Cheating at Malkavian Game

Is it legal for a player to tell another during a Malkavian Game "I'll draw scissors" so he can give him some pool ? T.I.A., Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > Is it legal for a player to tell another during a Malkavian Game "I'll draw > scissors" so he can give him some pool ? I can't see any reason why not. Much like it would then not be illegal to throw paper... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush administration." -Fat Mike

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> Is it legal for a player to tell another during a Malkavian Game "I'll draw >> scissors" so he can give him some pool ? > I can't see any reason why not. Much like it would then not be illegal to > throw paper... But it's probably illegal to throw a rock at another player.

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<40086074$0$28704$626a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] Why not, I remember another thread of Malkavian Prank, and it stated that you can guess any number of pool, not just between 1 and 4. -Antero

> > Is it legal for a player to tell another during a Malkavian Game "I'll draw > > scissors" so he can give him some pool ? > > > > T.I.A., > > > > Orpheus > > Why not, I remember another thread of Malkavian Prank, and it stated > that you can guess any number of pool, not just between 1 and 4. It shows another collusion / cheating possibility. What if some players have arranged that the first time, one will put 3 pool, then 5, then 2, etc ? If this is found out, they must eb excluded from the tournie, right ? Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > It shows another collusion / cheating possibility. What if some > players have arranged that the first time, one will put 3 pool, > then 5, then 2, etc? If this is found out, they must eb excluded > from the tournie, right ? Orpheus. Buddy. C'mon, now! :) Why not just come out and say that you are against anyone speaking during the game? That's where your argument must logically end. I could have planned it before the tournament started. YOU'LL NEVER KNOW, therefore talking must be banned. I mean, if I'm talking, there's a POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? And what if I actually did damage to someone's prey with my KRC? There's a POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? We should probably ban Succubus Club right away, as well as every other card that can affect someone other than your predator or your prey? Holy shitballs, that's a lot of cards. :) Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking during the game. > 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

> > It shows another collusion / cheating possibility. What if some > > players have arranged that the first time, one will put 3 pool, > > then 5, then 2, etc? If this is found out, they must eb excluded > > from the tournie, right ? > > Orpheus. Buddy. C'mon, now! :) > > Why not just come out and say that you are against anyone speaking during > the game? I"m not, my dear Kevin. As a matter of facts, no one talks more than I do during any game... ;-) > That's where your argument must logically end. I could have > planned it before the tournament started. YOU'LL NEVER KNOW, therefore > talking must be banned. 1) When some "random" things happen too often, collusion may be foreseen and watched for 2) I don't see where "talking" during the game is involved with the Malkavian Prank (the one where plain pre-planned cheating can be involved) ; as with the Malkavian Game, the move is obvious to all, so I just have to know if it's legal or not 3) I ask this because a player who tries to find loopholes in the game asked me these very same questions. It is my duty as judge and organiser to be able to give him correct answers. I have no personnal feeling involved in these questions. > I mean, if I'm talking, there's a POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? > And what if I actually did damage to someone's prey with my KRC? There's a > POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? We should probably ban Succubus > Club right away, as well as every other card that can affect someone other > than your predator or your prey? Maybe this is part of the reason why some people despise the Succubus so much ? > Holy shitballs, that's a lot of cards. :) Or just one type of attitude tending towards cheating, which judges must try to prevent, with the rules and the cards as they are. > Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking > during the game. LOL. You should know by now that honesty is my second name, either with other people or with myself. At least my psychotherapist said I was okay with that now. ;-) And I repeat : I LOVE speaking during this game ; as a matter of facts, I was suggested among the non-official tournament possibilities the Silence of Death variant, and I said I would never do this : I just couldn't play (even if italians can speak with their hands...). B) Please Kevin, do not make assumptions on someone based on so few elements : you could end up with wrong conclusions, as you just did. Yours, Orpheus (still needing a correct answer for my inquiring player)

> > 2) I don't see where "talking" during the game is involved with the > Malkavian Prank (the one where plain pre-planned cheating can be involved) ; > as with the Malkavian Game, the move is obvious to all, so I just have to > know if it's legal or not why should they need to preplan it? the can openly say before players take the pool in their hand: i will say you have one pool in your hand. no need for cheating and collussion. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:37:40 -0800, Kevin M. wrote: >We should probably ban Succubus Club right away >... >Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking >during the game. Succubus Club specifically allows players to make deals. Malkavian Game does not. These cards tell you how they should be played. Subverting the stated function of the card is wrong. Computer gamers have the useful term "exploit" for this kind of thing. In multiplayer games, use of exploits is usually considered to be cheating. And so it is here. Players who collude to rig a Malkavian Game are cheats. Andrew

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<40092323$0$1161$636a...@news.free.fr>... > 2) I don't see where "talking" during the game is involved with the > Malkavian Prank (the one where plain pre-planned cheating can be involved) ; > as with the Malkavian Game, the move is obvious to all, so I just have to > know if it's legal or not In both cases it's not collusion, it's *table management*. When your grandprey is low on pool, or you make a cross-table deal, why in the world wouldn't it be legal to tell someone as you play the Malkavian Prank, "I will choose 1 for you" (meaning they can gain 4)? Similarly, why wouldn't you be able to tell someone "I'm feeling rocky" when you play Malkavian Game if you think they need pool? The problem that I have with banning individual cards for collusion is that this game is more complicated than that. It might be collusion when I oust myself with MG without having gained a VP. But it might be table-management if I'm using it to keep my grand-prey from being ousted to set up the sweep. > 3) I ask this because a player who tries to find loopholes in the game asked > me these very same questions. It is my duty as judge and organiser to be > able to give him correct answers. I have no personnal feeling involved in > these questions. Again, I'm not sure that I consider this a loophole. My Malkavian "Let's Play Games" deck was designed to intentionally upset table balance and then manually reset it to a balance of my choosing. I did that through combinations of Game of Malkav, Malkavian Game, Malkavian Prank and Petra Resonance (and lots of Kindred Spirits). Sometimes, the MG and MP were used specifically to help people cross-table, sometimes not. It depends on the levels of pool at the table. Personally, what I think it comes down to is that collusion is a behavior that is independent of cards. Nearly every tournament-viable deck *could* be built for collusion, because the key to winning this game is table management. So the task of the judge is simply to look for behavior in which a player is not trying to max VP. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

Orpheus expounded: > Is it legal for a player to tell another during a Malkavian Game "I'll draw > scissors" so he can give him some pool ? This is perfectly legal. It is equally legal to lie about what you are going to do. This applies equally to Malk Prank.

Thanks to all for your explanations, opinions and comments. Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: >> Why not just come out and say that you are against anyone speaking >> during the game? > > I"m not, my dear Kevin. As a matter of facts, no one talks more than > I do during any game... ;-) hem. <cough> Nagaraja, talkative

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, you talk AS MUCH as me, my fellow Necromancer. More isn't of this world... erm... but then, neither are we... Well you got my meaning ! ;) Orpheus P.S. : still waiting on your answer about the Necromancing Newsletter, did you get my mail ?

[ quoted text not captured ] OH !! yes. I'm in. forgot to reply.

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:37:40 -0800, Kevin M. wrote: > > >>We should probably ban Succubus Club right away >>... >>Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking >>during the game. > > > Succubus Club specifically allows players to make deals. Malkavian It explicitly allows players to make trades. The fact that it doesn't restrict their inherent ability to make deals in no way means that that ability wasn't there already. > Game does not. These cards tell you how they should be played. Malkavian Game does not restrict a player's ability to make (and break) deals. Malkavian Game sets up a forced trade (the terms of which are decided by a specified series of RPS games). Succubus Club allows a trade to be set up (but the trade is not forced and the terms of the trade are a bit more free-form). > Subverting the stated function of the card is wrong. Computer gamers > have the useful term "exploit" for this kind of thing. In multiplayer > games, use of exploits is usually considered to be cheating. And so > it is here. Players who collude to rig a Malkavian Game are cheats. Exploiting the +1 stealth from Bonding is not cheating. Exploiting the effects of a card is not cheating. -- 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/

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:08:37 -0500, LSJ wrote: >The fact that it doesn't restrict their inherent ability to make deals >in no way means that that ability wasn't there already. I've looked through the latest rules in Black Hand and they don't seem to say anything about this. There is no provision for deal-making in the sequence of play, the glossary, the index, or the examples of play. So far as one can tell from that rulebook, this is not a game of deal making and breaking. That's no change - the rules have never permitted such things. I've been playing an online computer game lately (Hearts of Iron, which I recommend). I was amused at the weekend, when a US player complained that the other players didn't write good English. I observed that I was the only English player in the game - the others were French, Spanish, Finnish, etc. He, as an American, barely qualified :). I have a smattering of German and French but am soon left behind when other players converse in such languages, let alone Finnish (which looks like line noise). The official pretext for banning Madness of the Bard was that it was unfair to players who were not fluent in the local language. How much worse it must be for such players when unlimited deal-making is added to the game. I am amazed that it is tolerated at the top-tier Euro events which attract such a polyglot crowd. I'd have thought that only parochial Americans could suppose that everyone should be able to speak good English ... Andrew

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<a99Ob.18515$Xq2.16798@fed1read07>... > "Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > > It shows another collusion / cheating possibility. What if some > > players have arranged that the first time, one will put 3 pool, > > then 5, then 2, etc? If this is found out, they must eb excluded > > from the tournie, right ? > > Orpheus. Buddy. C'mon, now! :) > > Why not just come out and say that you are against anyone speaking during > the game? That's where your argument must logically end. I could have > planned it before the tournament started. YOU'LL NEVER KNOW, therefore > talking must be banned. > > I mean, if I'm talking, there's a POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? > And what if I actually did damage to someone's prey with my KRC? There's a > POSSIBILITY of cheating/collusion, right? We should probably ban Succubus > Club right away, as well as every other card that can affect someone other > than your predator or your prey? > > Holy shitballs, that's a lot of cards. :) > > Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking > during the game. > > > Orpheus > > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > You grabbed him totally by the ballz. Two thumbs up :) If you want to mute players, you 'll have togive them a rubber ball and those thingies for in your ears. but than it wouldnt be vampire game but an S&M party. I say talk! Talk a lot! talk too much! And try to force yourself into a collusion. and I did.... several times. I reported myself cheating, but I had an alibi. Hangovers are normal here. my conclusion: When in doubt bother the judge. Oortje Dutch Vampire tournament deck lists: http://www.oortje.bravehost.com/vampire.htm

> > Orpheus. Buddy. C'mon, now! :) > > Just be honest with yourself and say that you're against players talking > > during the game. > > > > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > > > > You grabbed him totally by the ballz. Two thumbs up :) Hey, man, I don't know Kevin enough to let him grab me by the balls, or to let him put his thumbs up any part of my body... Seriously, you should read people's answers before jumping to such totally ou-of-the-picture conclusions. > If you want to mute players, you 'll have togive them a rubber ball > and those thingies for in your ears. So ? I'm supposed to want to mute anyone ? Well, you, maybe, to spare me the remarks like the ones you made here. But not during a game. > but than it wouldnt be vampire > game but an S&M party. I beg to differ. I love to talk in S&M parties, with or without rubber balls (erm, what kind of balls are you talking about this time ?). > I say talk! Talk a lot! talk too much! And try to force yourself into > a collusion. and I did.... several times. I reported myself cheating, If you mean what I think you mean, you shouldn't be too proud of it. > but I had an alibi. Hangovers are normal here. We sometimes drink during games too. We never shut up during games. But I wouldn't allow a drunk player to have an erratic behaviour due to drinking during a tournament if it disrupts the normal course of the game for the other players (not even in a tournament where drinking is part of the rules : one should never become obnoxious or break the normal rules, which include : no cheating). > my conclusion: When in doubt bother the judge. It is a good conclusion, although the rest of the redaction is totally out-of-subject. I give you a D-, but all hope is not lost... ;-) Orpheus, if you talk more than me you die (and kill everyone from boredom...).

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<ke0o00lefkltusukg...@4ax.com>... > I've looked through the latest rules in Black Hand and they don't seem > to say anything about this. There is no provision for deal-making in > the sequence of play, the glossary, the index, or the examples of > play. So far as one can tell from that rulebook, this is not a game > of deal making and breaking. That's no change - the rules have never > permitted such things. I've had a look through the rulebook, and there is NO provision for players being allowed to come on this newsgroup and share strategy ideas. It gives the players that do an unfair advantage. They're exploiting the game. In short, Mr. Davidson, you are a damned cheater! Stop reading this newsgroup right now, and never read it again! [crosses fingers]

On 19 Jan 2004 14:45:15 -0800, Emmit Svenson wrote: >I've had a look through the rulebook, and there is NO provision for >players being allowed to come on this newsgroup and share strategy >ideas. There used to be. In the Final Nights rulebook, for example, this newsgroup was cited as a place to go for more information. But you're right now. In the corresponding place in the Black Hand rulebook, there's a huge symbol filling most of the page instead (the set symbol?). I wonder why White Wolf no longer advertise this newsgroup. Maybe they indeed don't want new players to read this subversive stuff and prefer to direct them to their own in-house web site and forums. Andrew

In article <ke0o00lefkltusukg...@4ax.com>, a...@csi.com says... > I've looked through the latest rules in Black Hand and they don't seem > to say anything about this. There is no provision for deal-making in > the sequence of play, the glossary, the index, or the examples of > play. Out of morbid curiosity, if the rulebook ever did contain a simple blurb stating, "Deals: Any deal can be made by any player at any time. Deals are not enforced by the rules" or something to that effect, would you argue further on the subject? -- -Snapcase

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:45:25 GMT, Snapcase wrote: >Out of morbid curiosity, if the rulebook ever did contain a simple blurb >stating, "Deals: Any deal can be made by any player at any time. Deals >are not enforced by the rules" or something to that effect, would you >argue further on the subject? This is more than a matter of legal niceties. Other multiplayer CCGs of my experience do not have the same deal-making culture that you find in VEKN circles. And that's odd because they are usually designed as more of a free-for-all in which you might expect such behaviour. VTES was specifically designed to stop the game being dominated by such activity and that's an appealing feature of the game for me. But it appears that Garfield didn't go far enough. I would prefer to see something added to the rules which said that deal-making was _not_ allowed. Would you then shut up about it and just play your cards? Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > I wonder why White Wolf no longer advertise this newsgroup. > Maybe they indeed don't want new players to read this subversive stuff > and prefer to direct them to their own in-house web site and forums. You're still batting 1000, eh? "Check out White Wolf online at http://www.white-wolf.com; alt.games.whitewolf; rec.games.frp.storyteller; and rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad" Black Hand rulebook. Page 2. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <m6pp00puk5b7c7df1...@4ax.com>, a...@csi.com says... > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:45:25 GMT, Snapcase wrote: > > >Out of morbid curiosity, if the rulebook ever did contain a simple blurb > >stating, "Deals: Any deal can be made by any player at any time. Deals > >are not enforced by the rules" or something to that effect, would you > >argue further on the subject? <snip> Just looking for a "yes" or "no". -- -Snapcase

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:05:13 -0500, LSJ wrote: >You're still batting 1000, eh? You bet. Emmit was trying to catch me out with a silly jibe and you've come to my assistance :) The rulebook does still cite the newsgroup while it still makes no mention of deals. Thank you. >"Check out White Wolf online at http://www.white-wolf.com; >alt.games.whitewolf; rec.games.frp.storyteller; and >rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad" > >Black Hand rulebook. Page 2. I skimmed that page but didn't see those links buried at the bottom in teeny-weeny print. What is that - 3 point? The WW graphics guy must have his nose pressed against his monitor as he's always making the print too small. Andrew

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:47:57 GMT, Snapcase wrote: >Just looking for a "yes" or "no". You need the Monocle of Clarity for that. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > The rulebook does still cite the > newsgroup while it still makes no mention of deals. Thank you. As we've been over before, it makes no mention of things like breathing or talking, yes. Deals (making, breaking) are not restricted. Breathing (in, out) is not restricted. The rules and card texts tell you what you can do with your cards (how the decks are constructed, how and when they can be played and what effect they have when played) and counters (where they start and how they move and what effects they have) and the edge (where it starts and how it moves and what effects it has) etc. (game state stuff). Deals, breathing, and other things that do not affect the game state are not described in the rules, since the purpose of the game rules is to describe the game state and the things that affect game state. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Would you then shut up about it and just play your > cards? > > Andrew Despite what some people presupposed, I think the game would lose much of its interest if we had to do that. What is sometimes a pain somewhere is people making stupid deals just for the sake of making deals. But the process in itself is fine and part of what makes this game so rich and colourful. Orpheus

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:06:34, LSJ wrote: >Deals, breathing, and other things that do not affect the game state are >not described in the rules, since the purpose of the game rules is to >describe the game state and the things that affect game state. So, we agree that deals are not a formal part of the game. They are like breathing - an extraneous factor. The difference is that breathing is an involuntary action which the players must perform to stay alive but which does not usually disrupt the game. This is not true of deal-making. Players are trying to make this part of the game when it is not. It's as inappropriate as wrestling, sleight of hand or other trickery. These may assist the player in some manner but, as these actions are not part of the game, they should not be allowed to interfere with it. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:06:34, LSJ wrote: >>Deals, breathing, and other things that do not affect the game state are >>not described in the rules, since the purpose of the game rules is to >>describe the game state and the things that affect game state. > > So, we agree that deals are not a formal part of the game. They are > like breathing - an extraneous factor. The difference is that > breathing is an involuntary action which the players must perform to > stay alive but which does not usually disrupt the game. This is not > true of deal-making. Yes, it is, as far as that goes. Deal making has no impact on the game. That is, it doesn't affect the game state at all. The game state before and after deals is still altered only in ways allowed by the rules and card text. > Players are trying to make this part of the game > when it is not. It's as inappropriate as wrestling, sleight of hand > or other trickery. These may assist the player in some manner but, as > these actions are not part of the game, they should not be allowed to > interfere with it. Wrestling? You'll have to give a little more detail so the probably obvious correction can be given. Using sleight of hand or other trickery to alter game state in ways not allowed by the rules and card text is illegal, so that isn't a valid comparison. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<40100AA6...@white-wolf.com>... > Yes, it is, as far as that goes. > Deal making has no impact on the game. > That is, it doesn't affect the game state at all. > The game state before and after deals is still altered only in ways > allowed by the rules and card text. > Really? So if the game gets down to 2 players, each having 2 VP's, and one of them ousts himself (despite having the chance of getting the Game Win) because he promised to do so as part of a previous deal, the "play to win" rule is not altered at by a deal at this very moment?

> > So, we agree that deals are not a formal part of the game. They are > > like breathing - an extraneous factor. The difference is that > > breathing is an involuntary action which the players must perform to > > stay alive but which does not usually disrupt the game. This is not > > true of deal-making. > > Yes, it is, as far as that goes. > Deal making has no impact on the game. > That is, it doesn't affect the game state at all. > The game state before and after deals is still altered only in ways > allowed by the rules and card text. That is only partly true. The general tournament rules (and specifically those regarding sportsmanship) state clearly that one needs to intend to Win / maximize VPs. In this sense it is a rule. A legally made deal (that is, one that maximizes my VPs _from the point it is made at_) will impact the legal status, because it will allow me to (for example) root the "maximize VPs" clause back to the point of the deal. This is essential to honor losing (and sometimes even winning) deals. Otherwise the rules would force the player to break his word, once through a losing deal he achieved the (otherwise unattainable) 2 VPs and it would be time for him to lay down to the winning player. Best Regards, Daneel

Angus, the Unruled wrote: > So if the game gets down to 2 players, each having 2 VP's, and one of > them ousts himself (despite having the chance of getting the Game Win) > because he promised to do so as part of a previous deal, the "play to > win" rule is not altered at by a deal at this very moment? Different topic. But yes, the V:EKN tournament environment recognizes legally-made deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > The general tournament rules (and specifically those regarding > sportsmanship) state clearly that one needs to intend to Win / > maximize VPs. In this sense it is a rule. Yes. Different topic. The V:EKN tournament environment recognizes legally-made deals. -- [ quoted text not captured ]