[report] Chosen Are Called: Chicago

Hey all, I wasn't sure if Eric Simon would post a report on this event, as it was his baby, and I just volunteered to judge so he wouldn't have to coordinate and judge both a Regional Qualifier and a local event. Seventeen Methuselahs turned up at the Fight Shop in Chicago to duke it out for the Now Legendary Meaty Sandwich Challenge. Mike Ooi has made this Sandwich available to any out-of-state player who can conquer the local talent, but thus far none have been able to take it from Illinois' borders. Wes Weston stayed through the weekend to earn the "longest distance traveled" award, and suffered much stealth-bleedery and crap deals (Hi Halcyan!). Indiana's Lafayette group turned out in force, such that I had to re-seat players in one round to avoid an all- Indiana table. My apologies to Tim, who had to sit at the mostly-Indiana table when it was not conducive to his deck's style. Two rounds gave us five finalists, though things were tight enough to almost require a coin flip to get the fifth and sixth place finalists. Chicago favorite Boris Zaretsky went into the final in first place, followed by a tie for second between Cameron Domer and Ahmed I-Am-Not-Going-To-Attempt-To-Spell [Habbiyyeh]. Cameron won a coin toss to nose ahead of Ahmed. Megan Bailey from Lafayette and Rick Irvine from... Lafayette?... filled out the last spots. (Eric, feel free to correct this as necessary.) Seating in the final looked like this: Boris, with first transfer and an Animalism weenie deck, bleeding into- Cameron, with a power stealth bleed OBT/DOM deck, bleeding into- Rick, with a Malkavian Group 1-2 deck, bleeding into- Megan, with a Black Hand AUS/OBF deck, bleeding into- Ahmed, with a Tremere/!Tremere intercept and Burst of Sunlight deck, bleeding Boris. Boris showed the table what an opening turn was, with a Powerbase: Montreal and Lisa Noble. Rick turned over an Ohanna on his first turn, and Megan a Piotr Andreikov. Ahmed showed Selena for his first vampire, and Cameron showed... Aurora Van Brande, Paladin? It looked like Cameron had switched decks between rounds, since he was more likely to show Gratiano, Lucita, or some other scary bleed monster. Boris brought out Christianus Lionel, Nigel the Shunned, geared up with Raven Spies and recruited Gregory Winter. Megan pulled out Marijava Thuggees, which cemented her for "Most Interesting Deck in the final" in my ballot. Rick started his offense with minor stealth bleeds for 1, and showed Roland Bishop and Normal. Cameron's second vampire was Lucita (adv.), which was more in line with his history. Rick used skill cards to make his Malk midgets more menacing - he started to throw Govern bleeds at Megan with Ohanna, and bleeds for 1 with Normal and Roland. He also brought out Mariel, Lady Thunder. Boris's building spree continued unabated, with Sandra White and Bobby Lemon appearing, and all his minions getting more and more gear. The first noteworthy combats started, with Ahmed throwing agg damage at Boris's ANI minions, and the ANI minions hitting back for Carrion Crows and Aid from Bats for 3 damage. Both were usually able to come back from these combats, though Ahmed's minions were depleted of blood much more quickly. Megan pulled Teresita and Ahmed pulled Bryan Van Duesen, which brought Megan slightly low on pool -- Ahmed's pool was mostly healthy because Megan was dealing with Rick's increasingly dangerous offense. Cameron's bleeds are hitting him reliably at this point, but Cameron is keeping his bleeds at a survivable level here, 1-3. All that changes when Cameron smells weakness and lunges at Rick -- Aurora hits with a Govern bleed for 3, stealthed to it's destination, and Lucita mixes up a Govern bleed with a Foreshadowing Destruction for 6. Rick's first ousted at 0:37. Megan promptly responds with Thuggee (D) actions to deal 1 damage to Aurora, twice, which puts the Paladin in the dirt. Ahmed tries to put some hurt on Boris, since Megan looks well-occupied with Cameron, but ends up with Bryan and Muaziz put in torpor from fighting Boris's ANI horde. Bryan gets himself out with a Recure of the Homeland (so good), and Muaziz gets rescued by Lucita on Cameron's next turn. Cameron's looking for a little cooperation at this point to avoid being the scariest thing on the table. Boris has already sent Gregory Winter to clean up after Aurora (Gregory - so good), so Cameron has to bring up Julia Prima to back up the Girl from Aragon. Megan deals with some of her pool issues with twin Reunion Kamuts by Teresita and Piotr, and puts more pressure on Ahmed by using her Thuggee to ping Muaziz, which puts her in the dirt as well. Boris looks like he's running the show now, by keeping minor bleed pressure on Cameron and keeping Ahmed at arm's length, blocking- and combat-wise. Cameron's first attempt at Megan gets bounced in to Ahmed for 3 pool loss, which reins him in for a turn. Megan smells a lack of block and Deflections, and bleeds for a total of 5 on her turn. Ahmed plays a Blood Doll on his remaining conscious minion and gulps. Cameron, aware that his presence in this game could be quickly obviated, thinks real real hard and goes for Megan's throat. Lucita throws a bleed for 1, plays Seduction, Shadow Play, Command of the Beast and Conditioning to get it in -- and Julia throws a Tenebrous Form, Shadow Play, Conditioning bleed for the kill. Megan ousted at 1:01. Ahmed blinks a few times and says, "done." Boris keeps doing what he's doing - hunting for pool gain, rescuing minions in torpor, stealing blood with Gregory Winter, and tossing little bleeds at his prey. However, he also rescues Ahmed's minions to keep him in the game against Cameron's bleed machine. Cameron's bleeds are all successfully blocked by Selena and Bryan, though they keep going back to torpor. Cameron adds Banjoko to his line-up for added bleeding power. Ahmed, on his turn, is offered a deal for a 2-2-1 split: Boris gets 2, Cameron gets no more than the 2 he's already taken, and Ahmed gets 1. This looks pretty frickin' sweet for him, and he accepts. Boris then rescues all of Ahmed's folks. Cameron's next turn is blocked bleeds and Deflected bleeds, and his shiny new Banjoko ends up eating gravedirt. Ahmed hunts with his empty vampires, Boris's turn is a brief whirlwind of Army of Rats, Gregory Winter stealing blood, and bleeds for 1, adding up to Cameron getting ousted at 1:37. Mutual withdrawal sets up the end results of: Boris, 2 VP Cameron, 2 VP Ahmed, 1 VP Megan, 0 VP Rick, 0 VP No real rules questions came up, so my job was easy. Thanks to Eric Simon for doing all the real work, and for having FreeCell on his laptop. : ) Thanks to everyone who came, and I hope we'll see you in Milwaukee for the May Day tournament! --heslin, self-hypemeister

"Matthew Heslin" <hes...@sprynet.com> wrote > > Wes Weston stayed through the weekend to > earn the "longest distance traveled" award, and suffered > much stealth-bleedery and crap deals (Hi Halcyan!). I believe the Tatus probably deserve that award, coming from Atlanta. But I will accept the award for "most sleep-deprived Canadian". Round 1 --> Group 1/2 Malkavian OBF/DOM stealth bleed Round 2 --> Group 2/3 Malkavian OBF/DEM stealth bleed + ass end of table split deal I managed to pull a VP in the second game after the deal was made, which was better than I expected. Thanks for the report! Cheers, WES

>Wes Weston stayed through the weekend to >earn the "longest distance traveled" award, and suffered >much stealth-bleedery and crap deals (Hi Halcyan!). ::sigh:: Yet another case of mistaken identity? Halcyan 2

"Matthew Heslin" <hes...@sprynet.com> wrote in message news:<r2Ihc.4500$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > I wasn't sure if Eric Simon would post a report on > this event, as it was his baby, and I just volunteered to > judge so he wouldn't have to coordinate and judge > both a Regional Qualifier and a local event. Thanks for judging, and thanks for the well-written report.

Matthew Heslin wrote: > Hey all, > > Chicago favorite > Boris Zaretsky went into the final in first place, followed > by a tie for second between Cameron Domer and > Ahmed I-Am-Not-Going-To-Attempt-To-Spell [Habbiyyeh]. > Cameron won a coin toss to nose ahead of Ahmed. > Megan Bailey from Lafayette and Rick Irvine from... > Lafayette?... filled out the last spots. (Eric, feel free > to correct this as necessary.) > So Ahmed was 3rd seed, Cam 2nd, and Boris 1. [snip details leading up to this] > Ahmed, on his turn, is offered a deal for a 2-2-1 > split: Boris gets 2, Cameron gets no more than the > 2 he's already taken, and Ahmed gets 1. This looks > pretty frickin' sweet for him, and he accepts. Snip Boris cleaning Cam's clock. > > Boris, 2 VP > Cameron, 2 VP > Ahmed, 1 VP So Ahmed ended up in 3rd place anyway. But if he didn't accept the deal, he would have ended up with 0vp, and Boris and Cameron would have been 2nd and 1st, respectively. And Ahmed would have been 3rd, since he was 3rd seed going in, and the two lower seeds were already ousted below him. So I don't understand why it was a sweet deal for Ahmed to roll over so Boris could win the table, and not Cameron? Ahmed had no chance to win (it seems), so he can play kingmaker as he likes, but I am not sure that it is a "sweet deal" for Ahmed, as much as it's Boris sweet talking him into it better than Cameron. And either way, the manly thing for Ahmed to do was stand up to Cameron's bleeds anyway, which is what he did, so no harm no foul. I just got hung up on why it was sweet for Ahmed. best - chris -- chris shorb prince of torrance, where the 5th tradition rules.

Chris Shorb wrote: > Matthew Heslin wrote: <snip> > > Boris, 2 VP > > Cameron, 2 VP > > Ahmed, 1 VP > > So Ahmed ended up in 3rd place anyway. But if he didn't accept the > deal, he would have ended up with 0vp, and Boris and Cameron would have > been 2nd and 1st, respectively. And Ahmed would have been 3rd, since he > was 3rd seed going in, and the two lower seeds were already ousted below > him. So I don't understand why it was a sweet deal for Ahmed to roll > over so Boris could win the table, and not Cameron? 1 vp > 0 vp play to win, otherwise maximize vps -Bram Vink

>> So Ahmed ended up in 3rd place anyway. But if he didn't accept the >> deal, he would have ended up with 0vp, and Boris and Cameron would have >> been 2nd and 1st, respectively. And Ahmed would have been 3rd, since he >> was 3rd seed going in, and the two lower seeds were already ousted below >> him. So I don't understand why it was a sweet deal for Ahmed to roll >> over so Boris could win the table, and not Cameron? > >1 vp > 0 vp > >play to win, otherwise maximize vps 1 VP might not necessarily be better than 0 VP's, depending on your seeding. If you have the highest seed, it's better for you to get 0 VP's and let someone sweep (giving you 2nd place) than to be on the 1 VP end of a 2-2-1 split (leaving you at only 3rd place). Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > 1 VP might not necessarily be better than 0 VP's, depending on your seeding. If > you have the highest seed, it's better for you to get 0 VP's and let someone > sweep (giving you 2nd place) than to be on the 1 VP end of a 2-2-1 split > (leaving you at only 3rd place). A pathological example, to be sure, but to clear it away: 1 VP is necessarily better than 0 VP's under the "play to win" rule. A four-way tie for 2nd at 0VP is lower on the win chart than a third place 1VP finish. Play to win: get the win if you can. If you can't, get as many VPs as you can (which, when observed, leads to the conclusion in the previous paragraph). -- 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/

> 1 VP is necessarily better than 0 VP's under the "play to win" rule. > > A four-way tie for 2nd at 0VP is lower on the win chart than a third > place 1VP finish. If it's the final and you're top seed, is a four-way tie for 2nd (which is really just 2nd place outright) still "lower on the win chart" than a third place 1VP finish? Or, phrased differently, which approach holds truest to the "good sportmanship" rule? Thanks! Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] That was the question just answered. A four-way tie for 2nd (which is really 3.5th, not second - 2,3,4,5 all averaged together) is lower than 3rd, BTW. [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04042...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] "If you cannot win, max VPs." Notice that nowhere is anything said about placement. Overall placement is technically an outside consideration. 1VP is better than 0, so "placing third" is actually better than "placing second" in the hypothetical case presented. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

> That was the question just answered. > A four-way tie for 2nd (which is really 3.5th, not second - 2,3,4,5 > all averaged together) is lower than 3rd, BTW. I thought you answered the question for general qualifying rounds, not for the final. I understand and completely agree with you for non-final games. In a final, if I get 0 VPs along with 3 other people, but I'm winning tiebreaks, then I've come in second and I haven't tied at all. Therefore, it seems to me that in a final game, the most sportsmanlike thing to do would be to play for second place (assuming I can't get first) instead of getting more VPs but placing worse. Should players disregard tiebreaks for the sportmanship guideline during the final round? If so, why? Ignoring tiebreaks in the final goes against my definition of sportmanship (i.e. try to do as well as possible.) Thank you in advance for the clarification! Ira

Ira wrote: >>That was the question just answered. >>A four-way tie for 2nd (which is really 3.5th, not second - 2,3,4,5 >>all averaged together) is lower than 3rd, BTW. > > > I thought you answered the question for general qualifying rounds, > not for the final. I understand and completely agree with you for > non-final games. > > In a final, if I get 0 VPs along with 3 other people, but I'm winning > tiebreaks, then I've come in second and I haven't tied at all. The question you asked a second ago was about ties. If you don't tie (as in the finals), then the question about ties it moot. > Therefore, it seems to me that in a final game, the most sportsmanlike > thing to do would be to play for second place (assuming I can't get > first) instead of getting more VPs but placing worse. Yes. Second (alone) is better than 3rd (alone). > Should players disregard tiebreaks for the sportmanship guideline > during the final round? If so, why? Ignoring tiebreaks in the final > goes against my definition of sportmanship (i.e. try to do as well as > possible.) > > Thank you in advance for the clarification! > > Ira [ quoted text not captured ]

> Notice that nowhere is anything said about placement. Overall > placement is technically an outside consideration. 1VP is better than > 0, so "placing third" is actually better than "placing second" in the > hypothetical case presented. Placement is the highest priority, actually. It just turns out that in a preliminary round, tied for second with 0 VPs (really 3.5th place) is worse than third with 1 VP. In a final round where you're winning tiebreaks, it is better to come in sole 2nd place with 0 VPs, as LSJ clarified above. LSJ, one more question: is it sportsmanlike to prevent someone else from getting the game win, at the expense of higher placement? As an example: 4 player game, A -> B -> C -> D. D was ousted. Then C was ousted. B's library is exhausted, there's 1 minute left in the round, A cannot possibly oust B, nor can B possibly oust A. Would it be unsportsmanlike for A to prevent B from withdrawing? A benefits from the withdraw, because he would go from 3rd place to tied for 2nd place, but B would get the Game Win. By my current definition of "sportsmanlike conduct", I would have no problem with A preventing B from getting the Game Win, but maybe that's an incorrect definition. Thank you, as always! Ira

ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04042...@posting.google.com>... > > Notice that nowhere is anything said about placement. Overall > > placement is technically an outside consideration. 1VP is better than > > 0, so "placing third" is actually better than "placing second" in the > > hypothetical case presented. > > Placement is the highest priority, actually. It just turns out that > in a preliminary round, tied for second with 0 VPs (really 3.5th > place) is worse than third with 1 VP. In a final round where you're > winning tiebreaks, it is better to come in sole 2nd place with 0 VPs, > as LSJ clarified above. Where are you getting that? LSJ said: "Play to win: get the win if you can. If you can't, get as many VPs as you can (which, when observed, leads to the conclusion in the previous paragraph)." That's what "play to win" has ALWAYS meant, every time LSJ has ever clarified it. Placement has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you can't win, you maximize VPs, not placement. Therefore 1 VP is always better than 0 VPs regardless of what else happens. > LSJ, one more question: is it sportsmanlike to prevent someone else > from getting the game win, at the expense of higher placement? As an > example: Again, since placement is not part of the "play to win" paradigm, it is an outside consideration, and it is therefore unsportsmanlike to choose it over maximizing VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <6f81fa2c.04042...@posting.google.com>, vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) mumbled something about: >ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote in message news:<500e74e.04042...@posting.google.com>... >> >> Placement is the highest priority, actually. It just turns out that >> in a preliminary round, tied for second with 0 VPs (really 3.5th >> place) is worse than third with 1 VP. In a final round where you're >> winning tiebreaks, it is better to come in sole 2nd place with 0 VPs, >> as LSJ clarified above. > >Again, since placement is not part of the "play to win" paradigm, it >is an outside consideration, and it is therefore unsportsmanlike to >choose it over maximizing VPs. Well, you all have a problem, then. This is unenforceable and WILL be broken every time the situation comes up. It is also impossible to detect. In the recent tournament in Charlotte, I gained 2 quick VPs and then, after several turns of flailing around trying to make further progress, deliberately allowed myself to be bled out from 4 pool with a Wake and Deflection in hand. It was clear at the time that I would not be able to oust my prey, and that he would surely be able to oust my predator and then myself. I, therefore, with 2VP in hand and a possible Game Win, deliberately set up a situation where the best possible result would be 2-2-1 with no Game Win, instead of 2-3 and a Game Win going to someone else. (There was a third possibility, that of the table timing out and me getting the GW with 2-1.5-0.5, but that was VERY unlikely). Now, interestingly enough, this example doesn't violate the "play to win" paradigm, because I was attempting to lock in a tie for 1st. But it DOES demonstrate that there is no possible way to detect or enforce that paradigm against someone who chooses to let themselves lose for external reasons, instead of attempting to defend to the bitter end. I don't have to show my hand to anyone; all I have to say is "no block, how much?" and let them play the Conditioning. Losing to ensure someone else's sweep will work exactly the same way. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

> Again, since placement is not part of the "play to win" paradigm, it > is an outside consideration, and it is therefore unsportsmanlike to > choose it over maximizing VPs. not in the finals. In the finals, you're playing for your place in the tournement directly, thus if you are about to be ousted, it is in your best interest to help the ousting deck sweep. See LSJ's last response in this thread for more info. It basically says that, with a set tiebreaker, if you can't get first, and get second if the person who's getting first sweeps, but third if you make this other deal that nets you a VP, playing to "win" is playing for second. How you get there is up to you. Similarly (IIRC and IANLSJ) I think that prize support from the finals *IS* a valid consideration when making deals in the finals, although I'm not really clear on that. Also, once you've got first place in the finals you can do whatever you want to do with the rest of the vps (ie it's: you 2vp (to seed) 1vp to your first prey (ousted) you can transfer yourself out, getting first place, and go catch your plane.) Cameron PoMadison

Ira wrote: > LSJ, one more question: is it sportsmanlike to prevent someone else > from getting the game win, at the expense of higher placement? First priority: get the GW. Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. Within that, sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey Eric, > Where are you getting that? LSJ's previous message, in this very thread. Here is the relevant quote: > > Therefore, it seems to me that in a final game, the most sportsmanlike > > thing to do would be to play for second place (assuming I can't get > > first) instead of getting more VPs but placing worse. > > Yes. Second (alone) is better than 3rd (alone). Of course, there are several key assumptions there, including: - It is a final game - You are winning tie-breaks - You have no reasonable chance at 1st place > That's what "play to win" has ALWAYS meant, every time LSJ has ever > clarified it. Remember that the actual rule is "behave in a respectful and sportsmanlike manner at all times." (Tournament Rule 2.3.) That includes more than just "play to win." > Placement has absolutely nothing to do with it. That's actually incorrect. Placement is everything. It just happens that in a preliminary round, more VPs always means higher placement (or at least no worse placement) since there are no tie-breakers. In a final round, where there are tie-breakers, sometimes it's possible to get less VPs and a higher placement, which is good sportsmanship. > > LSJ, one more question: is it sportsmanlike to prevent someone else > > from getting the game win, at the expense of higher placement? As an > > example: > > Again, since placement is not part of the "play to win" paradigm, it > is an outside consideration, and it is therefore unsportsmanlike to > choose it over maximizing VPs. While you may be right, you are starting from "play to win" and deducing from there. That is incorrect. For tournament play, you should start from "behave in a sportsmanlike manner" and deduce from there. Play to win is certainly part of being a good sport, though. At his convenience, I'd like an official LSJ answer regarding the situation I posed previously in this thread. The general situation is: - Prelim round - No reasonable chance at a game win - I have the opportunity to gain some VPs (and improve my placement) and allow someone else to gain the GW, OR decline to gain some VPs and prevent someone from getting the GW. Regarding Derek's comment that the rule is unenforceable, I generally agree. Nonetheless, there are many players (myself included) who voluntarily choose to play by the correct rules, and therefore I'm asking these questions so that I can be enlightened. While I certainly could bend the rules without getting caught, it's my intention to understand the rules and then play by them. Also, if a Judge clearly and politely communicates the rules to a player, many players will choose to act in accordance with those rules even if the player could break the rules without getting caught. Ira

Hey LSJ, Thanks for all the answers! > First priority: get the GW. > Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. Just to clarify, do you mean maximize VPs, or maximize placement? These can sometimes be different things if it's a final round and you're winning tie-breakers. If possible, could you answer the questions below with a yes or a no: Preliminary Round, 4 player game, A -> B -> C -> D. D was ousted. Then C was ousted. B's library is exhausted, there's 1 minute left in the round, A cannot possibly oust B, nor can B possibly oust A. Would it be unsportsmanlike for A to prevent B from withdrawing in this case? If so, should a Judge obligate A to allow B to withdraw? Thanks again, Ira

> > First priority: get the GW. > > Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. > > Just to clarify, do you mean maximize VPs, or maximize placement? I really don't think that "maximize VPs" can be misinterpreted to mean "maximize placement" and not "maximize VPs." > Preliminary Round, 4 player game, A -> B -> C -> D. D was ousted. > Then C was ousted. B's library is exhausted, there's 1 minute left in > the round, A cannot possibly oust B, nor can B possibly oust A. > > Would it be unsportsmanlike for A to prevent B from withdrawing in > this case? If so, should a Judge obligate A to allow B to withdraw? > No judge will ever tell you that trying to oust your prey is unsportsmanlike.

Ira wrote: >>First priority: get the GW. >>Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. > > Just to clarify, do you mean maximize VPs, or maximize placement? Your question is: Does "maximize VPs" mean "maximize VPs" or something other than "maximize VPs"? Do I have that right? The answer is: the former. :-) > These can sometimes be different things if it's a final round and > you're winning tie-breakers. As has already been covered, finalists can be assumed to be playing to win, so the question of priority doesn't arise. > If possible, could you answer the questions below with a yes or a no: > > Preliminary Round, 4 player game, A -> B -> C -> D. D was ousted. > Then C was ousted. B's library is exhausted, there's 1 minute left in > the round, A cannot possibly oust B, nor can B possibly oust A. > > Would it be unsportsmanlike for A to prevent B from withdrawing in > this case? If so, should a Judge obligate A to allow B to withdraw? Moot, since there would never be a case where this would provide any meaningful benefit to A. But sure. And then, as with any violation of any rule, the judge can set it aright. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey LSJ, I apologize for my obtuseness; I'm still confused. If someone else can answer these questions instead of LSJ, I welcome the insight. #1 > First priority: get the GW. > Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. And... #2 > > Therefore, it seems to me that in a final game, the most sportsmanlike > > thing to do would be to play for second place (assuming I can't get > > first) instead of getting more VPs but placing worse. > > Yes. Second (alone) is better than 3rd (alone). #1 and #2 seem contradictory to me. In the second statement, you make it clear that in the final (if you're winning tiebreaks) it's better to get 0 VPs and come in 2nd (alone) than 1 VP and come in 3rd (alone). > As has already been covered, finalists can be assumed to be playing > to win, so the question of priority doesn't arise. Regardless of what we *assume* the finalists are doing, the tournament rules actually *obligate* them to "behave in a sportsmanlike manner at all times." For the final, does that obligation mean: a) They must play to place first, and if they can't, they can do whatever they want. b) They must play to place first, and if not, maximize VPs. (contradicted by #2 above) c) They must play to place first, and if not, maximize placement (contradicted by #1 above) d) They can play however they want (this doesn't seem sportsmanlike to me.) e) Something else that I didn't list. > Moot, since there would never be a case where this would provide > any meaningful benefit to A. A may gain significant benefit and pleasure from preventing his prey from getting a Game Win. It certainly isn't a moot question for me; a similar situation arose in my most recent game. "If I can't win, no one can win." > But sure. And then, as with any > violation of any rule, the judge can set it aright. OK. Thanks for your seemingly limitless patience! I personally really appreciate all the time you spend answering my silly/stupid questions about this awesome game. Thank you! Ira

> > Preliminary Round, 4 player game, A -> B -> C -> D. D was ousted. > > Then C was ousted. B's library is exhausted, there's 1 minute left in > > the round, A cannot possibly oust B, nor can B possibly oust A. > > > > Would it be unsportsmanlike for A to prevent B from withdrawing in > > this case? If so, should a Judge obligate A to allow B to withdraw? > > No judge will ever tell you that trying to oust your prey is > unsportsmanlike. As LSJ stated, in the situation provided, if A refuses to allow B to withdraw, that is a violation of the good sportsmanship rules, and all good Judges would "set it aright." While I agree with Derek's assessment that this rule is practically impossible to enforce, I still like knowing the actual rules so that I can voluntarily choose to follow them (as most players will.) Ira Prince of Fairdealing

Ira wrote: > Hey LSJ, > > I apologize for my obtuseness; I'm still confused. If someone else > can answer these questions instead of LSJ, I welcome the insight. > > #1 > >>First priority: get the GW. >>Second priority: if you cannot, then maximize your VPs. > > And... > > #2 > >>>Therefore, it seems to me that in a final game, the most sportsmanlike >>>thing to do would be to play for second place (assuming I can't get >>>first) instead of getting more VPs but placing worse. >> >>Yes. Second (alone) is better than 3rd (alone). > > > #1 and #2 seem contradictory to me. In the second statement, you > make it clear that in the final (if you're winning tiebreaks) it's > better to get 0 VPs and come in 2nd (alone) than 1 VP and come in 3rd > (alone). > >>As has already been covered, finalists can be assumed to be playing >>to win, so the question of priority doesn't arise. > Right, because, as stated, finalists can be assumed to be playing to win (since there are no further games in that series with which to contend). #1 is for preliminary rounds. #2 cannot apply to preliminary rounds. Therefore the contradiction is avoided. > Regardless of what we *assume* the finalists are doing, the > tournament rules actually *obligate* them to "behave in a > sportsmanlike manner at all times." For the final, does that > obligation mean: And, as stated, they cannot run afoul of the play to win rule, since they are assumed to be playing to win (in the absence of other, independently-illegal activity). > a) They must play to place first, and if they can't, they can do > whatever they want. > b) They must play to place first, and if not, maximize VPs. > (contradicted by #2 above) > c) They must play to place first, and if not, maximize placement > (contradicted by #1 above) > d) They can play however they want (this doesn't seem sportsmanlike to > me.) > e) Something else that I didn't list. f) They play to win by default, since there are no further games to consider as out-of-game considerations. > Thank you! All part of the job. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey LSJ, > #1 is for preliminary rounds. #2 cannot apply to preliminary rounds. > Therefore the contradiction is avoided. Ah! I understand now. Thank you! > f) They play to win by default, since there are no further games > to consider as out-of-game considerations. I understand what we assume by default. I'm asking what the rules actually require of them. For instance, as a finalist, if I wanted to oust myself from the beginning of the game simply to prove this assumption wrong, I would be probihited from doing so by the good sportsmanship rules. Any reasonable judge would stop me from ousting myself. Finalists are actually *obligated* to play in a certain way (regardless of what we assume), and I'm asking you to tell me what that obligation is for the final game. Consider this case: In a final round, I'm in a pretty bad situation, but I still have a reasonable chance to win. If I try for the win, I'll either win or come in 5th place. In a non-final game, I would be prohibited from making a table split deal at this point because I still have a reasonable chance to win. In the final game, am I free to make a table split deal (3-2, with me getting the 2) even though I have a reasonable chance at the win? As a player, maybe I prefer a very good chance at 2nd place, instead of a small chance at first and a high chance of 5th. Furthermore, I realize that these rules are nearly impossible for a Judge to enforce. I want to understand the rules so that I can voluntarily follow them, and I'm sure many other players would too. Thanks again, Ira

Ira wrote: >>f) They play to win by default, since there are no further games >>to consider as out-of-game considerations. > > I understand what we assume by default. I'm asking what the rules > actually require of them. The "play to win" rule requires nothing of them, since they abide by that rule implicitly. The only violations of that rule stem from violations of other rules (threats, etc.), so needn't be handled independently. > For instance, as a finalist, if I wanted to oust myself from the > beginning of the game simply to prove this assumption wrong, I would > be probihited from doing so by the good sportsmanship rules. Any > reasonable judge would stop me from ousting myself. Pathological, but no. > Finalists are actually *obligated* to play in a certain way > (regardless of what we assume), and I'm asking you to tell me what > that obligation is for the final game. Consider this case: > > In a final round, I'm in a pretty bad situation, but I still have a > reasonable chance to win. If I try for the win, I'll either win or > come in 5th place. In a non-final game, I would be prohibited from > making a table split deal at this point because I still have a > reasonable chance to win. In the final game, am I free to make a > table split deal (3-2, with me getting the 2) even though I have a > reasonable chance at the win? As a player, maybe I prefer a very good > chance at 2nd place, instead of a small chance at first and a high > chance of 5th. Whatever you feel gives you the best bang for your buck in terms of winning - that's the nature of finals. > Furthermore, I realize that these rules are nearly impossible for a > Judge to enforce. I want to understand the rules so that I can > voluntarily follow them, and I'm sure many other players would too. > > Thanks again, > > Ira [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey LSJ, This is going to be my last post on this point for a while; your patience with me is super-human, and I really appreciate it! > The "play to win" rule requires nothing of them, since they abide > by that rule implicitly. I don't see why you take that view, though at least I finally understand what you're saying and why it's not contradictory. I can't understand why you'd allow a finalist to oust himself at the beginning of the game. That is not playing in a sportsmanlike manner, and surely it's not playing to win. As far as I understand, you're saying that a finalist is playing to win even if he is obviously not playing to win. Could you explain why a finalist is always playing to win, instead of being required to follow the normal definition of the sportsmanship rules? Perhaps the concern is that a judge will step in too easily in a final. I think most judges are very respectful of the final; a general requirement of play to win seems good to me, mostly to prevent early table split deals. Thanks again! Ira

Ira wrote: > I can't understand why you'd allow a finalist to oust himself at the > beginning of the game. That is not playing in a sportsmanlike manner, > and surely it's not playing to win. Because he wouldn't do it, that's why. It's a faulty premise. It needs no special regulating. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Ira wrote: > >> I can't understand why you'd allow a finalist to oust himself at the >> beginning of the game. That is not playing in a sportsmanlike manner, >> and surely it's not playing to win. > > > Because he wouldn't do it, that's why. > It's a faulty premise. It needs no special regulating. But then logic would dictate that a player would never oust himself at the beggining of the game in a preliminary round either, so you wouldn't need the PTW to apply to the preliminary rounds either (at least for that case). Yet, some people will do it. Maybe they're pissed at their gran-predator. Maybe they have to catch a train. Maybe they have a particular dislike for his predator's minions and don't want to play against them. Maybe they're just plain crazy. Any of those reasons could apply equally to the final game, so I see no reason to drop the rule for the finals. There may be fewer situations where the rule is necessary, but it's still necessary. Flux

Flux <the_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4092302d$0$25984$a729...@news.telepac.pt>... [ quoted text not captured ] But there are reasons why you would oust yourself at the beginning of the game in a preliminary round. For instance, you swept round 1 and 2, so you now have 2 TW and 10 VP. With the number of players in the tournament you are very confident about making the finals as is. In round three you could oust yourself at the beginning of the game in order to either help someone else into the finals or help keep someone out of the finals. If it is the final round there is no advantage to ousting yourself. You could oust yourself because of collusion or accepting a bribe, by LSJ has already pointed out that this is also illegal/unsportsmanlike play. Later, ~Rehlow