Optimizing Vps, episode 398987437837847

A player is about to die painfully. You offer him 1 VP if he does, or doesn't do, something. You don't especially have a breakdealing reputation, or have quite the contrary. Does he have the right to refuse ? -- Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:401bb129$0$25466$626a...@news.free.fr... > A player is about to die painfully. You offer him 1 VP if he does, or > doesn't do, something. You don't especially have a breakdealing reputation, > or have quite the contrary. Does he have the right to refuse ? he can die the way he wants. And then refuse the VP. He can always argue he does not trust you. Proposing a deal does not mean the deal is automatically accepted ;)

Orpheus wrote: > > A player is about to die painfully. You offer him 1 VP if he does, or > doesn't do, something. You don't especially have a breakdealing reputation, > or have quite the contrary. Does he have the right to refuse ? A player cannot be forced into a deal, so he or she has the right to refuse that deal. Greetings, Damnans

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess everyone has a right to be a fool... thanks guys, see you soon, Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<401bca15$0$2952$626a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] That's not necessarily foolish. You cannot force players into making decisions this way. The reason is more than simple. You at any given point can break any deal you make. Your "reputation" (behaviour at previous games, which games have no bearing on any other games by nature) has no impact on any current deals you offer or accept. Therefor by legally accepting the possibility of "enforcing" such a deal you could bully the table and sweep in an unsportsmanlike manner. Bye, Daneel

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<401BC183...@ono.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] How can you say such a thing when there are no rules about deals or deal breaking? As far as I interpret, every player MUST play to maximise their vp. What Orpheus has pointed out is a loop hole. Since there are NO rules on deal making but there are VEKN rules concerning maximising vp, you could argue that the play did not attempt to maximise his vp. If the player about to be outed has nothing to lose. So why not take a deal? When will the VEKN make clear rules on deal making? There are grey areas... not all players and judges are clear on situations like this. From what I can tell there are cases where the guidelines have been applied incorrectly. I understand that politics is the essense of the game but... there are loop holes where conclusion can inflitrate into the game. Andrew Daley

Andrew Daley wrote: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<401BC183...@ono.com>... >>A player cannot be forced into a deal, so he or she has the right >>to refuse that deal. Correct. The V:EKN does not legislate trust. > How can you say such a thing when there are no rules about deals or > deal breaking? As far as I interpret, every player MUST play to Because it's been covered before? (I'm guessing that Damnans saw the topic and its conclusion when it was brought up before). > maximise their vp. What Orpheus has pointed out is a loop hole. Since No. > there are NO rules on deal making but there are VEKN rules concerning > maximising vp, you could argue that the play did not attempt to > maximise his vp. If the player about to be outed has nothing to lose. > So why not take a deal? The V:EKN does't force a decision over another of equal "play to win" worth. The player is free to take her zero more VPs in the manner of her choosing. > > When will the VEKN make clear rules on deal making? There are grey Sometime back there. I forget when it was all clarified as much as anything so inherently judgement-requiring can be. For those who have missed it: 1) Play to win. 2) If you can't win, play to maximize your VPs. Deals are not enforced or mandated by any rules. It is legal to honor a deal if the terms of the deal (if honored) represent "playing to win" at the time the deal was made, even if the subsequent decision to honor the deal when the time comes doesn't maximize one's chance to win to maximize one's VP intake. > areas... not all players and judges are clear on situations like this. > From what I can tell there are cases where the guidelines have been > applied incorrectly. I understand that politics is the essense of the > game but... there are loop holes where conclusion can inflitrate into > the game. Misapplication of rules is not the same as absence of rules. -- 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/

dal...@iinet.net.au (Andrew Daley) wrote in message news:<8821ff0a.04013...@posting.google.com>... > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<401BC183...@ono.com>... > > Orpheus wrote: > > > > > > A player is about to die painfully. You offer him 1 VP if he does, or > > > doesn't do, something. You don't especially have a breakdealing reputation, > > > or have quite the contrary. Does he have the right to refuse ? > > > > A player cannot be forced into a deal, so he or she has the right > > to refuse that deal. > > > > How can you say such a thing when there are no rules about deals or > deal breaking? As far as I interpret, every player MUST play to > maximise their vp. What Orpheus has pointed out is a loop hole. Since > there are NO rules on deal making but there are VEKN rules concerning > maximising vp, you could argue that the play did not attempt to > maximise his vp. If the player about to be outed has nothing to lose. > So why not take a deal? Tournament rules recognising deals is a one-way phenomenon. The rules the game is built upon (VTES rules) say nothing about deals (don't even recognise deals). Tournament rules say that you must play _according to the VTES rules_ with the goal of maximising VPs. The only exception to not be currently playing to maximise your VPs is to honor a legally made deal which at the time of making served to maximise your VPs. There is only this way, and no other way around. > When will the VEKN make clear rules on deal making? There are grey > areas... not all players and judges are clear on situations like this. > From what I can tell there are cases where the guidelines have been > applied incorrectly. I understand that politics is the essense of the > game but... there are loop holes where conclusion can inflitrate into > the game. > > Andrew Daley No loopholes exist regarding this topic. The rules - VTES and VEKN - are pretty clear I think. Since nothing forces you to keep a deal nothing in the rules can force you to make one. Bye, Daneel