Proposing an illegal deal [LSJ]

What if someone proposes a deal where he wins, but someone else doesn't optimize VPs (for example, a 3/2 when the second part doesn't know yet if he could make more than 2 VPs) ? If the deal is denounced, who will take a warning : the proposing part, the accepting part, both ? Thank you, Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] No one. -- 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/

> Orpheus wrote: > > What if someone proposes a deal where he wins, but someone else doesn't > > optimize VPs (for example, a 3/2 when the second part doesn't know yet if he > > could make more than 2 VPs) ? If the deal is denounced, who will take a > > warning : the proposing part, the accepting part, both ? > > No one. But the deal still will be illegal, right ?

[ quoted text not captured ] If made, and if it violates the play to win rule, then yes, it is illegal. There's nothing at all illegal about proposing a deal, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>>What if someone proposes a deal where he wins, but someone else doesn't > >>>optimize VPs (for example, a 3/2 when the second part doesn't know yet > >> > > if he > > > >>>could make more than 2 VPs) ? If the deal is denounced, who will take a > >>>warning : the proposing part, the accepting part, both ? > >> > >>No one. > > > > > > But the deal still will be illegal, right ? > > If made, and if it violates the play to win rule, then yes, it is illegal. > > There's nothing at all illegal about proposing a deal, though. That is where I think there might be a problem : with deals, either losing or for prize (I know the latest are not systematically illegal), as soon as a proposal is made, the game is falsed. Example : "If you lose I'll give you half my prize". The deal is deemed illegal. But the proposal has been made. I believe that the simple fact of stating this can influence the other player towards losing and hopping for prize (then, a glance, a wink, whatever, can be signal of agreement, true or illusory). So I think proposing an illegal deal should be sanctionned in some way, because it can have direct repercussions. Opinions ? ----- Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] The "direct repercussions", if illegal, are illegal. No need to throw more rules at it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> There's nothing at all illegal about proposing a deal, though. > >That is where I think there might be a problem : with deals, either losing >or for prize (I know the latest are not systematically illegal), as soon as >a proposal is made, the game is falsed. Example : "If you lose I'll give you >half my prize". The deal is deemed illegal. But the proposal has been made. >I believe that the simple fact of stating this can influence the other >player towards losing and hopping for prize (then, a glance, a wink, >whatever, can be signal of agreement, true or illusory). > >So I think proposing an illegal deal should be sanctionned in some way, >because it can have direct repercussions. Correct me I'm wrong but I thought thatwhile offering prizes from outside the tournament was illegal, that it was indeed legal to offer prizes gained from within the tournament in a deal? Halcyan 2

Orpheus <orph...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > That is where I think there might be a problem : with deals, either > losing or for prize (I know the latest are not systematically > illegal), as soon as a proposal is made, the game is falsed. Example > : "If you lose I'll give you half my prize". The deal is deemed > illegal. But the proposal has been made. I believe that the simple > fact of stating this can influence the other player towards losing > and hopping for prize (then, a glance, a wink, whatever, can be > signal of agreement, true or illusory). Friendly reminder: it is LEGAL to make deals involving the prizes http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html [VEKN JG 161] > > Orpheus 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

> >So I think proposing an illegal deal should be sanctionned in some way, > >because it can have direct repercussions. > > > Correct me I'm wrong but I thought thatwhile offering prizes from outside the > tournament was illegal, that it was indeed legal to offer prizes gained from > within the tournament in a deal? It is absolutely legal, as Kevin says. BUT it also has been proposed by various Princes / Judges to tule this as "unsportsmanlike conduct" and declare it illegal. It is their right to do so. And as I personnaly have never heard of nothing more disgusting than bribing a player with actual material reward (even in the form of boosters), and seeing as such a proposition ruins the good mood of play, I would declare it unsportsmanlike. Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > It is absolutely legal, as Kevin says. BUT it also has been proposed by > various Princes / Judges to tule this as "unsportsmanlike conduct" and > declare it illegal. It is their right to do so. Incorrect. Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. Just because a judge doesn't like, say, Malkavians, that doesn't mean he can declare bleeding with a Malk unsportsmanlike. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > That is where I think there might be a problem : with deals, either losing > > or for prize (I know the latest are not systematically illegal), as soon as > > a proposal is made, the game is falsed. Example : "If you lose I'll give you > > half my prize". The deal is deemed illegal. But the proposal has been made. > > I believe that the simple fact of stating this can influence the other > > player towards losing and hopping for prize (then, a glance, a wink, > > whatever, can be signal of agreement, true or illusory). > > > > So I think proposing an illegal deal should be sanctionned in some way, > > because it can have direct repercussions. > > The "direct repercussions", if illegal, are illegal. > No need to throw more rules at it. Funny it came to discussion again these days. I've always read about it, but never was a direct victim of a similar case. nobody ever heard any proposal, but we had a tournament yesterday at a local cards convention and, in first round, I seated with another 4 vote or anti-votes deck (me, toreador with obf -> ventrue -> !ventrue with Quentin -> Justicars and Inner Circles -> !ventrue with potence). Of course it was a very complicated table to manage during vote counting, but I got Michael Luther and some princes, so I was the least affected by Quentin's special (he could cancel only 2 votes from me, and I got the opportunity of getting votes from a Inner Circle after it if it was me calling the referendum). But at the very first KRC I've called, the !Ventrue with Quentin played a Delaying Tactics - this on a vote that would harm his predator by 3 pool when he already had around 20 and a Inner Circle ready, and in a table with 5 heavy titled decks, including its own prey! It made clear that my prey and grand-prey had some sort of non-aggression pact - and as the !Ventrue gained his first VP and played Gambit Accepted, there were no doubt that they would manage to stand ground for the two to survive until they get head-to-head and see what happens. I survived with the two, and the very first political action for my prey (around 15 pool) when that happened was to play a KRC with 3 for me (with less than 10 pool) and 1 for my grandprey (with around 20). Of course some prize splitting was involved - why would someone let his prey make at least 2 VPs just to try to oust them and gain the GW with the VP "forfeit" of Gambit Accepted? (As a side note, this Delaying Tactics was played after all vote counting and when I played Voter Captivation. I've read again the card texts as soon as I could when the round was over, and Voter says: "usable AFTER a successfull referendum", while Delaying says "usable DURING a referendum". I recall I asked two or three times after vote counting: "so it has passed? it's X votes for and X-5 against?" before playing the Voter, and after it my grandprey played Delaying Tactics. It isn't the correct timing, is it? Since it was declared the referendum passed and a Voter was played, he could not play Delaying anymore, right?) cheers the_capuchin

the_capuchin wrote: > (As a side note, this Delaying Tactics was played after all vote > counting and when I played Voter Captivation. I've read again the card > texts as soon as I could when the round was over, and Voter says: > "usable AFTER a successfull referendum", while Delaying says "usable > DURING a referendum". I recall I asked two or three times after vote > counting: "so it has passed? it's X votes for and X-5 against?" before > playing the Voter, and after it my grandprey played Delaying Tactics. > It isn't the correct timing, is it? Since it was declared the > referendum passed and a Voter was played, he could not play Delaying > anymore, right?) Delaying Tactics cannot be played after the referendum, right. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F8940DC...@white-wolf.com>... > Orpheus wrote: > > It is absolutely legal, as Kevin says. BUT it also has been proposed by > > various Princes / Judges to tule this as "unsportsmanlike conduct" and > > declare it illegal. It is their right to do so. > > Incorrect. > Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. > Just because a judge doesn't like, say, Malkavians, that doesn't mean he > can declare bleeding with a Malk unsportsmanlike. I don't understand the rules. Why do we use the phrase "sportsmanlike conduct" in the tournament rules, when we really mean a defined set of play-to-win rules (nothing more, nothing less)? Can we *please* change the rules to say what they really mean, instead of some easily misinterpretted phrase like "sportsmanlike conduct" ? Almost all other things in our game use precise language; I think we should continue that excellent pattern and clarify the rules. I understand the necessity of using the phrase, "reasonable chance to win," but that's as vague as I can understand. Just to be entirely clear, this is what "sportsmanlike conduct" means in the tournament rules: 1) A player must try to obtain the game win. 2) If a player has no reasonable chance of a game win, he must try to maximize his VPs. 3) If the player has no reasonable chance of getting more than zero VPs (or he has already obtained the game win), he may play however he wants (including self-ousting, giving away VPs, etc.) "Reasonable chance" is defined by the judge. I personally use 5% as a ballpark figure. Also, the above doesn't mention anything about preventing other people from getting the game win. Consider this crazy example: Down to a two player game. Player A has 0 VPs, an empty library, and one vampire. Player B has 1 VP, an empty library, no hand, an empty crypt, no minions, and 30 pool. There are 15 seconds left in the round. Player A can attempt to withdraw (and surely succeed), thus getting 1 VP, and allowing player B to get the game win. Or, player A can simply prevent player B from withdrawing, but time will run out before player A can oust player B, thereby preventing B from a game win, but only getting 1/2 VP. Is it legal for A to not go for the full VP to prevent B from getting the Game Win? If so, could LSJ state rule 2a above? Thanks, Ira

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F8AE5D7...@white-wolf.com>... > the_capuchin wrote: > > (As a side note, this Delaying Tactics was played after all vote > > counting and when I played Voter Captivation.... > > Since it was declared the > > referendum passed and a Voter was played, he could not play Delaying > > anymore, right?) > > Delaying Tactics cannot be played after the referendum, right. If everyone targetted by the KRC starts taking pool loss, that says the referendum was voted on, approved and the results occurred. Any competent judge should have slapped the DT player with a rules infraction and disallowed the play. In the future, wait till pool loss occurs to Cap--that way there's no chance the outcome of the referendum was still "in question."

I don't want any ppl freaking out about my comment, but this comment is purely from my personal playing experience over the year. So if you have any suggestions positive to bring up, I'd gladly respond.. :) Ppl will propose "illegal deals" and MAKE it look as if it's legal. Ppl will also argue that they WERE trying to make a deal that's in the "best interest" in winning the game, but then "something ELSE happens" and changed it. Ppl will also argue that the deal IS legal if 'fantasizing' what your next move is. I personally all but give up on whining about deals other ppl make during the game that I personally believe it's illegal, and there are those that believe my whining about such thing was invalid cuz 'blah blah blah, excuses, excuses, excuses'. So, a good friend told me once "So what's your point?" and I realized he was right.. There's nothing I can do unless I have solid proof and even so, I would basically ruin the game for everyone else on the table while trying to show solid proof with the rulebook. So what's the point of this? Just attack the person who's trying to hurt you the most, ESPECIALLY if he's an ally (casting silly parity shifts on you, etc). If you truly believe your prey or predator making the deals/moves against you is purely personal/evil/illegal, just announce to the table that they shouldn't worry about you and you're going after your prey or predator solely and don't care about game anymore just to teach that person a harsh lession to play the game next time. Afterall, it IS just a game, even at tournaments. It works somewhat for me, better than whining and asking for judges and make yourself look bad if the player comes up with lame excuses that seems legit. Orpheus, I'll give you one example.. how many ppl were playing Giovannis at this past storyline tournaments worldwide? Don't you think someone might JUST make some "illegal" deals just to get other giovannis on the same table some advantage? Excuse? "Need to make Giovannis into the finals and win the tournament just for the story purpose" Can you argue with that? And will ANYONE admit to it? :) ---DeistMutts---

DeistMutts <psydu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Orpheus, I'll give you one example.. how many ppl were playing > Giovannis at this past storyline tournaments worldwide? Don't you > think someone might JUST make some "illegal" deals just to get other > giovannis on the same table some advantage? Excuse? "Need to make > Giovannis into the finals and win the tournament just for the story > purpose" Can you argue with that? Sure. It is illegal under: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html#sec5.1. and http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html [VEKN JG 164] > And will ANYONE admit to it? :) Irrelevant. > > ---DeistMutts--- [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira expounded: > 3) If the player has no reasonable chance of getting more than zero > VPs (or he has already obtained the game win), he may play however he > wants (including self-ousting, giving away VPs, etc.) Should be "no reasonable chance of getting any additional VPs" -ie if you already have 1VP and no prospect of any more you are just as free to lose how you like as if you have 0VP.

Kevin M. expounded: > DeistMutts <psydu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Orpheus, I'll give you one example.. how many ppl were playing > > Giovannis at this past storyline tournaments worldwide? Don't you > > think someone might JUST make some "illegal" deals just to get other > > giovannis on the same table some advantage? Excuse? "Need to make > > Giovannis into the finals and win the tournament just for the story > > purpose" Can you argue with that? > > Sure. It is illegal under: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html#sec5.1. > and > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html [VEKN JG 164] Storylines ARE NOT sanctioned. They already break the VEKN rules on deck construction (by limitting them). I'd be inclined to just say it was legal and have done with it.

> If everyone targetted by the KRC starts taking pool loss, that says > the referendum was voted on, approved and the results occurred. Any > competent judge should have slapped the DT player with a rules > infraction and disallowed the play. In the future, wait till pool loss > occurs to Cap--that way there's no chance the outcome of the > referendum was still "in question." Good advice. Sometimes just asking if it has passed and it's over is not enough (it should be). But I noticed that most people here new the best timing to play Delaying Tactics (after all vote counting to make the caller spend Bewitchings, Bribes, tap Michael Luther etc. for nothing), so they thought it could be user after Voter Captivation because no one noticed that it says "after" the referendum. it made me think about the Bribes case. If I play one, I immediatelly gain 1 pool, and other Meths who vote in favour gain one too "when the results are tallied". So imagine this: I play Bribes and gain 1 pool; my prey votes against the referendum; my grandprey votes in favour and gain 1 pool; my grandpredator does the same; and my predator play Delaying Tactics. Everybody retrieves their pool, or they should have waited for the results to finish to get the pool, so Delaying Tactics prevented anybody but me to gain that pool?

what's the point of this? Just attack the person who's trying to > hurt you the most, ESPECIALLY if he's an ally (casting silly parity > shifts on you, etc). If you truly believe your prey or predator making > the deals/moves against you is purely personal/evil/illegal, just > announce to the table that they shouldn't worry about you and you're > going after your prey or predator solely and don't care about game > anymore just to teach that person a harsh lession to play the game > next time. Afterall, it IS just a game, even at tournaments. It works > somewhat for me, better than whining and asking for judges and make > yourself look bad if the player comes up with lame excuses that seems > legit. Don't you seem to look bad when you do attack relentlessly your predator, for example, just to teach him a lesson? Personally, I don't care if I look bad to make a Fatima Multi-Rush attack on anyone at the table if he's hurting me because of a deal. But I know it ruins the mood of the game as much as making illegal deals, with or without whining - that's what happened in the round I described. The game went to exciting, due to the challenge of 5 high-titled decks, to frustrating, as soon as one got free reign to go forward. And it was clear in less than 10 minutes. So I won't mind to look sportsmanlike when I play Fatima Multi-Rush with the one solid purpose of ousting anyone who seem to be operating without predator pressure, no matter if he's crosstable or not. I can always say that I was reaching for table balance, that I should prevent any voter to get big since it would harm Fatima deck too much, etc. And I will not feel bad to guarantee with some combat-crazy friends that, everytime we get to sit at the same table, we'll rush the two involved in any prize splitting/going head-to-head deal.

Ira wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F8940DC...@white-wolf.com>... > >>Orpheus wrote: >> >>>It is absolutely legal, as Kevin says. BUT it also has been proposed by >>>various Princes / Judges to tule this as "unsportsmanlike conduct" and >>>declare it illegal. It is their right to do so. >> >>Incorrect. >>Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. >>Just because a judge doesn't like, say, Malkavians, that doesn't mean he >>can declare bleeding with a Malk unsportsmanlike. > > > I don't understand the rules. Why do we use the phrase > "sportsmanlike conduct" in the tournament rules, when we really mean a > defined set of play-to-win rules (nothing more, nothing less)? Can we Because we don't mean nothing more than that set. Sportsmanlike conduct covers many other things. > Just to be entirely clear, this is what "sportsmanlike conduct" means > in the tournament rules: > > 1) A player must try to obtain the game win. > 2) If a player has no reasonable chance of a game win, he must try to > maximize his VPs. > 3) If the player has no reasonable chance of getting more than zero > VPs (or he has already obtained the game win), he may play however he > wants (including self-ousting, giving away VPs, etc.) That's what "play to win" means. Playing to win (i.e., not throwing a game) is a small subset sportsmanlike conduct. > "Reasonable chance" is defined by the judge. I personally use 5% as > a ballpark figure. Who feeds you the equations to compute such percentages from a given game state? Please forward the equations to me - I'd be very interested in anything that can handle such a complex problem fairly. > Also, the above doesn't mention anything about preventing other > people from getting the game win. Consider this crazy example: > > Down to a two player game. Player A has 0 VPs, an empty library, and > one vampire. Player B has 1 VP, an empty library, no hand, an empty > crypt, no minions, and 30 pool. There are 15 seconds left in the > round. > > Player A can attempt to withdraw (and surely succeed), thus getting 1 > VP, and allowing player B to get the game win. Or, player A can > simply prevent player B from withdrawing, but time will run out before > player A can oust player B, thereby preventing B from a game win, but > only getting 1/2 VP. > > Is it legal for A to not go for the full VP to prevent B from getting > the Game Win? If so, could LSJ state rule 2a above? A should play to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Storylines follow all V:EKN rules except where noted. They are sanctioned; they are not, however, tracked for ratings purposes (since they deviate from the V:EKN rules in the defined ways). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Only the Methuselah who plays Bribes gains pool from the Bribes if the referendum is canceled by Delaying Tactics. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "Reasonable chance" is defined by the judge. I personally use 5% as > a ballpark figure. on what do you base the percentage? do you know what cards are left in other players libraries and the probability that they will not draw the cards to save themselves? do you base it on the odds in the bets for the game? on psychic abilities? gut feeling? IMO a 'reasonable chance' is even a better 'line' to draw than a fixed percentage, certainly not worse. you should try to hang in as long as possible, you never know what happens.

hawk_the_demon expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] "reasonable chance" could be interpreted as anything from 1% to about 40% depending on the player -I think most people could tell the difference between these two cases. "Reasonable" is totally subjective whereas "around 5%" is just a judgement of the game state -obviously you make a judgement based on your knowlegde of the game and the information you have about people's decks. To put it another (perhaps clearer) way: 5%: you have to estimate how likely you are to be able to win 'reasonable': you have to estimate how likely you are to win THEN decide if that constittutes are reasonable chance. Some people find it useful to have a figure in mind. No one claimed they could calculate these probabilities precisely.

Hey All, > Because we don't mean nothing more than that set. > Sportsmanlike conduct covers many other things. Oh! I didn't realize that. Are the other things enumerable, and if so, could someone enumerate them for me? > Who feeds you the equations to compute such percentages from a given > game state? Please forward the equations to me - I'd be very interested > in anything that can handle such a complex problem fairly. :) Of course there are no equations. My method is to mentally assume infinite alternate universes where the game plays out in a variety of ways. "Reasonable chances" are defined by the aggregate outcome from all those alternate universes. While any number is uncomputable by a formula, I think it's better than nothing. > A should play to win. So just to be clear, A should withdraw (thus maximizing his VPs), and allow B to get the Game Win? Thanks! Ira

> Some people find it useful to have a figure in mind. No one claimed they > could calculate these probabilities precisely. true, but this figure is IMO useless in this case unless you have something to base your rough calculations on. you have to make assumtions to base your rough estimate on, and since you control the assumtions, you can control the result of your calculation. would your assumptions be the same if you are already in the final? so: 5%: you have to estimate how likely you are to be able to win using an estimation where you have a very good control over the result and compare this to a fixed number that has no meaning. 'reasonable': you have to estimate if you have a reasonable chance of getting more VP's.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 07:54:04 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Orpheus wrote: >> It is absolutely legal, as Kevin says. BUT it also has been proposed by >> various Princes / Judges to tule this as "unsportsmanlike conduct" and >> declare it illegal. It is their right to do so. > >Incorrect. >Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. >Just because a judge doesn't like, say, Malkavians, that doesn't mean he >can declare bleeding with a Malk unsportsmanlike. Incorrect :). The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines state, "The head judge is always the final authority on what constitutes Unsportsmanlike conduct and is free to interpret the guidelines as he or she sees fit for the appropriate situation." If bleeding with a Malkavian causes emotional distress, for example, then the judge might consider this an appropriate situation. This might conceivably arise if there had been a gentleman's agreement that players would not use such a deck in the event. Andrew

Ira wrote: >>Because we don't mean nothing more than that set. >>Sportsmanlike conduct covers many other things. > > Oh! I didn't realize that. Are the other things enumerable, and if > so, could someone enumerate them for me? Enumerable: no. Other examples (from the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines): (A) A player uses inappropriate language. (B) A player loudly demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty. (A) A player repeatedly calls a judge and argues that an opponent should lose the game for insignificant procedural oversights. (B) A player fails to obey the instructions of a tournament official. (C) A player refuses to play a game. (A) A player pulls a chair from beneath another player, causing her to fall to the ground with a minor injury. (B) A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a judge after the judge has made a final ruling. >>A should play to win. > > So just to be clear, A should withdraw (thus maximizing his VPs), and > allow B to get the Game Win? The that is an example of A maximizing his VPs in the face of no reasonable chance to get a GW, then this is, as stated previously, an example of playing to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Cute, but, and this is really only for the benefit of any newbies who might not understand you slant: Incorrect. Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, LSJ wrote: > (A) A player repeatedly calls a judge and argues that an opponent should lose the game for insignificant procedural oversights. Keith Thompson take note! ;) David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:37:06 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> Incorrect :). The V:EKN Judges' Guidelines state, "The head judge is >> always the final authority on what constitutes Unsportsmanlike conduct >> and is free to interpret the guidelines as he or she sees fit for the >> appropriate situation." If bleeding with a Malkavian causes emotional >> distress, for example, then the judge might consider this an >> appropriate situation. This might conceivably arise if there had been >> a gentleman's agreement that players would not use such a deck in the >> event. > >Cute, but, and this is really only for the benefit of any newbies who might >not understand you slant: > >Incorrect. > >Judges do not have the authority to declare legal play illegal. You're begging the question. The judge decides what's legal or illegal. In this case, per the guidelines, his authority is absolute and final. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > You're begging the question. The judge decides what's legal or > illegal. In this case, per the guidelines, his authority is absolute > and final. You're intentionally ignoring the point that they judge cannot declare legal play to be illegal without violating the precepts of his position. Yes, the judge could eject a player for dealing seven library cards to his hand to start the game. But that would mean, of course, that, when the gross misconduct of the judge is revealed, that the tournament is unsanctioned. If the judge intentionally declares legal play illegal, then yes, the players are bound by that decision at the tournament, but there is recourse after the tournament that yields the result stated. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:17:15 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> You're begging the question. The judge decides what's legal or >> illegal. In this case, per the guidelines, his authority is absolute >> and final. > >You're intentionally ignoring the point that they judge cannot declare >legal play to be illegal without violating the precepts of his position. > >Yes, the judge could eject a player for dealing seven library cards to >his hand to start the game. ... That's a silly example. The standard case which keeps coming up is an action such as transferring out which is legal so far as the game's mechanics are concerned but which may be held to be unsporting because the player is not playing to win, say. One part of the rules allows the player to take this action but the tournament rules override this. So it is with bribery involving the prizes. If the judge decides that, in the particular circumstances, this is unsporting then he is empowered to rule the action illegal. And, as he is likely to have consensus support from the players, his ruling is likely to stick. Andrew

In message <19mvovk60bvl8cmaj...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:17:15 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>You're intentionally ignoring the point that they judge cannot declare >>legal play to be illegal without violating the precepts of his position. >> >>Yes, the judge could eject a player for dealing seven library cards to >>his hand to start the game. ... > >That's a silly example. The standard case which keeps coming up is an No more silly than claiming that a judge could eject someone for playing Malkavians because he didn't like stealth bleed. Pot, kettle, black? -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Derek Ray expounded: > In message <19mvovk60bvl8cmaj...@4ax.com>, > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: > > >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:17:15 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > > >>You're intentionally ignoring the point that they judge cannot declare > >>legal play to be illegal without violating the precepts of his position. > >> > >>Yes, the judge could eject a player for dealing seven library cards to > >>his hand to start the game. ... > > > >That's a silly example. The standard case which keeps coming up is an > > No more silly than claiming that a judge could eject someone for playing > Malkavians because he didn't like stealth bleed. > > Pot, kettle, black? So I'm not the only one who reads carelessly ;-) LSJ made both these silly suggestions.

In message <MPG.19fc77ea7...@news.freeserve.com>, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray expounded: >> In message <19mvovk60bvl8cmaj...@4ax.com>, >> Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >> > >> >That's a silly example. The standard case which keeps coming up is an >> >> No more silly than claiming that a judge could eject someone for playing >> Malkavians because he didn't like stealth bleed. >> >> Pot, kettle, black? > >So I'm not the only one who reads carelessly ;-) No, you are still the only one who reads carelessly. >LSJ made both these silly suggestions. No. In Message-ID: <ii3tovsanh1ci41m5...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: "If bleeding with a Malkavian causes emotional distress, for example, then the judge might consider this an appropriate situation." LSJ mentioned it in the post immediately prior to the one above as something that a judge COULD NOT do, not as an example of something a judge COULD do. Please refer to my sentence above beginning with "No more silly..." and continue. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:22:34 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >LSJ mentioned it in the post immediately prior to the one above as >something that a judge COULD NOT do, not as an example of something a >judge COULD do. Please refer to my sentence above beginning with "No >more silly..." and continue. LSJ's first example was not so silly because there appear to be many players who think that playing Malkavian stealth-bleed is unsporting - like using a gun to kill a fox. Andrew

In message <i787pvofjj2gp6uaf...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:22:34 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Taking any individual player's strong dislike of Malkavian stealth/bleed and attempting to compare it to a judge making a ruling that "Malkavian S/B causes emotional distress, therefore you are disqualified" is, however, ridiculous on the face of it. cf. previous quoted message. [ quoted text not captured ]