for my bad humor !). All people were tired, and so on. After that "rant", the EC was a success (with barny baker in the final round! i remember it!!). So, perhaps we can slow down the discussion, and be less offensive with Damnans, and, instead, try to help him to make a great EC, without starting a flamewar ? Thanx. Kamel SENNI.

> > 1. You're completely inconsistent. Do explain > 2.Holy crap! Wherever you're from must have a big bunch of fucking cheaters, > huh? Or just a big bunch of assholes. The way you talk, it can't be > anyting else! Dios Mio! =) No, not all of them, but if you want to be carefull, and have the same rules apply to everybody, you have to take the possibility into account. > > So instead of making the player aware of the rule that he can ask you (the > judge) to ask ANYONE to stop watching his game, and then enforcing that > rule, you just created some rule(s) up as you went along. Great. :P No, there were all aware they could ask me.They did.At which point I removed the spectators. And, no, I did not "create rules as I went along". I announced this clearly at the start of the tournament. Besides, this has nothing to do with the rules of the game *per se*, this has to do with running a tournament which is as honest as it can be. > > Fucking cheaters? Big bunch of assholes? > Holy bajezus your playgroup/area is ripe with cheaters and assholes! Where > are you from, again? FYI: I'm from Belgium, but where I'm from has ABSOUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! It also just so happens, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PLAYGROUP EITHER (and I believe the half of Europe will confirm we all play straight, correct and by the rules, since we play all over the continent! This just has to do with A) people not realising the impact of small remarks which contain gaming info, like "Hey Mate, I'm getting a coke since I got ousted. My pred just went around the table in 15 minutes and got a 5VP sweep" or the likes. Not necessarily with bad intent, these remarks can make a huge difference. B) I believ in mankind having it's darker sides, meaning that I believe on big tournaments like this, where reasonable prizes, and considerable decisions are involved (will I get to go the the Europeans)will incline some people to change their honest behavior into an opportunistic one, thereby making good use of all informatoin they can get, even if the means are not necessarily "clean". > > > So, really Damnans has a very good point here IMHO. > > Ummm NO. > Umm YES Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) Also, Kevin, I would appreciate it if you refrain from insulting people whom 1) you have never met 2) have no idea what they're like 3) have never even played against simply based on your assumption that all people that come to tournaments we host are necessarily in our playgroup. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that in your playgroup, everyone is really honest; that at your tournaments,such attempts to cheat are never made, and nobody ever makes any remarks (willingly or unwillingly) that can influence the game, even at tournaments with high stakes. I would very much like to believe this is due to the fact such behavior doesn't occur over there. However, ever thought about the fact you just might "not have noticed" them? Or that you have the sole, utopian area where judges needn't worry about this type of cheating? Personally, I would very much like to play there, or do some tournaments there. I also believe such a place cannot exist. Greets Jo Damnans asked for ideas, remarks and additions to the guidelines he will implement.That's what he gave. Also, I've added the reasons why I thought this was a good idea. Try to be positive!

I will second the opinions of Josh & Lasombra. We have a local player that loves to play vote decks. Many times if he can't vote out his prey, he will vote out his grand prey, so that he can do something. Now, that strategy would be smart with cryptic riders, etc or a planend Dramatic, but it is never the case... we finally took him aside and said, 'you still lose, don't make someone else lose, don't roll, be a vampire' It has worked out for the better. Second place means, you still lose. If anything should be changed, I believe that it should be the sportsmanship behavoir. Unfortunately it should be more explicitly worded. I underdtand it, most of my group does, yet people still intentionally throw the game for out of game considerations. I think you should never self oust, you should never roll over, always fight to that last f'n vp. So many times, I have prevented my predator from wining, because I refused to quit. Others should learn that joy. If I am incoherent, it is because I just quit smoking and I cannot think properly, M. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:uBA5b.44671$nf3.32554@fed1read07... > > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Players make mistakes > > *all the time*. I rarely see a game of VTES where no one > > misplays even a single card or rule. I've even been known > > to do it myself, and I'll bet you have too. :-) Players > > can't figure out everything for themselves: they don't know > > the rules that intimately and they can make mistakes even > > if they do. And that's assuming that nobody's *trying* to > > cheat. (Which of course we *hope* will be the case, but it's > > probably ridiculously optimistic to assume that it never will > > be.) > > The logical conclusion of your opinion is that judges need to be everywhere > at once, which is, of course, impossible -- which, of course, renders your > point moot. Um, no, it really doesn't render my point moot. What kind of logic is this supposed to be? Does the NFL judge games like this - assume that the players know the rules so they only need one judge and the players will come to him if they need him? Most VTES tournaments may not be able to supply so many good and attentive judges to be able to catch every rules violation (accidental or otherwise) at every table, but that doesn't in any way mean that it's not something to aspire to. Your refrain of "let the players play" isn't an argument, it's just a slogan. It might have a good ring to it, but I don't think it convinces me of anything. Players are allowed to just play without supervision in pickup games, obviously. In tournaments, we're supposed to be making sure that games are actually played by the rules. We might not be able to succeed 100% but that doesn't make it not worth doing our best. I get the impression that you're over-valuing consistency. While it's nice to be consistent from one situation to another, if situations are in fact different, it is not unreasonable to approach them differently. Adaptability is also a virtue. Josh prevent all aggravated damage

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:uBA5b.44671$nf3.32554@fed1read07... >> >> Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Players make mistakes >>> *all the time*. I rarely see a game of VTES where no one >>> misplays even a single card or rule. I've even been known >>> to do it myself, and I'll bet you have too. :-) Players >>> can't figure out everything for themselves: they don't know >>> the rules that intimately and they can make mistakes even >>> if they do. And that's assuming that nobody's *trying* to >>> cheat. (Which of course we *hope* will be the case, but it's >>> probably ridiculously optimistic to assume that it never will >>> be.) >> >> The logical conclusion of your opinion is that judges need to be >> everywhere at once, which is, of course, impossible -- which, of >> course, renders your point moot. > > Um, no, it really doesn't render my point moot. What kind of > logic is this supposed to be? Of course it does. VTES games with 20 or more players (usually) have only one judge. You're implying that the one judge has to watch every play of every player, which is, of course, impossible, rendering your point less-than-useful at best. [2.6] states that you can appoint more judges, if needed, so Damnans could certainly appoint enough judges to have one at each table for the entire tournament. That's the only thing that would un-moot what you're implying. > Does the NFL judge games like this - assume that the players > know the rules so they only need one judge and the players > will come to him if they need him? Obviously, that's not a fair comparison. The NFL has SIX judges on the field during EACH play (not to mention all the guys up in the booth watching with normal and slow-mo cameras). This would be the equivalent of having six judges at each VTES table, which, of course, isn't going to happen. You'll hardly ever even have ONE judge at each table, much less six > Most VTES tournaments may not be able to supply so many good > and attentive judges to be able to catch every rules violation > (accidental or otherwise) at every table, but that doesn't in > any way mean that it's not something to aspire to. I never said or implied that it isn't something to aspire to. If Damnans (or anyone else) wants to appoint enough judges to have one at each table for the entire tournament, it's certainly legal, so it wouldn't *bother* me that he did it, but I would certainly wonder why it had to be done. See "fucking cheaters" and "big bunch of assholes" thread. > Your refrain of "let the players play" isn't an argument, it's > just a slogan. It might have a good ring to it, but I don't > think it convinces me of anything. Players are allowed to > just play without supervision in pickup games, obviously. In > tournaments, we're supposed to be making sure that games are > actually played by the rules. To the best of our ability, sure. Maybe I should be watching every game I possibly can, as often as I can, instead of doing whatever else I am doing, in order to be judging "to the best of my ability". I suppose I could improve a bit, there. Thanks for getting that idea into my head. > We might not be able to succeed 100% Ah, but you can! [2.6] states that you can appoint more judges, if needed, so I expect you'll be doing that at all your tournaments in the future, where you CAN do it. > but that doesn't make it not worth doing our best. As long as you agree that you're implying that judges at 20+ player tournaments that don't ATTEMPT to find one judge for each table aren't "doing their best", then I have nothing more to argue with you about, since you're completely consistent, and approaching the issue as rationally as you can. > I get the impression that you're over-valuing consistency. I get the impression that you de-value it. :( > While it's nice to be consistent from one situation to another, It isn't "nice". It's an essential choice between being a rational individual or being a crazy Malkavian. > if situations are in fact different, it is not unreasonable to > approach them differently. Adaptability is also a virtue. Which are the different situations in our argument? Maybe you mean the fact that it's entirely possible that there are more assholes and cheaters looking to attend the EUC this year, whereas in other places in the world, there aren't that many assholes and cheaters (since I can't figure out any other rational reason that Damnans would alter the tournament rules)? Even if that is the difference you're talking about, I don't see that the tournament rules need to be modified anywhere to accomodate this fact (which has been my point this entire thread). As for adaptability, I'd certainly PLAY in a tournament that had a judge standing at each table. I'd play in a tournament that was held in a place where I believed that the players were a big bunch of assholes. I'm a big asshole myself, every so often, even though I try to minimize it. I would NOT play in a tournament in a place where I believed that there were a bunch of fucking cheaters, or where the judge specifically altered the rules to accomodate his idea of what the rules SHOULD BE. Initiating little used parts of the rules = unusual, but (usually) not a problem. Altering the base rules = unusual, and untenable; therefore a BIG problem. > Josh > > prevent all aggravated damage Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Sep 2003 10:20:24 -0700, do...@umich.edu (Metropolis) scrawled: [snip] >finally took him aside and said, 'you still lose, don't make someone >else lose, don't roll, be a vampire' > >It has worked out for the better. Second place means, you still lose. [snip] >to that last f'n vp. So many times, I have prevented my predator from >wining, because I refused to quit. Others should learn that joy. I'd just like to check here: not winning = losing making grand-prey lose = bad making someone else in general lose = bad making predator not win = good => making predator lose = good But if your predator loses it still doesn't ensure you win. so it's ok to screw someone else over even if you can't win, as long as that person is only your predator? that seems a bit....unfair. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: > Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > > "Kevin M." wrote: > > > >> Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: > >> > These are the judging criteria we have been working on > >> > until now. > >> > > >> > IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will > >> > have to leave the room where games of the current round are still > >> > running. > >> > >> This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within > >> reason, do whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to > >> stop "scouting" has been tried before (with that other CCG) and > >> failed MISERABLY. I still am in the dark about the other CCG. Magic? How did it fail for Magic? For the reasons you mention below? > > > > > Please explain with examples - I can only take your word, but without > > really knowing in what way it failed "Miserably", we can't really > > discuss it. > > Sorry about that. :P > > Besides the cumbersome task of finding a "waiting" area, Well, most folks just stayed at their tables. Or they went off and found a bite to eat, went to the dealer's room, etc. This seemed to work well. People could still stay and watch their own games that they had already been ousted from, but couldn't watch others. > and then having to > police it (ridiculously difficult at best) No question, but most folks around here are quite honest when it comes to the rules (deals are another question!). > or having to assign other judges > or players to police it, the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck > will just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details from > someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck. Well, I don't think most people actually really care. But they have knowledge that is granted to someone who has a fast deck, that a slow deck does not get. When choosing seating at the finals, this is a crucial element. And hearing about it is quite different from watching the deck being played, and watching the player playing the deck. As you say above, it's called scouting, whether intentional or not. It is not expressly banned from the rules, but I still feel it's unfair. > So why bother? It makes no > logical sense. The reason I do it is twofold. a) I have had person complain to me about it once. I have been concerned about it since then. b) As I state above, *I* feel like it's unfair. Basically, I think that when scouting is allowed, it effects the overall outcome of the tournament in a way that has nothing to do with the actual game itself. > > >> Again, if > >> your players have asked for such crap, I suppose you're correct to > >> implement it, but it would be more honest if they just admitted that > >> they hate people watching their games, and then asked LSJ to outlaw > >> it. > > > > Why is this bull? At the Southwest qualifier, I asked all players > > who had finished their games to not observe other games. It's fair > > for the players who are currently in games who can't go and watch > > other player's decks. > > Not. See above. > > > Those who happened to either oust quickly or > > get ousted quickly have an advantage over those who have a longer > > game. > > Until the metagame changes to support your point, this argument doesn't hold > water. Um, your counter-argument isn't really one. My evidence is this: At finals I judge, and other finals I watch, I have observed that sometimes people talk out loud as they choose where they sit. Particularly the top three seeds, who actually have some control. In fact, it seems like 99% of all people think out loud as to where they will sit. Some 5% of those perhaps are dissembling to some degree, but that's not really material to our discussion, except tangentially. Anyway, as I listen to these people discuss their decision as to where they will sit at the table, they often mention their other finals opponent's deck styles as a *key* factor in how they will sit in opposition or ally with them. Perhaps not the only factor, but a key factor. So I have observed that knowledge of deck type is a key factor in a person's decision on where to sit. This may not actually help them win, but it might. In VTES, where you sit at the table has a huge huge impact on how your game will go. Again, it's not the only factor, but I think we can all agree that it is a major factor in how you and your deck will fare. At tournament finals, this is one of the rare times when the participants of a particular game of VTES can have some modicum of control over where they will sit, with knowledge of what some of the other decks at the table will be. When we sit down to a casual, first of all, the seating is usually randomly determined. Secondly, unless one of our opponents only owns one deck, we have no idea what deck they are going to bust out on us. But at a tournament final, we have an opportunity to know what decks will be there in the final, and if we are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd seed, we can control somewhat the environment of that final for our decks. Granted, it is not out of the question that one person can get to the final and have played every other deck there, and another gets there and has not played any of the other decks there. Well, that is part of the random nature of the seating draw in the preliminary rounds, and is definitely part of the overall tournament structure. However, simply either being a victim of or user of a fast deck that sweeps should not give you an advantage over your opponents in the finals. That is my contention. Now, as I was putting these thoughts down, I thought of one method perhaps to counter scouting. I could announce at the beginning of the tournament that all finalists will be required to give a brief (10 words or less) description of their decks prior to anyone choosing seating. This way, all finalists will have at least some knowledge of what they will be seating against. How about that fix? Then scouting might not be any issue at all. > > Nice talking to you, Chris! Ill get out to LA one of these days. Maybe you > can tell me to go outside the garage so I can't watch your game. ;) > I am almost never at the Glendale garage gigs, Saturdays are pretty taken by other commitments. And if we thought to use my garage, it is so full of C R A P that indeed, we would all have to play outside! best - chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) prince of torrance, california *** Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus Into the eyes of the night - watching me go Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple Enter the risen Osiris - risen again - Dickinson

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >>> "Kevin M." wrote: >>> >>>> Damnans <damna...@ono.com-antispam> wrote: >>>>> These are the judging criteria we have been working on >>>>> until now. >>>>> >>>>> IDLE PLAYERS: Players who have already finished their games will >>>>> have to leave the room where games of the current round are >>>>> still running. >>>> >>>> This is also complete bullshit. I suppose a judge can, within >>>> reason, do whatever he wants at his tournaments, but attempting to >>>> stop "scouting" has been tried before (with that other CCG) and >>>> failed MISERABLY. > > I still am in the dark about the other CCG. Magic? How did it fail > for Magic? For the reasons you mention below? Yes. Yes. >> Besides the cumbersome task of finding a "waiting" area, > > Well, most folks just stayed at their tables. Or they went off and > found a bite to eat, went to the dealer's room, etc. This seemed to > work well. People could still stay and watch their own games that > they had already been ousted from, but couldn't watch others. But, according to your theory below, to be consistent, you'd have to eliminate them watching their own game, too, since ANY additional knowledge they gain from scouting is tainted with the badness of the fact that they were (to a certain degree) "scouting". >> and then having to >> police it (ridiculously difficult at best) > > No question, but most folks around here are quite honest when > it comes to the rules (deals are another question!). > >> or having to assign other judges or players to police it, >> the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck will >> just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details >> from someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck. > > Well, I don't think most people actually really care. Ah! But then why not just let them watch? They MUST care, for your point(s) to be valid, eh? > But they have knowledge that is granted to someone who > has a fast deck, that a slow deck does not get. When > choosing seating at the finals, this is a crucial element. As I said in another response in this thread: until the metagame changes to support this hypothesis, the point is less-than-valid. > And hearing about it is quite different from watching the > deck being played, and watching the player playing the > deck. As you say above, it's called scouting, whether > intentional or not. It is not expressly banned from the > rules, but I still feel it's unfair. > >> So why bother? It makes no logical sense. > > The reason I do it is twofold. a) I have had person complain to me > about it once. I have been concerned about it since then. I've always thought that making laws ("rules") based on what one person says once doesn't make much sense, which is why this bugs me somewhat. I agree with being concerned, however; just don't change the rules based on what once person says once. > b) As I state above, *I* feel like it's unfair. Reasonable. Honest. > Basically, I think that when scouting is allowed, it > effects the overall outcome of the tournament in a > way that has nothing to do with the actual game itself. I've played in literally hundreds of other tournaments for several other CCGs and it doesn't make any noticeable difference. [ quoted text not captured ] As I said in another response in this thread: the people who didn't see so-and-so and his deck will just spend their time in the waiting area asking for details from someone who DID see so-and-so and his deck, so you can TRY to stop this knowledge from being disseminated, but you won't succeed. > In VTES, where you sit at the table has a huge huge impact on how > your game will go. Again, it's not the only factor, but I think we > can all agree that it is a major factor in how you and your deck will > fare. At tournament finals, this is one of the rare times when the > participants of a particular game of VTES can have some modicum of > control over where they will sit, with knowledge of what some of the > other decks at the table will be. When we sit down to a casual, > first of all, the seating is usually randomly determined. Secondly, > unless one of our opponents only owns one deck, we have no idea what > deck they are going to bust out on us. But at a tournament final, we > have an opportunity to know what decks will be there in the final, > and if we are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd seed, we can control somewhat the > environment of that final for our decks. Here's a spin for you: I'd rather have the game rules changed so that seating int he finals is randomized than have the game changed to IN ANY WAY outlaw "scouting". > Granted, it is not out of the question that one person can get to the > final and have played every other deck there, and another gets there > and has not played any of the other decks there. Well, that is part > of the random nature of the seating draw in the preliminary rounds, > and is definitely part of the overall tournament structure. However, > simply either being a victim of or user of a fast deck that sweeps > should not give you an advantage over your opponents in the finals. > That is my contention. > > Now, as I was putting these thoughts down, I thought of one method > perhaps to counter scouting. I could announce at the beginning of > the tournament that all finalists will be required to give a brief > (10 words or less) description of their decks prior to anyone > choosing seating. This way, all finalists will have at least some > knowledge of what they will be seating against. How about that fix? > Then scouting might not be any issue at all. Your fix is usable, but I prefer mine better. Simpler, more elegant. >> Nice talking to you, Chris! Ill get out to LA one of these days. >> Maybe you can tell me to go outside the garage so I can't watch your >> game. ;) > > I am almost never at the Glendale garage gigs, Saturdays are pretty > taken by other commitments. And if we thought to use my garage, it > is so full of C R A P that indeed, we would all have to play outside! > > > best - > > chris > > -- > chris shorb > <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site) > prince of torrance, california > *** > Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus > Into the eyes of the night - watching me go > Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple > Enter the risen Osiris - risen again > - Dickinson Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." wrote: [...] > Maybe you mean the fact > that it's entirely possible that there are more assholes and cheaters > looking to attend the EUC this year, whereas in other places in the world, > there aren't that many assholes and cheaters (since I can't figure out any > other rational reason that Damnans would alter the tournament rules)? Since my intention is not modifying the tournament rules, I would like you to tell me which rules I have altered? ;-) Greetings, Damnans

Kevin M. expounded: > Here's a spin for you: I'd rather have the game rules changed so that > seating int he finals is randomized than have the game changed to IN ANY WAY > outlaw "scouting". What I really don't understand about this is why the person who starts is determined randomly when people get to choose seats in order. Why not fix which seat will start in advance? Then the 5th and 4th placed players do get to choose something. Of course then the 1st placed might want to sit first... How about fix the starting seat, then offer players the chance to sit starting with the top placed player standing -last placed player standing must sit when it comes to them. (go back to the beginning everytime someone sits.) This sounds a lot more complicated but shouldn't take much longer. Then again maybe you don't want the 4th and 5th to have any choice.. It would certainly reduce the importance of scouting. > > Now, as I was putting these thoughts down, I thought of one method > > perhaps to counter scouting. I could announce at the beginning of > > the tournament that all finalists will be required to give a brief > > (10 words or less) description of their decks prior to anyone > > choosing seating. This way, all finalists will have at least some > > knowledge of what they will be seating against. How about that fix? > > Then scouting might not be any issue at all. > Your fix is usable, but I prefer mine better. Simpler, more elegant. I like this idea. You didn't specify that their description should be true though ;) ..or what must be described. Timlagor (never been in a final ;)

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19c3de4d5...@news.freeserve.com>... > > What I really don't understand about this is why the person who starts > is determined randomly when people get to choose seats in order. > > Why not fix which seat will start in advance? I used to do this at tourneys automatically, just assuming that whoever was left in/chose seat#1 would also get the first turn and proceed clockwise as normal. You could still have the top seeded player(s) pick last as they can bump people anyways, so they have the choice of predator/prey and turn order to some degree. G

I fucking hate Google. I keep losing my messages due to an internal server error. This happens at home, school & work, what the fuck! ok, now that my bitch is over... Point 1. Never Screw anyone except to cause YOUR victory. Point 2. If you can't go forward, the only way to win is not to be ousted. Period. One way to not be ousted is to kick your predator hard, but don't screw him, his oust will only bring a newly strengthened predator. Turn him into a turtle. In doing so you will promote your prey's growth, which should force your grand prey to go backwards, in essence helping you kill your prey. This action relieves pressure from your Grand Predator, putting more pressure on your predatror, and less on you. After a turn or two you should be able to go after your prey again. Point 3. Try to win, don't be a little wimp. Learn to play cards, bleed responsibly, etc It is a game, have fun, David

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Hey Damnans! If you want to continue this in private email, you know where I live. Otherwise, I think I've gone over this 2 or 3 times already in this thread. > Greetings, > Damnans [ quoted text not captured ]

"Metropolis" <do...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:e9ad0229.03090...@posting.google.com... > I fucking hate Google. I keep losing my messages due to an internal > server error. This happens at home, school & work, what the fuck! > > ok, now that my bitch is over... > Just copy your message before you send it. That way you can just paste it whenever you want. Colin Riggs

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:IdR5b.46751$nf3.42951@fed1read07... > Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I get the impression that you're over-valuing consistency. > > I get the impression that you de-value it. :( It's not all there is to life, no. > > While it's nice to be consistent from one situation to another, > > It isn't "nice". It's an essential choice between being a rational > individual or being a crazy Malkavian. Humans aren't rational, Kevin. Not all the time. Strict "rationality" is for computers and Ayn Rand. Humans have emotions and stuff, you know? > > if situations are in fact different, it is not unreasonable to > > approach them differently. Adaptability is also a virtue. > > Which are the different situations in our argument? There are no two situations in the world that are the same. Specifically to VTES? There are enough cards, combinable in enough ways, and enough different players to play them, that it wouldn't surprise me if no table position has ever been repeated, past the third turn, in a game of VTES since the game was designed. Add to that the people sitting there behind the cards and, well, that's a whole lot of different situations. We're getting kind of off-topic here, I think, but my point about consistency is this: you seem to think that an idea fails if it can be carried to the point of absurdity. To my mind, virtually *any* idea can be carried to the point of absurdity, including plenty of ideas that are actually good ones if not taken too far. Moderation in all things, you know? > Maybe you mean the fact > that it's entirely possible that there are more assholes and cheaters > looking to attend the EUC this year, whereas in other places in the world, > there aren't that many assholes and cheaters (since I can't figure out any > other rational reason that Damnans would alter the tournament rules)? Even > if that is the difference you're talking about, I don't see that the > tournament rules need to be modified anywhere to accomodate this fact (which > has been my point this entire thread). For crying out loud, man. He's not trying to alter the tournament rules, as far as I can tell. He's just trying to restate them in a way to get people to play more strictly according to them. Assholes and cheaters may or may not exist everywhere. They often can't be detected by the casual eye. Perhaps you haven't seen them in your games just because you haven't been looking for them. Josh gotta run...

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:IdR5b.46751$nf3.42951@fed1read07... >> Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > I get the impression that you're over-valuing consistency. >> >> I get the impression that you de-value it. :( > > It's not all there is to life, no. [OT] If a human being isn't consistent -- and most aren't -- you have no way to judge what they will *ever* do, and that sucks ass, and THAT is why I value consistency so highly. >> > While it's nice to be consistent from one situation to another, >> >> It isn't "nice". It's an essential choice between being a rational >> individual or being a crazy Malkavian. > > Humans aren't rational, Kevin. Not all the time. [OT] Of course they are. (Feel free to send me an email about this if you want.) > Strict "rationality" is for computers and Ayn Rand. [OT] Cool! We've worked Ayn Rand into the conversation! Awesome! :) > Humans have emotions and stuff, you know? [OT] Emotions are completely rational. (Feel free to send me an email about this if you want.) >> > if situations are in fact different, it is not unreasonable to >> > approach them differently. Adaptability is also a virtue. >> >> Which are the different situations in our argument? > > There are no two situations in the world that are the same. Ridiculous at best, naive at worst. But, then again, I believe that a "very small" percentage can equal zero in game terms, and you don't, so I don't suppose that you'd agree with me here. :P > Specifically to VTES? There are enough cards, combinable in > enough ways, and enough different players to play them, that > it wouldn't surprise me if no table position has ever been > repeated, past the third turn, in a game of VTES since the > game was designed. Add to that the people sitting there > behind the cards and, well, that's a whole lot of different > situations. > > We're getting kind of off-topic here, I think, but my point > about consistency is this: you seem to think that an idea > fails if it can be carried to the point of absurdity. [OT] Nope. Generally, I think part or all of an idea fails if it can't withstand a rational questioning by others. > To my mind, virtually *any* idea can be carried > to the point of absurdity, [OT] Only if you don't have any principles or ethics. > including plenty of ideas that are actually > good ones if not taken too far. [OT] So you can never have any good ideas, then. Huh, interesting. > Moderation in all things, you know? [OT] So you can never be too healthy? Too intelligent? Too skilled? Too wealthy? I think not. [rest of discussion snipped] > Josh > > gotta run... Yea, I figured you'd run away. j/k j/k j/k ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kj6dlv4socnv1727s...@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:06:32 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> > scrawled: > > >In message <CSf5b.40292$nf3.40152@fed1read07>, > >"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: > > [snip stuff on scouting] > > > >If the player is making a legal deal, then the judge doesn't have to > >pull anyone aside or change his ruling, and the treachery can continue > >unabated. > > > >If the player is making an ILLEGAL deal that can only become legal if > >broken, then it should immediately be obvious to everyone at the table > >that such a deal can only be legal if not kept, and therefore is not > >really a deal at all. > > ah, but you're assuming here everyone playing is smart. > basically, the judge is giving stupid people outside asistance by > leting the players know when a deal has to be broken to be legal. Not really. The judge is just abiding by the rules. Announicng a deal to be legal only if it is intended that it be broken is a judges responsibility. > > Say I have 5 pool, and my predator has 4 minions, all with DOM, and > their ashheap consists of govern, threats, threats, conditioning. If i > tap out bleeding my prey, because i am stupid, thinking my predator > can only bleed me for 4 (knowing i can't oust my prey this turn but > maybe next turn), should the judge rule that illegal because they're > not playing to win? No, they're just playing stupid. Judges shouldn't > have to be ruling against stupid. Just illegal. > Note: the above example is used for illustrative purposes only. please > accept it on face value and don't pick it apart with 'but if this' or > 'if that' thingies. But...that's no even a deal laddy... Groundskeeper Wily, from *some* episode, I am sure. > > > No need for the judge to pull anyone aside here > >either; he simply rules the deal illegal. It doesn't matter how you > >arrange for a judge to pull someone aside, as soon as he does anything > >but speak to all the players in public, it should be an instinctive > >reaction to flag the deal as "will be broken". > > as Timlagor said, if the judge pulls everyone aside on each losing-end > of the deal, regardless of whether the deal is legal on surface value > or not, should mean that the other players will have to use their > brain to work out whether the deal will have to be broken or not for > the deal making to be legal. which i think is better than just telling > people outright. Make them think, and make the stupid people suffer. > I don't know what this "pulling aside" crap is. I can't think of many (any) situations where a judge should have to speak to a player seperately (well, i guess they could be masturbating between rounds in the corner...definitely something you would want to take them aside for...) Why would the judge pull a player on the losing end of a deal? I seemed to have lost the thrust of this discussion somewhere. I thought the topic was legal and illegal deals...unless you mean losing end = an illegal deal that they don't know is illegal? If you're on the losing end of a leagal deal, and don't realise it, then tough cookies (not like you're going to be forced to uphold the terms, is it). However, if you are in a deal that cannot be legally honoured, then you are entitled to be informed of that fact, from a judge if needs be...AFAIK. Here's a (I hope) relevant paragraph: ... No. When the losing deal is offered and the judge is called over and he determines that it is a losing deal (regardless of the intentions of the players), then he can rule that the player can only make the deal if he intends to break it. ...LSJ Sounds pretty "public knowledge" to me. Anyway, enough of me (sort of) the complete post is below: scrote wrote: >>"If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a >>losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you >>cannot win anyhow (which is rare)." >> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B712CBD.58042860%40white-wolf.com >> > How is the "with intention of honoring it" enforced? It isn't. Making deals is regulated. The player's intentions are not. You are not allowed to make a losing deal (i.e., to make a deal that, if honored, would violate the play to win rule) unless you don't plan on honoring it. The trick there is to find a player willing to make the deal with you when you cannot legally honor the deal. > How is a judge to know what the player's intentions are? Tell me it > isn't to "ask them"? Seems like that might give away a little too much > strategy to the the rest of the table. No. When the losing deal is offered and the judge is called over and he determines that it is a losing deal (regardless of the intentions of the players), then he can rule that the player can only make the deal if he intends to break it. > So, does the judge just assume that every deal is entered into with > the intention of honoring it (and judge accordingly)? No. Deals can be made with the intention to break. In that case, however, there is no repreive from the "play to win" rule when it comes to potentially honoring the deal. If a deal is made such that the honoring is legal, then it can be honored even if, when the time comes to pay the piper, the play to win rule would dictate otherwise. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > salem > domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm -Scrote

scrote wrote: > Here's a (I hope) relevant paragraph: > > ... > No. When the losing deal is offered and the judge is called over and > he determines that it is a losing deal (regardless of the intentions > of the players), then he can rule that the player can only make the > deal if he intends to break it. > ...LSJ > > Sounds pretty "public knowledge" to me. Best to just remind the table in general that losing deals (i.e., deals that involve one player not playing to win) cannot be honored by the player who isn't playing to win, since all players are required to play to win. For specific instances, it is best to take the player in question aside to determine whether the deal represents "playing to win" for cases that involve (or could involve) the contents of the player's hand or library or other non-public information (which is a great many cases). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Sep 2003 07:30:09 -0700, mud...@hotmail.com (scrote) scrawled: >salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kj6dlv4socnv1727s...@4ax.com>... >> >> ah, but you're assuming here everyone playing is smart. >> basically, the judge is giving stupid people outside asistance by >> leting the players know when a deal has to be broken to be legal. > >Not really. The judge is just abiding by the rules. Announicng a deal >to be legal only if it is intended that it be broken is a judges >responsibility. My assertion was that the judge only has to announce that to the player on the losing end of the deal. The person on the winning end is winning by the deal, so they are obviously playing to win. The person who is not getting a game win out of the deal needs to either be able to tell the judge: a) the vps he will get from the deal are the most she can reasonably expect to get, or, b) she intends to break the deal to try and get the game win/more vps OTHER players shouldn't be told by the judge if the deal needs to be broken to be honoured. If the judge does tell them, that tells those players information that they would otherwise not have. They might not know that the player making the losing end of the deal could get more vps. The player making the losing end of the deal might be making some sort of elaborate bluff to get them the greater share of vps or the game win. The judge then saying 'you can only make the deal if you intend not to honour it' out loud to the table might detract somewhat from that cunning plan. The judge shouldn't be coaching the other players, or sharing private info. They should only be judging. >> >> Say I have 5 pool, and my predator has 4 minions, all with DOM, and >> their ashheap consists of govern, threats, threats, conditioning. If i >> tap out bleeding my prey, because i am stupid, thinking my predator >> can only bleed me for 4 (knowing i can't oust my prey this turn but >> maybe next turn), should the judge rule that illegal because they're >> not playing to win? No, they're just playing stupid. Judges shouldn't >> have to be ruling against stupid. Just illegal. >> Note: the above example is used for illustrative purposes only. please >> accept it on face value and don't pick it apart with 'but if this' or >> 'if that' thingies. > >But...that's no even a deal laddy... >Groundskeeper Wily, from *some* episode, I am sure. The point i was _trying_ to make, but that seems to have been lost, is this: Case A: Meth makes deal, that does not result in Game Win for them, with some other Methuselah, when they could reasonably get the game win without the deal. That other methuselah is playing badly, because they should (might?) be able to realise that for the deal to be legal the first meth would have to break the deal. Should the judge tell them they are playing badly/stupidly? No, that's coaching. Case B: Tap out before lots of guys with dom, etc. when not doing so would lead to you having reasonable chance to get more vps later. Should the judge tell the methuselah they can't tap out? No, that's coaching. Strictly speaking both cases are playing against the play to win rule. But that's only because some methuselahs won't know everything about every other player. The judge shouldn't be helping the players who play less than optimally. [snip] > >I don't know what this "pulling aside" crap is. I can't think of many >(any) situations where a judge should have to speak to a player >seperately (well, i guess they could be masturbating between rounds in >the corner...definitely something you would want to take them aside >for...) Presumably the corner is already somewhat aside. Hopefully. Now if it was at the table...that might be unsportsmanlike. >Why would the judge pull a player on the losing end of a deal? I >seemed to have lost the thrust of this discussion somewhere. I thought >the topic was legal and illegal deals...unless you mean losing end = >an illegal deal that they don't know is illegal? losing end is the end where they are not getting a GW from the deal. You pull them aside to have them justify to you either: a) that they can't reasonably get the game win, or more vps than however many they are getting from the deal. or b) they are going to break the deal to try and get the GW/more vps. The judge shouldn't be letting every other player know whether it is a) or b). That would be unfair sharing of information. Good player should be able to work out reasonably accurately whether their opponent is going for a) or b). Bad players won't. Some Melbourne players might not even conceive of situation b). ;) >If you're on the losing end of a leagal deal, and don't realise it, >then tough cookies (not like you're going to be forced to uphold the >terms, is it). However, if you are in a deal that cannot be legally >honoured, then you are entitled to be informed of that fact, from a >judge if needs be...AFAIK. Yes. But the rest of the table doesn't need to be told that, too. Also, if you don't now it's illegal to honour the deal, then maybe it is legal to honour it. Ok, that sounds all wrong but imagine this..oOoOoOoO() "my prey is offering me a deal? i get 2vps, you get 3? fair enough. i'm never going to get through you anyway" judge looks at 3vp deal person's hand, sees no wakes, and is all tapped out. looks at 2vp deal person's hand, sees enough bleed to oust 3vp man, and then can see the rest of the table falling one after the other because of hand contents/state of play. judge: "sorry 2vp deal man, you can't honour such a deal" 2vp man: "why not?" judge: "because you can oust your prey right now, and then the rest of the table. you just need to bleed with all your guys and play that conditioning" 2vp man: "oh, i see. i do that then. thanks judge. i didn't think he'd be out of wakes, he's had them all game". in that situation, back when the deal was offered, 2vp deal man should be allowed to take the deal because _as far as they know_ (from play information and their own judgement as a good/bad player) they can't reasonably expect to get more than 2vps. The judge shouldn't step in and help anyone to prevent them playing badly. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem expounded: > The person who is not getting a game win out of the deal needs to > either be able to tell the judge: > a) the vps he will get from the deal are the most she can reasonably > expect to get, or, > b) she intends to break the deal to try and get the game win/more vps So women always have to break deals? ;-P > OTHER players shouldn't be told by the judge if the deal needs to be > broken to be honoured. If the judge does tell them, that tells those > players information that they would otherwise not have. They might not > know that the player making the losing end of the deal could get more > vps. The player making the losing end of the deal might be making some > sort of elaborate bluff to get them the greater share of vps or the > game win. The judge then saying 'you can only make the deal if you > intend not to honour it' out loud to the table might detract somewhat > from that cunning plan. c) The player in question cannot reasonably expect mroe VPs without the deal than with but intends to break it anyway to get more. <SNIP> > Yes. But the rest of the table doesn't need to be told that, too. > Also, if you don't now it's illegal to honour the deal, then maybe it > is legal to honour it. > Ok, that sounds all wrong but imagine this..oOoOoOoO() > > "my prey is offering me a deal? i get 2vps, you get 3? fair enough. > i'm never going to get through you anyway" > judge looks at 3vp deal person's hand, sees no wakes, and is all > tapped out. looks at 2vp deal person's hand, sees enough bleed to oust > 3vp man, and then can see the rest of the table falling one after the > other because of hand contents/state of play. > judge: "sorry 2vp deal man, you can't honour such a deal" > 2vp man: "why not?" > judge: "because you can oust your prey right now, and then the rest of > the table. you just need to bleed with all your guys and play that > conditioning" > 2vp man: "oh, i see. i do that then. thanks judge. i didn't think he'd > be out of wakes, he's had them all game". In determining the lagality (or otherwise) of a deal (wrt 'play to win') the judge should only consider information available to the player in question.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:17:07 +0100, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >salem expounded: >> The person who is not getting a game win out of the deal needs to >> either be able to tell the judge: >> a) the vps he will get from the deal are the most she can reasonably >> expect to get, or, >> b) she intends to break the deal to try and get the game win/more vps > >So women always have to break deals? ;-P i was aiming for the 'she' usage like the rulebook uses to refer to methuselahs, to distinguish from vampires, which are 'he'. However, my typing and/or consistency skills were sadly not up to the task. >> OTHER players shouldn't be told by the judge if the deal needs to be >> broken to be honoured. If the judge does tell them, that tells those >> players information that they would otherwise not have. They might not >> know that the player making the losing end of the deal could get more >> vps. The player making the losing end of the deal might be making some >> sort of elaborate bluff to get them the greater share of vps or the >> game win. The judge then saying 'you can only make the deal if you >> intend not to honour it' out loud to the table might detract somewhat >> from that cunning plan. > >c) The player in question cannot reasonably expect mroe VPs without the >deal than with but intends to break it anyway to get more. so they only need to justify a), and then can break the deal later. ><SNIP> >> Yes. But the rest of the table doesn't need to be told that, too. >> Also, if you don't now it's illegal to honour the deal, then maybe it >> is legal to honour it. >> Ok, that sounds all wrong but imagine this..oOoOoOoO() >> >> "my prey is offering me a deal? i get 2vps, you get 3? fair enough. >> i'm never going to get through you anyway" >> judge looks at 3vp deal person's hand, sees no wakes, and is all >> tapped out. looks at 2vp deal person's hand, sees enough bleed to oust >> 3vp man, and then can see the rest of the table falling one after the >> other because of hand contents/state of play. >> judge: "sorry 2vp deal man, you can't honour such a deal" >> 2vp man: "why not?" >> judge: "because you can oust your prey right now, and then the rest of >> the table. you just need to bleed with all your guys and play that >> conditioning" >> 2vp man: "oh, i see. i do that then. thanks judge. i didn't think he'd >> be out of wakes, he's had them all game". > >In determining the lagality (or otherwise) of a deal (wrt 'play to win') >the judge should only consider information available to the player in >question. exactly. [ quoted text not captured ]