In-game considerations Q [LSJ]

Here's a situation that came up tonight; I just want to make sure that my play would not be considered "illegal" under the new rules. I playing a bleed deck which relies on +1 stealth actions getting through (think Mind Numbs and Marijava Ghouls), and my prey was a light intercept deck with plenty of permanent intercept and untaps. I was down to 7 pool. My predator was playing a Hostile Takeover/Parity Shift deck, and had just played a Hostile Takeover on one of my (two) vampires. He bids 3, and has 7 pool. If I allow him to have my vampire, he can call two Parity Shifts to kill me (5-player table), and this seemed likely given the cards he had already played. If I bid higher, I certainly would get bled out or voted out. My reason was to simply oust myself (by bidding 14), so that my predator only got my VP and 6 pool (which he was going to get anyway), and _not_ any more of my vampires (which he could theoretically have used to help him sweep the table). Now, my only real justification here is "I don't want my predator to sweep the table." Does that count as an out-of-game consideration? James -- | James Hamblin | Graduate Student, KTI Fellow | | ham...@math.wisc.edu | University of Wisconsin -- Madison |

"James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:3B244C08...@math.wisc.edu... > > Here's a situation that came up tonight; I just want to make sure that > my play would not be considered "illegal" under the new rules. [clip] > Now, my only real justification here is "I don't want my predator to > sweep the table." Does that count as an out-of-game consideration? I'm pretty sure I've seen LSJ post that a player in a lost position may choose the manner of thier ousting. You could have helped your predator to sweep, prevented him from sweeping, or done any other thing you please. Rather than read "no out of game considerations" (or, as I prefer to say it, "no out of game goals") as a seperate rule, read it as another way of saying "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and not toward any out of game goals". -Robert

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Rather than read "no out of game considerations" (or, as I prefer to say it, "no >out of game goals") as a seperate rule, read it as another way of saying "Play >toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and not toward any out >of game goals". *Thank* you. It should have been written this way to start with. Although it still shouldn't allow you to accept a 3-2 table split (where you get the 2 VPs). Better a one-in-a-million chance to win than a certain second place, according to this rule. Although I suppose you *could* accept the deal if you plan to break it later. Very tough call for the judge if this comes up. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b247c74....@news.algonet.se... > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >Rather than read "no out of game considerations" (or, as I prefer to say it, "no > >out of game goals") as a seperate rule, read it as another way of saying "Play > >toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and not toward any out > >of game goals". > > *Thank* you. It should have been written this way to start with. > > Although it still shouldn't allow you to accept a 3-2 table split > (where you get the 2 VPs). Shouldn't? If you mean that you wish it weren't so then OK. > Better a one-in-a-million chance to win > than a certain second place, according to this rule. This rule doesn't say that. > Although I suppose you *could* accept the deal if you plan to break it > later. Very tough call for the judge if this comes up. You can accept the deal at 2/3 without intending to break it as long as the deal was made in-game and the 2 VP receiving player made the deal to improve their in-game finish. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

[ quoted text not captured ] So, if a player on their second turn deals with their predator to win two vp, and then rolls over to let their predator gain 3, before any minions have really hit the table, I (as prey) could question their action, and accuse them of out of game consideration. This makes quite a difference, as you need to rely that your grandpredator is going to attack them in some way, whilst they are attacking you. If they can get away with this, then they have a benefit over you, which is completely unrealistic and unfair. I might understand them doing this once their predator had made some indication to the deck he was playing, but turn 2 is a bit unfair to other players. Andy setitesuk

"Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3B24E6F6...@sanger.ac.uk... > Robert Goudie wrote: [clip] > So, if a player on their second turn deals with their predator to win > two vp, and then rolls over to let their predator gain 3, before any minions > have really hit the table, I (as prey) could question their action, and > accuse them of out of game consideration. What out of game goal do you think the player receiving 2 VPs is working toward? Just curious. [clip] > I might understand them doing this once their predator had made some > indication to the deck he was playing, but turn 2 is a bit unfair to other players. Right. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the player accepting 2 VPs to give a reasonable explanation of why he thinks 2 VPs is the best he can do. Its difficult to say for sure with the many hypotheticals involved what the proper ruling would be. But "Yes", the judges should look at the timing of the deal along with any other facts they can determine. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b247c74....@news.algonet.se... > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >Rather than read "no out of game considerations" (or, as I prefer to say it, "no > >out of game goals") as a seperate rule, read it as another way of saying "Play > >toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and not toward any out > >of game goals". > > *Thank* you. It should have been written this way to start with. > > Although it still shouldn't allow you to accept a 3-2 table split > (where you get the 2 VPs). Why shouldn't the rule allow you to accept a 3-2 split, where you were most likely going to get less than 2 VPs? > Better a one-in-a-million chance to win > than a certain second place, according to this rule. That's just plain silly. > Although I suppose you *could* accept the deal if you plan to break it > later. Very tough call for the judge if this comes up. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> > > "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts." Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "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

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Better a one-in-a-million chance to win >> than a certain second place, according to this rule. > >This rule doesn't say that. "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and not toward any out of game goals" It says you must attempt to win. Foregoing a (however remote) chance of victory for a certain second place is *not* attempting to win. If you want it otherwise, re-write and include goals such as placing well in the round. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: >Why shouldn't the rule allow you to accept a 3-2 split, where you were >most likely going to get less than 2 VPs? Because it says "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game". Dealing for two VPs (and keeping the deal) *guarantees* that you won't win. >> Better a one-in-a-million chance to win >> than a certain second place, according to this rule. > >That's just plain silly. That's because you don't understand. If the rule says you *must* attempt to win, dealing for a second place (and keeping the deal) can't be allowed as long as there is the faintest shimmer of a possibility that you might win. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b2505a5....@news.algonet.se... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >> Better a one-in-a-million chance to win > >> than a certain second place, according to this rule. > > > >This rule doesn't say that. > > "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and > not toward any out of game goals" > > It says you must attempt to win. Yes it does. > Foregoing a (however remote) chance > of victory for a certain second place is *not* attempting to win. It is attempting, and then realizing the likely failure of the effort and then trying to do the best you can with what you've got to get as close to that goal as possible. > If you want it otherwise, re-write and include goals such as placing > well in the round. The rule and its interpretation *is* as I've stated it. While the number of posts on the subject have made it clear that the rule wasn't written clearly enough, the intention of the rule and LSJ's comments and clarifications on the subject should put to rest the subject of what the rule *actually means*. [ quoted text not captured ]

jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote in message news:<3b2504a7....@news.algonet.se>... [ quoted text not captured ] These views are shared by other players. Please Robert, or LSJ, address the specifics that the rule book states that to win you must have the most VP(at the single game you are playing) to be considered the winner. And how making a deal to allow someone else to win(3-2) could possibly have any other goal, but to improve your standings in one way or another?(since in the single game setting it doesn't not have an effect being second)

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote >> Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> Better a one-in-a-million chance to win >> >> than a certain second place, according to this rule. >> >This rule doesn't say that. >> "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the current game and >> not toward any out of game goals" >> It says you must attempt to win. >Yes it does. Therefore, not attempting to win, even though the chance seems very remote, would seem to be breaking the rule? >> Foregoing a (however remote) chance >> of victory for a certain second place is *not* attempting to win. >It is attempting, and then realizing the likely failure of the effort and then >trying to do the best you can with what you've got to get as close to that goal >as possible. So I *don't* have to attempt to win once it seems a bit unlikely that I do? Perhaps the rule should state that, then... >> If you want it otherwise, re-write and include goals such as placing >> well in the round. >The rule and its interpretation *is* as I've stated it. While the number of >posts on the subject have made it clear that the rule wasn't written clearly >enough, the intention of the rule and LSJ's comments and clarifications on the >subject should put to rest the subject of what the rule *actually means*. Very well. So we can expect a re-write of the rule (and you might include the interpretations) in the tournament rules for those who haven't followed the discussion, then? Personally, I think it's too convoluted and too open to subjective interpretations while at the same time *not* powerful enough to stop the abuses it aims at stopping. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <7ab27d37.01061...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >These views are shared by other players. Please Robert, or LSJ, >address the specifics that the rule book states that to win you must >have the most VP(at the single game you are playing) to be considered >the winner. It seems fairly obvious that with the proposals regarding changing tournament systems (wins vs VP etc.) that there may be some change - or it may, in fact, remain with the status quo. It is probably best to let the appropriate people (Robert, LSJ, WW etc.) to consider the possible changes and move forward at an appropriate speed. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b253c8d....@news.algonet.se... > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >The rule and its interpretation *is* as I've stated it. While the number of > >posts on the subject have made it clear that the rule wasn't written clearly > >enough, the intention of the rule and LSJ's comments and clarifications on the > >subject should put to rest the subject of what the rule *actually means*. > > Very well. So we can expect a re-write of the rule (and you might > include the interpretations) in the tournament rules for those who > haven't followed the discussion, then? I'm quite certain it will be made more clear. > Personally, I think it's too convoluted and too open to subjective > interpretations while at the same time *not* powerful enough to stop > the abuses it aims at stopping. The issues facing numerous tournaments were: 1) Ousting someone cross-table who you didn't want to face in the finals. 2) Ousting someone because of thier V:EKN rating. 3) Ousting someone to keep them from qualifying for an invitation only event. I agree that it will not stop the abuses listed above. Some players, intent on cheating, will create cover stories. It could take a while for the judge(s) to catch on to their antics. Again, this is like the collusion rules and deck-marking rules that we've always had. While far from perfectly detectable and enforcable it *will* positively affect the environment and future events will be closer to this ideal than the former events. This is true because: 1) Many players won't cheat because it is against the rules (even if they are smart enough to get away with it). Many players openly pursued the goals listed above because they thought it was OK to do so. Now that it is not OK, they will stop. 2) The rule will catch players who are blatant or open in thier attempts to pursue goals outside of the current game. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b2504a7....@news.algonet.se... > Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: > > >Why shouldn't the rule allow you to accept a 3-2 split, where you were > >most likely going to get less than 2 VPs? > > Because it says "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the > current game". Dealing for two VPs (and keeping the deal) *guarantees* > that you won't win. Actually, it doesn't. "Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the current game." [5.2] > >> Better a one-in-a-million chance to win > >> than a certain second place, according to this rule. > > > >That's just plain silly. > > That's because you don't understand. If the rule says you *must* > attempt to win, ...which it doesn't, so your point is moot. > dealing for a second place (and keeping the deal) > can't be allowed as long as there is the faintest shimmer of a > possibility that you might win. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> > > "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts." [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message > news:3B24E6F6...@sanger.ac.uk... > > Robert Goudie wrote: > [clip] > > So, if a player on their second turn deals with their predator to win > > two vp, and then rolls over to let their predator gain 3, before any minions > > have really hit the table, I (as prey) could question their action, and > > accuse them of out of game consideration. > > What out of game goal do you think the player receiving 2 VPs is working toward? > Just curious. > > [clip] > Well, I would assume the objective is to get at least 6vps, (2 each game) and therefore qualify for the final as often where I have played, this is enough to get you there. > > I might understand them doing this once their predator had made some > > indication to the deck he was playing, but turn 2 is a bit unfair to other > players. > > Right. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the player accepting 2 VPs > to give a reasonable explanation of why he thinks 2 VPs is the best he can do. > > Its difficult to say for sure with the many hypotheticals involved what the > proper ruling would be. But "Yes", the judges should look at the timing of the > deal along with any other facts they can determine. > > -Robert > > Robert Goudie > Chairman, V:EKN > rob...@vtesinla.org Thanks for that, I have been wondering about this since the first tournament I had someone do this to me (I was their prey) Andy

Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: >> Because it says "Play toward the in-game goal of trying to win the >> current game". Dealing for two VPs (and keeping the deal) *guarantees* >> that you won't win. > >Actually, it doesn't. > >"Players must play each game toward the goal stated in the rulebook of >gaining the most victory points in the current game." [5.2] I was talking about mr Goudie's proposed revised wording. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >The issues facing numerous tournaments were: >1) Ousting someone cross-table who you didn't want to face in the finals. Agree. While this could be construed as smart play, it sucks to be on the receiving end, so I agree that this can be a problem. >2) Ousting someone because of thier V:EKN rating. Has this ever happened to anyone's knowledge? And BTW, is hitting someone becasue they seem to be a threat to your win (because you know them to have a high rating and be a great player) OK? >3) Ousting someone to keep them from qualifying for an invitation only event. Again, is this an actaul (rather than a theoretical) problem? >I agree that it will not stop the abuses listed above. Some players, intent on >cheating, will create cover stories. It could take a while for the judge(s) to >catch on to their antics. Again, this is like the collusion rules and >deck-marking rules that we've always had. While far from perfectly detectable >and enforcable it *will* positively affect the environment and future events >will be closer to this ideal than the former events. This is true because: > >1) Many players won't cheat because it is against the rules (even if they are >smart enough to get away with it). Many players openly pursued the goals listed >above because they thought it was OK to do so. Now that it is not OK, they will >stop. Agree. I really do. However, it's not a good rule if it only stops morally upright people. And what I think is the major problem is that the rules are not really enforceable as long as the perpetrator has some amount of intelligence. >2) The rule will catch players who are blatant or open in thier attempts to >pursue goals outside of the current game. That is, it will force people to lie more and better... ;-) I think a better way of doing it would be not to reward this kind of behaviour, rather than trying to stop it. For instance, giving one (1) "tournament winning point" to the winner, and the winner only [1], would eliminate most of the problems without the extreme ambiguity and subjectivity the current rules suffer under [2]. Yes, players that see their position as totally hopeless could still profit from messing up people cross-table, but it's probably not a major problem. Also, the tournament points should be kept as secret as possible. [1] Probably splitting this point among tied winners, although this would open the way for bad dealings again. [2] And would also make the 3-2 table split useless, which is a good thing IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b2e7d4b...@news.algonet.se... > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >The issues facing numerous tournaments were: > >1) Ousting someone cross-table who you didn't want to face in the finals. > > Agree. While this could be construed as smart play, it sucks to be on > the receiving end, so I agree that this can be a problem. Yep. In fact, most of us, me included, considered all of these things because they were *smart plays* and legal to the best of our knowledge. > >2) Ousting someone because of thier V:EKN rating. > > Has this ever happened to anyone's knowledge? Yes. > And BTW, is hitting someone becasue they seem to be a threat to > your win (because you know them to have a high rating and > be a great player) OK? You may make use of your knowledge of someone's high rating, game expertise, etc. > >3) Ousting someone to keep them from qualifying for an invitation only event. > > Again, is this an actaul (rather than a theoretical) problem? Actual. And not as isolated as one might think. [clip] > I think a better way of doing it would be not to reward this kind of > behaviour, rather than trying to stop it. For instance, giving one (1) > "tournament winning point" to the winner, and the winner only [1], > would eliminate most of the problems without the extreme ambiguity and > subjectivity the current rules suffer under [2]. I agree that some system like this will keep people motivated toward the goal of winning the current game. However, some version of this new tournament rule will still need to be in place. Not all of the problems we've faced are with people acting toward the goal of winning the tournament. As we've discussed, some of them have other goals in mind. :) > Yes, players that see > their position as totally hopeless could still profit from messing up > people cross-table, but it's probably not a major problem. I think we just have to accept that losing players will still have a small king-maker effect on the game. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >2) Ousting someone because of thier V:EKN rating. >> >> Has this ever happened to anyone's knowledge? > >Yes. Often enough to be a real problem? >> And BTW, is hitting someone becasue they seem to be a threat to >> your win (because you know them to have a high rating and >> be a great player) OK? > >You may make use of your knowledge of someone's high rating, game expertise, >etc. The problem is that "rushing someone because I can tell from his ranking he's a good player" and "rushing someone because I want to drop his high ranking" would be almost impossible to tell apart. >> >3) Ousting someone to keep them from qualifying for an invitation only event. >> >> Again, is this an actaul (rather than a theoretical) problem? > >Actual. And not as isolated as one might think. OK. You know more of this than I do. >> I think a better way of doing it would be not to reward this kind of >> behaviour, rather than trying to stop it. For instance, giving one (1) >> "tournament winning point" to the winner, and the winner only [1], >> would eliminate most of the problems without the extreme ambiguity and >> subjectivity the current rules suffer under [2]. > >I agree that some system like this will keep people motivated toward the goal of >winning the current game. However, some version of this new tournament rule >will still need to be in place. Not all of the problems we've faced are with >people acting toward the goal of winning the tournament. As we've discussed, >some of them have other goals in mind. :) I'm cool with that. Do you have any plans to change the tournament scoring system to something like this? >> Yes, players that see >> their position as totally hopeless could still profit from messing >> up people cross-table, but it's probably not a major problem. > >I think we just have to accept that losing players will still have a > small king-maker effect on the game. If they're really so f*cked that they no longer have any chance of winning, they probably don't pose a major problem... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johan Lundstrom" <jo...@algonet.se> wrote in message news:3b2ef805....@news.algonet.se... > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: [further attributions lost previously] > >> >2) Ousting someone because of thier V:EKN rating. > >> > >> Has this ever happened to anyone's knowledge? > > > >Yes. > > Often enough to be a real problem? Isn't once too many times? > >You may make use of your knowledge of someone's high rating, game > > expertise, etc. > > The problem is that "rushing someone because I can tell from his > ranking he's a good player" and "rushing someone because I want to > drop his high ranking" would be almost impossible to tell apart. Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a *judgement* call. Xian

Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: >Isn't once too many times? Too many to be a good thing, not necessarily enough to warrant a change in the tournament rules. >> The problem is that "rushing someone because I can tell from his >> ranking he's a good player" and "rushing someone because I want to >> drop his high ranking" would be almost impossible to tell apart. > >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a >*judgement* call. Exactly. Surely that's problematic. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a > >*judgement* call. > > Exactly. Surely that's problematic. If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for a way to run a V:TES tournament without a judge, I'm open to it. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <3b2fff19....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: >>Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a >>*judgement* call. >Exactly. Surely that's problematic. *boggle* Surely not. It's only the entire reason to have judges in the first place -- to interpret areas where the rules aren't clear. It's like a soccer referee -- there are disputable calls (maybe even blatantly stupid calls), but no-one suggests not having a referee at all, because that would be worse for the game than having a (human, fallible) referee. I recommend sticking with human judges making human judgement calls until we come up with a better, kinder, smarter, less fallible sort of life form. Like Aibo. gomi -- Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > > >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a > > >*judgement* call. > > > > Exactly. Surely that's problematic. > > If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for a way to run a V:TES tournament > without a judge, I'm open to it. You're missing the point. The idea is to avoid rules which, by their nature, require judgement calls. The judge should know the rules, and be able to accurately settle any rules dispute between two players (such as, non-replacement of Bum's Rush if blocked, or the timing on Propaganda). The more responsibilities that judges must carry beyond this primary function will make the judge's job much more difficult and cause harm to a tournament. Look at it this way. If a player knows the rules well, he should have no fear of a judge coming to the table, as that player will already know how the ruling will go. The more the judge is empowered or required to make game-altering rulings based upon his judgement, the edgier these situations will become. Will the player be warned or even tossed if he doesn't kiss up to the judge? Will the judge be more harsh if he hasn't had enough sleep, or if he has been called to this table before? Will "known" players be given more discretion on cross-table maneuvers because their desire and ability to win is known and trusted? These should not be questions a player has to consider as a judge is summoned to the table. - Jason Bell

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: >> >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a >> >*judgement* call. >> >> Exactly. Surely that's problematic. > >If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for a way to run a V:TES tournament >without a judge, I'm open to it. That wasn't what I said. Surely it's a problem that the judge has to make judgement call based on whether he believes the stated reasons of a player or not? Perhaps not an unsurmountable problem, but as long as the judges lack Aura Reading, this will have to be a subjective judgement, as opposed to a straight interpretation of the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Johan Lundstrom wrote: > >> Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > >> >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a > >> >*judgement* call. > >> > >> Exactly. Surely that's problematic. > > > >If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for a way to run a V:TES tournament > >without a judge, I'm open to it. > > That wasn't what I said. Surely it's a problem that the judge has to > make judgement call based on whether he believes the stated reasons of > a player or not? Perhaps not an unsurmountable problem, but as long as > the judges lack Aura Reading, this will have to be a subjective > judgement, as opposed to a straight interpretation of the rules. This is not a new problem - it was around before the "in-game goal" rule, and it would still be there if that rule was abolished. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> That wasn't what I said. Surely it's a problem that the judge has to >> make judgement call based on whether he believes the stated reasons of >> a player or not? Perhaps not an unsurmountable problem, but as long as >> the judges lack Aura Reading, this will have to be a subjective >> judgement, as opposed to a straight interpretation of the rules. > >This is not a new problem - it was around before the "in-game goal" >rule, and it would still be there if that rule was abolished. Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically increase the number of upcomig situations. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> That wasn't what I said. Surely it's a problem that the judge has to > >> make judgement call based on whether he believes the stated reasons of > >> a player or not? Perhaps not an unsurmountable problem, but as long as > >> the judges lack Aura Reading, this will have to be a subjective > >> judgement, as opposed to a straight interpretation of the rules. > > > >This is not a new problem - it was around before the "in-game goal" > >rule, and it would still be there if that rule was abolished. > > Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically > increase the number of upcomig situations. OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

Something important thats being glossed over here. THIS IS ALL SO SAD. VTES used to be a low-player count game that was known for valuing a fun table dynamic and politics over Degeneracy and cheating. "Collusion" was "politics", being a toadie was an accepted practice. Magic had the Cheaters and Powergamers, Jyhad had the gamers and socializers. Now WW felt that they had to add collusion rules to VTES? Have we, the playing masses, sunk so low as to require Magic rules in VTES? Has winning the "big prize" become more important than playing the game? I remember 36 people at Origins 1998 playing VTES, with practically no prize support (I won it and got two starters of VTES and two boosters of Sabbat as my prize), playing for the fun of the game. I love the real prize support you all get now but if it came at the cost of requiring these silly rules then really, have we gained as a community? Matt the Philosopher

On 21 Jun 2001 06:01:27 -0700, Matt Latham wrote: >VTES used to be a low-player count game that was known for valuing a >fun table dynamic and politics over Degeneracy and cheating. >"Collusion" was "politics", being a toadie was an accepted practice. >I remember 36 people at Origins 1998 playing VTES, with practically no >prize support (I won it and got two starters of VTES and two boosters >of Sabbat as my prize), playing for the fun of the game. Please tell us something of your victory. How much toadying and politics was involved? I'm not convinced that I would have found this much fun but am open to persuasion. >I love the real prize support you all get now but if it came at the >cost of requiring these silly rules then really, have we gained as a >community? What are the prizes nowadays? I doubt that they are enough to change that I play. Andrew

"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:978c2422.01062...@posting.google.com... > Something important thats being glossed over here. There's a good reason no one has brought this up so far... > THIS IS ALL SO SAD. > > VTES used to be a low-player count game that was known for valuing a > fun table dynamic and politics over Degeneracy and cheating. > "Collusion" was "politics", being a toadie was an accepted practice. Collusion wasn't politics. Collusion was *collusion* and against the tournament rules. > Magic had the Cheaters and Powergamers, Jyhad had the gamers and > socializers. > > Now WW felt that they had to add collusion rules to VTES? Have we, the > playing masses, sunk so low as to require Magic rules in VTES? Has > winning the "big prize" become more important than playing the game? > > I remember 36 people at Origins 1998 playing VTES, with practically no > prize support (I won it and got two starters of VTES and two boosters > of Sabbat as my prize), playing for the fun of the game. [sigh] Collusion rules have been part of the tournament rules since the beginning. You were actually playing under them at Origins in 1998. > I love the real prize support you all get now but if it came at the > cost of requiring these silly rules then really, have we gained as a > community? The collusion rules always existed. The modified tournament rules have nothing to do with prizes or collusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok... they may have always "been there" but guess what? No point was made of it because WE NEVER NEEDED IT. I travelled to Origins with wife and friends. Hell, I played at a table with my wife and I bloody well ousted her. Every tourney I won involved me Ousting her (quite a bone of contention to her let me tell you). I never thought of colluding with her because then you cheepen the game. If this kind of thing needed to be printed in a rulebook then we've gained some pretty bad apples in our Jyhad playing community, and I find it sad. No need to get snippy, o Leader of the Vekn. I just recall a time when Jyhad was NOT supported by White Wolf or WotC to any extent, yet we played, we enjoyed, and we didn't need a judge to tell us not to collude. As for how I won? Well, it was before the LSJ re-writing of the cards, and the deck I used isnt springing to mind, but I'm sure I politiked the table (part of the fun of Jyhad is the table dynamic.) Was it collusion? As it's defined now? Nah. As for toady-ing, I've designed whole decks to aid other methuselahs, then turn the tables at the last minute and take enough VP's from the table to beat the person I was toady-ing... its a hard thing to do but rewarding in its own right. Matt

"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:978c2422.01062...@posting.google.com... > Ok... they may have always "been there" but guess what? No point was > made of it because WE NEVER NEEDED IT. Most tournaments still don't have problems with collusion. However, I have heard stories of cases of actual collusion easily going all the way back to 1998. > I travelled to Origins with > wife and friends. Hell, I played at a table with my wife and I bloody > well ousted her. Every tourney I won involved me Ousting her (quite a > bone of contention to her let me tell you). I never thought of > colluding with her because then you cheepen the game. I agree. I've personally never come across this problem. > If this kind of thing needed to be printed in a rulebook then we've > gained some pretty bad apples in our Jyhad playing community, and I > find it sad. It was printed in the original tournament rules and was not added in response to "bad apples". The changes we did make were not about "bad apples". Its existance there says nothing about the V:TES playing community. > No need to get snippy, o Leader of the Vekn. I was not intending to be so. > Was it collusion? As it's defined now? Nah. The definition of collusion has not changed. While not defined this way in the rules, some people (not necessarily people in this newsgroup) are quite willing to call all deal-making "collusion". If this kind of attitude is what you are attempting to address then I am in agreement with you. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically >> increase the number of upcomig situations. > >OK. Do you agree that that is in itself is a bad thing? [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > >> Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically > >> increase the number of upcomig situations. > > > >OK. > > Do you agree that that is in itself is a bad thing? That you think it is highly like to increase X? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >> >> >> Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically >> >> increase the number of upcomig situations. >> >OK. >> Do you agree that that is in itself is a bad thing? >That you think it is highly like to increase X? No. Thank you for deliberately misinterpreting my question. Now, I thought that your 'OK' meant that you agreed with me. Or do you seriously doubt that we will get plenty of "Hey, he doesn't play to win!" situations requiring the judge to give relatively subjective judgements (compared to simple rules questions)? [ quoted text not captured ]

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >Johan Lundstrom wrote: > >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> >Johan Lundstrom wrote: > >> > >> >> Yes, but I think it highly likely that this new rule will drastically > >> >> increase the number of upcomig situations. > >> >OK. > >> Do you agree that that is in itself is a bad thing? > >That you think it is highly like to increase X? No. > > Thank you for deliberately misinterpreting my question. Now, I thought > that your 'OK' meant that you agreed with me. Or do you seriously Sorry, I tend to use affirmative responses for that, like "yes", "right", or "correct". > doubt that we will get plenty of "Hey, he doesn't play to win!" > situations requiring the judge to give relatively subjective > judgements (compared to simple rules questions)? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B354DC1...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes >> doubt that we will get plenty of "Hey, he doesn't play to win!" >> situations requiring the judge to give relatively subjective >> judgements (compared to simple rules questions)? > >Yes. Anyway, most of the "Hey, he doesn't play to win!" could have been got under a liberal interpretation for "unsportsmanlike conduct" or some-such before *anyway* - it isn't very sportsmanlike to not actually *compete*. All the new rules do, from where I stand, is simply make it crystal clear what the situation is. The only major change is from tournament to round. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >All the new rules do, from where I stand, is simply make it crystal >clear what the situation is. Considering the amount of posts on subject, others seem not to agree on the Perfect Clarity of the rules... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > > > > > >Thus, the judge has to depend on the reported reasons, etc. It's a > > >*judgement* call. > > > > Exactly. Surely that's problematic. > > If anyone has a reasonable suggestion for a way to run a V:TES tournament > without a judge, I'm open to it. No one is suggesting that. But most people, I suspect, would rather see a V:TES judge whose role is more like a tennis judge than a gymnastics judge. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:8X4_6.82258$ru2.24...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] The V:TES judge is more like a tennis judge than a gymnastics judge. You don't actually believe that the new rule makes makes the judge more a gymnastics judge do you? Winning and losing is *still* not definined based on the judge's preferences or opinions of how well a player is doing. -Robert