Sleeves

So, sadly, I think I'm going to have to learn to love card sleeves. Even though the card-back-upside-down issue doesn't bother me that much, I've got a few 3E cards so far that are horribly mis-cut. The latest example is that, when opening a !Tremere starter last night, I found a copy of Frondator whose name looked like "rondator". Cut off by a half-centimeter or so, front-and-back, along with that extra thick black margin on the right side... I have no real experience playing with sleeves. I use them rarely, but they're always fresh sleeves, which cause cards to slide all over the place. But I feel like, at this point, I'm going to have to learn to love them, and break them in. So... A couple of questions: 1) What is a good quality brand of sleeves I should buy? I don't need any fancy colors or anything, but it might be nice to have something "unique" (at least for the crypt). 2) Since it looks like I'm going to have to be sleeving a lot now, is there any good place I can order sleeves in bulk (but not *ridiculously* large orders)? Thanks.

Jozxyqk escreveu: > I have no real experience playing with sleeves. I use them rarely, but > they're always fresh sleeves, which cause cards to slide all over the place. > But I feel like, at this point, I'm going to have to learn to love them, and > break them in. In my experience, this sliding ceases to occur after a few games using them no matter the quality of the sleeves. And I don't have sweaty hands :) You get used to it after a while, it conserves (is it the right verb?) cards and makes shuffling easier. > So... > A couple of questions: > 1) What is a good quality brand of sleeves I should buy? I don't need any > fancy colors or anything, but it might be nice to have something "unique" (at > least for the crypt). I usually go for opaque, colored sleeves for the crypt and regular, transparent ones for the library. Since the opaque ones are usually a little bigger and sturdier, it makes for a nice contrast when you're carrying the whole deck together. Even if both crypt and library cards get mixed up somehow, you can tell what's what even if blindfolded, by touch alone. (which introduces a new variation to the game, the blind fight :D) > 2) Since it looks like I'm going to have to be sleeving a lot now, is there > any good place I can order sleeves in bulk (but not *ridiculously* large > orders)? > Thanks. I cannot help with this really, except for mentioning most sleeves sold here are from UltraPro. Never had a single sleeve from them to tear open while handling the cards. We know a non-gaming local store that manufactures plastic packages for a lot of things - from customized bags for malls to sleeves for telephone card collectors - and sometimes we buy sleeves there by the thousands via pre-order, you just need to give the size you want. But these sometimes are fragile enough to tear open. So I guess that's why most gaming stores just import and resell UltraPro products. Fabio "Sooner222" Macedo

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> a écrit dans le message de news: UYydnSrTeao9j53Y...@comcast.com... > So, sadly, I think I'm going to have to learn to love card sleeves. > Even though the card-back-upside-down issue doesn't bother me that much, > I've got a few 3E cards so far that are horribly mis-cut. The latest > example is that, when opening a !Tremere starter last night, I found a copy > of Frondator whose name looked like "rondator". Cut off by a half-centimeter > or so, front-and-back, along with that extra thick black margin on the right > side... Bummer ! Does it comfort you to know you weren't the only one ? On the other side, a player had 2 War Ghouls in the Tzim starter... > I have no real experience playing with sleeves. I use them rarely, but > they're always fresh sleeves, which cause cards to slide all over the place. > But I feel like, at this point, I'm going to have to learn to love them, and > break them in. lol. After that heated discussion about the french requirements on sleeves, I think quite a few people will see the advantages of it... Thanks 3rd Ed ? No, not quite. [Should I invest in the sleeves market ?] > So... > A couple of questions: > 1) What is a good quality brand of sleeves I should buy? I don't need any > fancy colors or anything, but it might be nice to have something "unique" (at > least for the crypt). Ultra Pro is good. The silver dot which used to cover some disciplines in Cam Ed (if I'm not mistaken) doesn't bother at all with the new layout. The best-looking sleeves often aren't the most enduring, as they're composed of 2 layers that might separate during shuffling. But they're so niiiiiice... Of course I recommend anything with skulls, zombies, of mummies on it, but that might just be my necromantic tastes. ;-) On the other hand, Ultra Pros just go by 50, while Dragon Shield includes somewhere near 115, so it will require just one pack for crypt + library, which is good for us ain't it ? They're just a little less good-looking, so I guess it all depends on how much you want to spend and the size of your libraries... Wouldn't know about 2) so I won't bother. Hope that helps, -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

Jozxyqk ha scritto: > So, sadly, I think I'm going to have to learn to love card sleeves. > Even though the card-back-upside-down issue doesn't bother me that much, > I've got a few 3E cards so far that are horribly mis-cut. The latest > example is that, when opening a !Tremere starter last night, I found a copy > of Frondator whose name looked like "rondator". Cut off by a half-centimeter > or so, front-and-back, along with that extra thick black margin on the right > side... The prevoius replies are good enough for your problem. Personally I prefer Ultradeck ones in the end, after so much shuffle testing with my decks. But here (in Italy) we were thinking on wath it seems to me a real problem, for the upcoming EC2006 in Turin... the card-back-upside-down issue could be a problem i deck building as it could be used for well... draft cheating? (as for Jyhad issue in mixing them with other VTES cards). I guess there will be some hard time for the judges... or not? Dr Jester Christian Perron EC2006 organizator

[ quoted text not captured ] Well my friends, I think there are 2 possible attitudes : - not care about it and assume most people either won't cheat or will get caught doing it - assume that cheating is an issue and you have to prevent it to the greatest extent, and go the same way as we went in big french events : make opaque sleeves mandatory for the Championship. That last option could prove unpopular to some, but might be easier for you, and will show your seriousness on the issue (players really wanting to cheat could use Jyhad cards, but now with 3rd Ed mistakes it just might be too tempting for weak spirits). If you go that way, if I may give a few advice : 1) announce it in advance, all over and clearly 2) have a stand selling sleeves on the tournament (you probably will anyway) 3) include in your budget or organisation some sets of sleeves to lend to the players who really, sincerely won't be aware of that rule and won't have 9 euros to spend on something that will protect their cards. Of course, you might want to ask players on your italian forum how they would react to such a proposition. Yours, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > - assume that cheating is an issue and you have to prevent it to the > greatest extent, and go the same way as we went in big french events : make > opaque sleeves mandatory for the Championship. > Or you could not freak out and do something reasonable like keep an eye open for suspicious play. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Orpheus ha scritto: [ quoted text not captured ] My dear, that's was quite my idea: put a clear advise on the official event website about the mandatory use of sleeves for the event. It will simplify life to us (organizator and judges) and avoid unpleasant episode as for newbies or sunday players. I rised the problem in our italian forum, but someone told me: "WW will not approve suche a choiche!" So now it's true or the WW, aware of his bad luck on 1st 3rd ed. printing, would allow this for EC2006? It's possible to force the players in this way on a such big and important event? Let me know...

Orpheus wrote: > On the other hand, Ultra Pros just go by 50, while Dragon Shield includes > somewhere near 115, so it will require just one pack for crypt + library, > which is good for us ain't it ? They're just a little less good-looking, so > I guess it all depends on how much you want to spend and the size of your > libraries... > I never understood why some VtES players are so keen on having their libraries have the same backs as their Crypts - I mean, there's a reason WW and WotC gave them different backs. I bought several pairs of UltraPro sleeve packs, including 2 gold ones. That gives me 100 gold sleeves, which is plenty for 8 decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > On the other hand, Ultra Pros just go by 50, while Dragon Shield includes > > somewhere near 115, so it will require just one pack for crypt + library, > > which is good for us ain't it ? They're just a little less good-looking, so > > I guess it all depends on how much you want to spend and the size of your > > libraries... > > > > I never understood why some VtES players are so keen on having their > libraries have the same backs as their Crypts - I mean, there's a > reason WW and WotC gave them different backs. Oh, I usually put different sleeves on my crypts and librairies !! And so do most of the players I know. But if we buy, say, a pack A and a pack B of sleeves, we can put A on deck 1's library and deck 2's crypt, and pack B on 1's crypt and 2's library, so we use all the sleeves and cover everything, yes ? With Ultra pros, it works only if you have 88 library cards or less (and aren't playing Tupdogs lol). > I bought several pairs of UltraPro sleeve packs, including 2 gold ones. > That gives me 100 gold sleeves, which is plenty for 8 decks. You can also go that way, if you want all your crypts to be covered in the same sleeves, which I personnaly don't like. -- Orpheus ----------------------- My story doesn't happen in the sound of the notes but in the silence between them. That is where the magic happens. Echo

> So now it's true or the WW, aware of his bad luck on 1st 3rd ed. > printing, would allow this for EC2006? It's possible to force the > players in this way on a such big and important event? From what has been established in another thread, I think it's the head judge's prerogative to make such a choice. LSJ said : " That said, if one's environment has an intolerable level of those with a desire to cheat, then taking measures to thwart them is acceptable and should be appreciated by those with a desire to compete. " And someone quoted : "1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to participate: * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament organizer." So I guess the choice is all yours. ;-p -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

Orpheus ha scritto: [ quoted text not captured ] Good to know, thanks! Now, as a loveable Tzimisce as I am, I'll "suggest" it for the event... no one likes to tell me no! ;-P I think that'll be annoying perhaps for some players, but easier and better for all... than stopping the games and arguing about the number of Jyhad, VTES or VTES 3rd Ed. cards in a deck... I know there's someone waiting for this moment at the table... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Dr Jester" <drjest...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157640312.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Orpheus ha scritto: >> And someone quoted : >> "1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials >> >> Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to >> participate: >> >> * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament >> organizer." >> >> So I guess the choice is all yours. ;-p > > Good to know, thanks! > > Now, as a loveable Tzimisce as I am, I'll "suggest" it for the event... > no one likes to tell me no! ;-P I'm still skeptical that this passage is intended to mean that organizers can make just requirements up and spring them on players. ("Each player will bring the head of Yak on seven foot long pole and carry it with him at all times...") If it does, then there needs to be an orderly provision for advertising such unusual requirements. It should NEVER EVER happen that a player can take the time and trouble to show up at a card tournament he saw advertised on the official schedule, innocent of any knowledge that his mono-styled card backs require card sleeves, and not be allowed to play for lack of them and the inability to obtain them on the site. And, in some cases, money certainly makes a difference too. One type of card backs sold at the retailer where we had our prerelease cost $10 for 100! $10 extra for a single constructed tournament is likely a shock for the average college student. So are the organizers prepared to supply free card sleeves to one and all? Fred

> > Orpheus ha scritto: > >> And someone quoted : > >> "1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials > >> > >> Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to > >> participate: > >> > >> * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament > >> organizer." > >> > >> So I guess the choice is all yours. ;-p > > > > Good to know, thanks! > > > > Now, as a loveable Tzimisce as I am, I'll "suggest" it for the event... > > no one likes to tell me no! ;-P > > I'm still skeptical that this passage is intended to mean that > organizers can make just requirements up and spring them on players. > ("Each player will bring the head of Yak on seven foot long > pole and carry it with him at all times...") It would be nice. At least the one metting the requirements would win. ;-) > If it does, then > there needs to be an orderly provision for advertising such > unusual requirements. Totally agreed. > It should NEVER EVER happen that a player > can take the time and trouble to show up at a card tournament he > saw advertised on the official schedule, innocent of any knowledge > that his mono-styled card backs require card sleeves, and not be > allowed to play for lack of them and the inability to obtain > them on the site. Of course. > And, in some cases, money certainly makes a > difference too. One type of card backs sold at the retailer where > we had our prerelease cost $10 for 100! $10 extra for a single > constructed tournament is likely a shock for the average college > student. > > So are the organizers prepared to supply free card sleeves to one > and all? The options would be : you don't have to put opaque sleeves if you don't play either Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards ; but I doubt the 3rd Ed part will be met, as many players will have included new library cards / reprints. And cheating might not even be on purpose : we all have brains, if we only tweaked a deck to include, let's say, some Wash and 1 Yawp Court, then seeing a card backward will give a good indication on what we'll get. And that's bad. But yes, the organisation will have to announce it in advance, announce it on site when the players confirm their inscriptions, and eventually lend some sleeves to players who don't want to buy any. But on such an important even I think that insuring the quality of the event is more important than all the rest... Just my 2 sleeved eurocents, Duncan O'rpheus, of the O'rpheus clan from the scottish highlands.

> In my experience, this sliding ceases to occur after a few games using > them no matter the quality of the sleeves. And I don't have sweaty > hands :) > You get used to it after a while, it conserves (is it the right verb?) > cards and makes shuffling easier. How do sleeves make shuffling easier? I've found that the fastest and most reliable way to shuffle a deck is the classic bridge shuffle, which is more or less impossible with sleeves on. Are people you play with so concerned with card preservation that they won't shuffle this way? Do people with smaller hands (mine are rather large) have trouble with 90 card bridge shuffles? I guess I'm just confused by this last statement, because I've always hated shuffling with sleeves.

[ quoted text not captured ] shufling with sleves is pretty easy, once you get the knack for it. Cut the deck, take half and place it above the other half so the edges are fitting into each other. Wiggle it, just a little bit. Bam. Shuffled.

"Dr Jester" wrote: > that's was quite my idea: put a clear advise on the official event > website about the mandatory use of sleeves for the event. It will > simplify life to us (organizator and judges) and avoid unpleasant > episode as for newbies or sunday players. I rised the problem in our > italian forum, but someone told me: "WW will not approve suche a > choiche!" > > So now it's true or the WW, aware of his bad luck on 1st 3rd ed. > printing, would allow this for EC2006? It's possible to force the > players in this way on a such big and important event? > > Let me know... My understanding is that you have the option to require sleeves. I very much hope that you do not exercise that option. I don't sleeve my decks, and I hope never to have to. If someone is suspected of cheating because of card-back arrangement (as I was at EC 2003) then those issues can be handled on a case by case basis. In my case, I simply don't care which direction my cards face when they go into my discard pile. I don't even think about it. My hope following the 3rd Ed. printing error is that players and judges grow to expect unsleeved cards facing in both directions in players' libraries. To those who are tempted to cheat: do it the legal way with Tusk, The Talebearer. Jay Kristoff

> My understanding is that you have the option to require sleeves. I very > much hope that you do not exercise that option. I don't sleeve my > decks, and I hope never to have to. If someone is suspected of cheating > because of card-back arrangement (as I was at EC 2003) then those issues > can be handled on a case by case basis. In my case, I simply don't care > which direction my cards face when they go into my discard pile. I > don't even think about it. My hope following the 3rd Ed. printing error > is that players and judges grow to expect unsleeved cards facing in both > directions in players' libraries. To those who are tempted to cheat: do > it the legal way with Tusk, The Talebearer. > > Jay Kristoff My understanding is that there's a golf clap coming on. . . . <golf clap> Ah, there it is. Seriously. Play the game. Ankur

[ quoted text not captured ] I have no idea what a bridge shuffle is, but yes, it's easy with sleeves, you can put 2 packs of cards together without risking to ruin your cards - at the very worst you can ruin a multi-layered sleeve, which isn't as bad as, say, the Golconda inside. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

> My understanding is that you have the option to require sleeves. > I very much hope that you do not exercise that option. I don't > sleeve my decks, and I hope never to have to. Why in hell is that ? > If someone is > suspected of cheating because of card-back arrangement (as I > was at EC 2003) then those issues can be handled on a case > by case basis. With sleeves there never would have been an issue. When P2 Brouillet made it to the finals of the first official Franch Championship (2002 ?) he was asked to put sleeves on his deck because it included a random number of Jyhad cards (and many of them were of one category, I think, like masters : it was before CE and some important cards hadn't been reprinted !). It came as a total surprise to us, but the orga gave him some sleeves and it went very well. > In my case, I simply don't care which direction > my cards face when they go into my discard pile. I don't even > think about it. My hope following the 3rd Ed. printing error is > that players and judges grow to expect unsleeved cards facing in > both directions in players' libraries. To those who are tempted > to cheat: do it the legal way with Tusk, The Talebearer. Unfortunately, Jay, that isn't the only difference. Please compare the colors on 3rd Ed with any other expansion and tell me you don't see an immediate difference (it especially shows on the Deckmaster logo, as Reyda pointed out during the pre-release)... [ quoted text not captured ]

>> In my case, I simply don't care which direction my cards face when they >> go into my discard pile. I don't even think about it. My hope >> following the 3rd Ed. printing error is that players and judges grow to >> expect unsleeved cards facing in both directions in players' libraries. >> To those who are tempted to cheat: do it the legal way with Tusk, The >> Talebearer. > > Unfortunately, Jay, that isn't the only difference. Please compare the > colors on 3rd Ed with any other expansion and tell me you don't see an > immediate difference (it especially shows on the Deckmaster logo, as Reyda > pointed out during the pre-release)... The question here is intent, Orpheus. If someone intends to cheat then only it is a problem. The reason I'm surprised by the suggested requirement is that the notion of someone cheating at vtes is kind of lame. Seriously, whoever you people are, quit being lame. Play the game. Ankur

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:45004625$0$27250$636a...@news.free.fr... >> > Orpheus ha scritto: >> >> And someone quoted : >> >> "1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials >> >> >> >> Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to >> >> participate: >> >> >> >> * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament >> >> organizer." >> >> >> >> So I guess the choice is all yours. ;-p >> > >> > Good to know, thanks! >> > >> > Now, as a loveable Tzimisce as I am, I'll "suggest" it for the event... >> > no one likes to tell me no! ;-P >> >> I'm still skeptical that this passage is intended to mean that >> organizers can just make requirements up and spring them on players. >> ("Each player will bring the head of Yak on seven foot long >> pole and carry it with him at all times...") > > It would be nice. At least the one metting the requirements would win. ;-) The point is, I don't believe the suggestion you communicated to Christian Perron and that he responded by stating their group would consider is something they're allowed to do. >> If it does, then >> there needs to be an orderly provision for advertising such >> unusual requirements. > > Totally agreed. > >> It should NEVER EVER happen that a player >> can take the time and trouble to show up at a card tournament he >> saw advertised on the official schedule, innocent of any knowledge >> that his mono-styled card backs require card sleeves, and not be >> allowed to play for lack of them and the inability to obtain >> them on the site. And, in some cases, money certainly makes a >> difference too. One type of card backs sold at the retailer where >> we had our prerelease cost $10 for 100! $10 extra for a single >> constructed tournament is likely a shock for the average college >> student. >> >> So are the organizers prepared to supply free card sleeves to one >> and all? > > The options would be : you don't have to put opaque sleeves if you don't > play either Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards ; That's different than the real rules, however. > but I doubt the 3rd Ed part will be met, It's not in any way necessary for 3E cards. 3E card backs are identical to other VtES card backs. Players should not be allowed to "mark" 3E or any other types of cards by permitting them to be the only one(s) oriented in a certain direction in their stack of library cards. So the front-to-back reversal thing completely orthagonal to this issue. It's just that players might be well-advised to use opaque card backs with their 3E-combined decks so as not to give away cards in their hands by holding them "upside-down" from their opponents' perspectives. > But yes, the organisation will have to announce it in advance, The problem I find with the "announce it in advance" concept is that organizers often don't consider the players' point of view. They'll do something like sticking some little notice up on their website a week ahead of time - forgetting that many players had discovered all the information they (thought they) needed to know about an event long before then and have no reason to check the organizer's website just before leaving for an event. To really "announce it in advance", organizers need to announce all requirements players need to know about from the very beginning. They can't be changing the rules after the first wave of information has already gone out or they'll miss people. IMO, it's far too late for this year's EC to be considering new rules or changes in the format unless they're prepared to make all the arrangements to deal with players who show up never having heard of the change. I suppose you could argue that it would be OK if they made sure card sleeves were offered for a fairly modest price or for free. But that's about as generous as I'd be with the concept. Fred

"Orpheus" wrote: > > My understanding is that you have the option to require sleeves. > > I very much hope that you do not exercise that option. I don't > > sleeve my decks, and I hope never to have to. > > Why in hell is that ? I don't want to spend the time putting sleves on my decks. I don't want to spend the time taking sleves off my decks. I don't like the way the sleves hurt my baby-soft hands. I don't want to spend the money. I don't want to encourage further production of plastic. I don't want to find a new carrying case in which sleeved decks fit. I don't want any more required accesories in order to play V:TES. I like the rawness of playing without sleeves. While your messing with sleeves, I'm designing new ways to oust you. > > If someone is > > suspected of cheating because of card-back arrangement (as I > > was at EC 2003) then those issues can be handled on a case > > by case basis. > > With sleeves there never would have been an issue. When P2 Brouillet made it > to the finals of the first official Franch Championship (2002 ?) he was > asked to put sleeves on his deck because it included a random number of > Jyhad cards (and many of them were of one category, I think, like masters : > it was before CE and some important cards hadn't been reprinted !). It came > as a total surprise to us, but the orga gave him some sleeves and it went > very well. I am in the process of purging Jyhad cards from my collection. > > In my case, I simply don't care which direction > > my cards face when they go into my discard pile. I don't even > > think about it. My hope following the 3rd Ed. printing error is > > that players and judges grow to expect unsleeved cards facing in > > both directions in players' libraries. To those who are tempted > > to cheat: do it the legal way with Tusk, The Talebearer. > > Unfortunately, Jay, that isn't the only difference. Please compare the > colors on 3rd Ed with any other expansion and tell me you don't see an > immediate difference (it especially shows on the Deckmaster logo, as Reyda > pointed out during the pre-release)... I don't care if players can tell from what set cards come by their backs. I just want to play and win; without sleeves, and without cheating. Jay Kristoff

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think you cheat Jay, but I want to play out a scenario here ... So your library and crypt are unsorted as regard to card orientation, right? When you draw a card into your hand, if the card was upside down in the library, do you keep it upside down in your hand? I try to keep my library facing the same way, so I don't have to flip cards when I draw them into my hand, but I will if a card is the wrong direction. Now if you play with a mixture of 3rd Edition and non-3rd Edition cards, someone watching you closely can tell by card orientation of your library and then if you flip your card going into your hand if you just drew a 3rd Edition card. Is it a big deal? Probably not. There are a lot of cards it could be, but it is a little bit of information. I hope to continue to be able to play this game without sleaves. If the card quality is as low as I have read, I would switch to sleaves to preserve my cards before doing it to prevent cheating. Later, ~Rehlow

"Rehlow" wrote: > I don't think you cheat Jay, but I want to play out a scenario here ... > > So your library and crypt are unsorted as regard to card orientation, > right? When you draw a card into your hand, if the card was upside down > in the library, do you keep it upside down in your hand? I try to keep > my library facing the same way, so I don't have to flip cards when I > draw them into my hand, but I will if a card is the wrong direction. > Now if you play with a mixture of 3rd Edition and non-3rd Edition > cards, someone watching you closely can tell by card orientation of > your library and then if you flip your card going into your hand if you > just drew a 3rd Edition card. Is it a big deal? Probably not. There are > a lot of cards it could be, but it is a little bit of information. I > hope to continue to be able to play this game without sleaves. If the > card quality is as low as I have read, I would switch to sleaves to > preserve my cards before doing it to prevent cheating. Starting at this year's NAC, I plan to occasionally hold non-3rd Ed. cards upside-down in my hand. Let the good times roll. Jay Kristoff

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... > My understanding is that there's a golf clap coming on. . . . > > <golf clap> > > Ah, there it is. What the hell is a golf clap? Would I need a shot of penicillin? (And no, shocking though it may seem, I've read the newsgroup for many years but I've never seen the term defined. =8-O ) Fred

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:El_Lg.631$131...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... > Starting at this year's NAC, I plan to occasionally hold non-3rd Ed. cards > upside-down in my hand. Let the good times roll. Starting with next year's Powerbase: LA, I play to occasionally hang upside- down from Mike Curtois's ceiling and hold 3E cards right side up. I don't think it will do anything for my game but at least it'll make a few of those guys look up from their hands while they're rolling over me like a speed bump. Fred ("Hey, you up there! Bleed for 9!" *sigh* "No block.")

>> My understanding is that there's a golf clap coming on. . . . >> >> <golf clap> >> >> Ah, there it is. > > What the hell is a golf clap? It's one of those rich-people-folk half-claps made at a golf course when you score a "4" or something. It's usually followed by the phrase of "cheerio" or "good show" or "narf". Ankur

[ quoted text not captured ] I totally agree with Jay. There is absolutely no need for card sleeves to be required in any tournament, since the current tournament rules already address that issue, as does the Judge's Guide: TOURNAMENT RULES 4.1. Cards Allowed All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal Struggle or Jyhad cards. If Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards are both used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the Jyhad or Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card sets must be of sufficiently mixed card type - that is, Master cards must appear with both Jyhad and V:TES card backs (or at least three different card types must have Jyhad backs). JUDGE'S GUIDE 32. Marked Cards - Observable Pattern Definition: A player's cards are marked with a pattern to the types of cards that are marked. If a player is using opaque sleeves, they are taken into consideration instead of the actual cards. If a player is using clear sleeves, both the card and sleeve are taken into consideration. Example: (A) A player in a tournament has Jyhad-backed reaction cards in an otherwise all V:TES-backed library. (B) A player in a tournament has four Kiss of Ra in her deck, all of which are in card sleeves that have a slight bend in one corner. Philosophy: The potential for advantage is high when there is a pattern to the markings. Therefore the penalty must be significant. Please note this penalty still assumes that the cards are marked unintentionally. Refer to section 160 - Cheating, if the judge believes that the cards were marked intentionally. Penalty: Game loss. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Jay Kristoff wrote: > I don't want to encourage further production of plastic. Bah! Plastic is 100% recyclable unlike all the trees being cut down to make the cards in the first place.

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > You get used to it after a while, it conserves (is it the right verb?) > cards and makes shuffling easier. I believe you want 'preserves'.

"Churchy La Femme" wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Bah! The cards are recyclable as well. The cards are bio-degradable, whereas the sleeves are not. I don't want to encourage further production of plastic, and I don't want to be forced to use sleeves. Bah! Jay Kristoff

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:UYydnSrTeao9j53Y...@comcast.com... > So, sadly, I think I'm going to have to learn to love card sleeves. > Even though the card-back-upside-down issue doesn't bother me that much, > I've got a few 3E cards so far that are horribly mis-cut. The latest > example is that, when opening a !Tremere starter last night, I found a > copy > of Frondator whose name looked like "rondator". Cut off by a > half-centimeter > or so, front-and-back, along with that extra thick black margin on the > right > side... > > I have no real experience playing with sleeves. I use them rarely, but > they're always fresh sleeves, which cause cards to slide all over the > place. > But I feel like, at this point, I'm going to have to learn to love them, > and > break them in. > > So... > A couple of questions: > 1) What is a good quality brand of sleeves I should buy? I don't need any > fancy colors or anything, but it might be nice to have something "unique" > (at > least for the crypt). > Ultra-Pro, as others have stated, is the best balance between price & quality, IMO. Dragonshield is okay in a pinch, but I find they split easier than the U-P's, especially if you try to riffle shuffle them, like I do. U-P also has a lot of amusing pictures and patterns for possible crypt use, as well as all the solid colors you could ever want for library use. > 2) Since it looks like I'm going to have to be sleeving a lot now, is > there > any good place I can order sleeves in bulk (but not *ridiculously* large > orders)? > This combo pack is a reasonable start from Potomac: http://www.potomacdist.com/detail.asp?ItemId=upmpb Although you get 150 of the each color, when 100 of each would be better for V:TES. If you want to standardize on some color for all your libraries, say Jozxyqk's Own Matrix Green, you could go with something like this: http://www.potomacdist.com/detail.asp?ItemId=upmgdpb But speaking from experience, if you're going to sleeve, it's handy to have lots of different colors, so that you can more easily tell your decks apart from one another when they're in a cardboard sleeve box. - Pat

> The question here is intent, Orpheus. If someone intends to cheat then > only it is a problem. The reason I'm surprised by the suggested > requirement is that the notion of someone cheating at vtes is kind of > lame. > > Seriously, whoever you people are, quit being lame. > > Play the game. > > Ankur Of course we agree Ankur : cheating is lameness incarnate. As is colluding. I've seen collusions (a lot) at big events all over Europe, and have sometimes suspected cheating. Cheaters are lame. So let's not give them weapons to ruin our games, right ? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Bah! Plastic is 100% recyclable unlike all the trees being cut down to >> make the cards in the first place. > > Bah! The cards are recyclable as well. The cards are bio-degradable, > whereas the sleeves are not. I don't want to encourage further > production of plastic, and I don't want to be forced to use sleeves. Not to mention that the production of sleeves uses up raw materials other than just those used in the production of plastic. A hearty "bah!" for the fire. Ankur

> Of course we agree Ankur : cheating is lameness incarnate. > > As is colluding. > > I've seen collusions (a lot) at big events all over Europe, and have > sometimes suspected cheating. > > Cheaters are lame. So let's not give them weapons to ruin our games, > right ? Um, no. Let's not assume by default that everyone present at a tournament is cheating. Let's all instead <say it with me now> Play. The. Game. Cheaters will always find a means to cheat. They can mark their sleeves. The only way to defeat cheaters is to beat the hell out of them in the parking lot. If there is no parking lot, get creative. Ankur CEO of the Play. The. Game. Organization

Orpheus wrote: > Cheaters are lame. So let's not give them weapons to ruin our games, right ? Wait, you mean like something that's very easy to subtly mark, passed off as a measure to prevent cheating, so that people are far less vigilant about suspicious behavior because there's a very false sense of security? Such as mandatory sleeves? Seriously, if people are going to cheat mandatory sleeving for everyone won't make it harder for them to do so. If anything, it'll make it easier. You can mark sleeves, you know, and it's a lot less obvious (and probably a lot more accurate) than using selective card backs or orientations to identify things. Heck, I knew someone back in my M:tG days who was opposed to shiny sleeves *at all* because he was able to get information about the next face-down card from the reflection off the sleeve below, just by getting a little tilt to the second card when he picked up the top one. (IE, every time he drew a card, he knew what the new top card was, or at least something about it.) He didn't play like that, just knew how to do it and watched out for it. So if you want to sleeve your own cards, fine. If you want to ask someone you're suspicious of to sleeve, or to de-sleeve, fine. But convincing an entire tournament that you've alleviated cheating by *requiring* something that in reality makes it *easier* to cheat *more subtly*, you're either deluding yourself a whole lot, or you're just full of it. - D.J.

Damnans wrote: > Jay Kristoff wrote: > > "Dr Jester" wrote: > > TOURNAMENT RULES > 4.1. Cards Allowed > > All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal > Struggle or Jyhad cards. > Problem solved. 3rd Edition cards aren't legal. best - chris haha

Pat wrote: > But speaking from experience, if you're going to sleeve, it's handy to have > lots of different colors, so that you can more easily tell your decks apart > from one another when they're in a cardboard sleeve box. > or in Anniversary Tins. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew, who could use 2 more tins to hold decks.

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157689847.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Pat wrote: >> But speaking from experience, if you're going to sleeve, it's handy to have >> lots of different colors, so that you can more easily tell your decks apart >> from one another when they're in a cardboard sleeve box. >> > > or in Anniversary Tins. or in Anniversary Tins with silly paintings on the top!

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157689847.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Pat wrote: >> But speaking from experience, if you're going to sleeve, it's handy to have >> lots of different colors, so that you can more easily tell your decks apart >> from one another when they're in a cardboard sleeve box. >> > > or in Anniversary Tins. or in Anniversary Tins with silly paintings on the top!

[ quoted text not captured ] They are legal, since 3rd Edition cards are genuine VTES cards. GENUINE b : actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author <the signature is genuine> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/genuine [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes there're a clear rule about handling cheating or cards allowance in a deck or cards marking. It's not a problem, during a game, to pause the table, check the "suspicious" deck and apply or not penalties... but my intent in this matter was to give all of you an easier and less suspicious game for the EC2006 Event. It's not funny to loss time or break time just because someone suspect that an opposing deck has marked cards (i.e. by marker or use of Jyhad/3rd Ed. cards). But so... After reading so much disagree on the matter, I doubt (Oprheus this's a kind of democracy I think... ;) ) we'll choose the mandatory sleeves option, but for sure you'll be warmely invited to use them, for game fun and more cheat avoiding gameplay... But the problem still remain for future events, I suppose... Dr Jester Christian Perron EC2006 Organizator

Dr Jester wrote: > After reading so much disagree on the matter, I doubt (Oprheus this's a > kind of democracy I think... ;) ) we'll choose the mandatory sleeves > option, but for sure you'll be warmely invited to use them, for game > fun and more cheat avoiding gameplay... > > But the problem still remain for future events, I suppose... Christian, my experience from tournaments is, the more a judge makes a hazzle about unimportant things like sleeves, leaving the play area etc.the more mistakes are made with the important things. I still prefer the univisible judge who ist there when needed. To get a warning because i didnt announced an unspoken deal (happened to me) is for me boosting the ego of the judge. So i have to agree to Ankur. Play the game. Frank (who made about three decisions at the whole german qualifier and still had no cheater)

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with all of you in the matter... Let's play and I hope in a fair play most of all!!! We're preparing our judges at the best we can (but they're still human after all...). So no mandatory sleeves, as I said, perhaps if you use 'em it's better for your cards, first of all and for a less suspicious gameplay... but I hope in a lot of gentleman players at the tables in the EC2006! :-) So now it's time for deck building! See you all very soon... Dr Jester Christan Perron EC2006 Organizator

In message <1157701121.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Dr Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >After reading so much disagree on the matter, I doubt (Oprheus this's a >kind of democracy I think... ;) ) we'll choose the mandatory sleeves >option, but for sure you'll be warmely invited to use them, for game >fun and more cheat avoiding gameplay... The biggest problem, as others have said, is the idea that mandatory sleeves reduces the problem. It doesn't. Sleeves are way, way easy to mark, and when a sleeve costs a very small amount (a few cents) to replace, you're probably much more inclined to mark the sleeve - tear the corner, twist a corner, score a line down the back that's visible if you shift your head relative to the light-source, a few crumbs slip into the sleeve which can be felt with a light touch etc. - than try anything with the 10 dollar War Ghoul you just bought on Ebay. If there are still problems (or the perception of problems), then obviously you still need to do something about it. The first thing is checking for it properly. Take decks off players, check the backs, check the sleeves. Do it between rounds. If there are people who have been caught in the past, check them (and make sure to include it in your tournament report), but check other people too. A judge cannot allow himself to be vindictive, of course, but a judge is employed to use their judgement - and if the #1 Cheater in the world turns up who's been ejected from tournaments on every continent, a judge does not have to be dumb to that knowledge. Similarly, many judges will hover around tables with new players (or players they don't know), or players they know have a suspect understanding of some rules, or near controversial decks[0], in much the same manner, as a preventative measure. If the problem still goes on and/or the tournament is a really big one (e.g. continental qualifier, nationals etc.) it might be appropriate to semi-randomly unsleeve some sleeved decks, shuffle the deck, then re- sleeve them, or randomly sleeve some unsleeved decks from the judge's supply (preferably worn and non-slippy, but randomly shuffle the deck and sleeves before use). This might be particularly appropriate for the final round, where the number of players involved is much lower and so you know you should only need so many sleeves (making it easier to plan!), but you might also want to allocate some time for that between rounds/during tournament prep. A judge could also do similar in any cases where he felt a deck was possibly marked, but unintentionally (e.g. a slightly worn card from 3rd Edition, an accidental spillage of coke during the first round that clipped Arika and Queen Anne only etc.) When some of the bigger tournaments already make sure that they do lots of random deck checks between rounds against deck lists, thorough shuffles by judges, and similar preparation before the finals, this wouldn't necessarily be entirely out of line. However, just making players mandatorily sleeve their cards makes cheating easier, and gives a false sense of security. If you're playing with cheaters, they will still cheat. [0] I've been known to hover around tables where I've heard the words "Hidden Lurker" come up, for example, as players *still* get that wrong, 12 years on. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> "Orpheus" wrote: > > > My understanding is that you have the option to require sleeves. > > > I very much hope that you do not exercise that option. I don't > > > sleeve my decks, and I hope never to have to. > > > > Why in hell is that ? > > I don't want to spend the time putting sleves on my decks. > I don't want to spend the time taking sleves off my decks. This I can understand, although there is a raw pleasure in doing that too. More of the masturbating sort, maybe. ;-) > I don't like the way the sleves hurt my baby-soft hands. Urm... > I don't want to spend the money. > I don't want to encourage further production of plastic. > I don't want to find a new carrying case in which sleeved decks fit. > I don't want any more required accesories in order to play V:TES. > I like the rawness of playing without sleeves. > While your messing with sleeves, I'm designing new ways to oust you. Although you're a much better player than I, know that my Skull sleaves are of magical portent and will help me oust YOU. ;-) The reasons why I like sleeves : - they really help keeping the cards in good condition much longer (and I like cards that feel mint years later) - they allow you to play on less than clean tables, so you can have nice game sessions where you also eat and drink with your friends without wondering if your deck will come out intact - they [the ones I choose] are aesthetically pleasant, and even come in necromacing themes - they also make shuffling without hurting your cards much easier - and of course they take out all possibility of seeing if your cards have Jyhad (or now 3rd Ed) backs > I am in the process of purging Jyhad cards from my collection. Not everyone can do that. And what are you replacing them with, 3rd Ed ? Those pose the same problem over again now. > I don't care if players can tell from what set cards come by their backs. > I just want to play and win; without sleeves, and without cheating. So do I, and that why I like it that other players can't cheat either. More global answer in other post. Looking forward to playing with you again IRL, Jay, even if you don't have nice-looking sleeves. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Now for a general response to all those who say "cheaters will cheat". I don't believe that's true. I don't believe there are many real hardcore cheaters in the Jyhad world. But I do believe there are many "opportunists", who think it isn't wrong if they take out one less counter than they should, if they forget the loss from Fame or Anarch Revolt, etc. Very, very few of those players will risk actually marking their sleeves or doing anything that could be really reproached to them. But if they, say, have all their Deflections with Jyhad backs and only new Master cards from 3rd Ed, they might be tempted to take a look. The same way you might be tempted to look at your prey's cards if he keeps showing them to you, as opposed with trying to see his hand. Or the same way that if you draw one more card and see it by accident without anyone seeing it, you'll have to choose between replacing it on top of your library (and taking into account that info or not) or telling everyone. So there are degrees in cheating, and I really believe that, although you all are right that hardcore cheaters (I don't think I met more than 2 in my gaming experience) will always find a way, sleeving the cards goes a looooong way to prevent "occasional" or "opportunist" cheating. And seeing all the possibilities of slipping down that road that 3rd Ed proposes, I really believe that it's important to plan counter-measures for such an important tournament. As you know from another thread : we've been doing it for most major events here, and nobody died from it. As for the extra cost : 9 euros in a lifetime ain't that much compared to all we already spend on cards and storing accessories, is it ? -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

[ quoted text not captured ] YEAH, let's put all our cards in the fire !!! Duh ? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I really don't know what are all of you discussing here (I am replying to particular post only to keep context). As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), but sleeves, assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong. If you play in a pub, at least a Czech style pub, where beer flows like a river, sleeves are simply a must. minor spills here and there, and in a month, your cards resemble used beer mats. This leads me to a suspicion, that all the sleeve haters are some stupid prohibition water-drinkers, who dwell only in game stores (I call it geek stables). And obviously don' t own a cat. My cat once, when she was a kitty, pissed in my card box, where I had my !Torrie deck. I tell you, it's better to throw away few sleeves than a pile of Art Scams and Embraces. Or to throw away the cat. As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), but sleeves, assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong.

> "Rehlow" wrote: > > > I don't think you cheat Jay, but I want to play out a scenario here ... > > > > So your library and crypt are unsorted as regard to card orientation, > > right? When you draw a card into your hand, if the card was upside down > > in the library, do you keep it upside down in your hand? I try to keep > > my library facing the same way, so I don't have to flip cards when I > > draw them into my hand, but I will if a card is the wrong direction. > > Now if you play with a mixture of 3rd Edition and non-3rd Edition > > cards, someone watching you closely can tell by card orientation of > > your library and then if you flip your card going into your hand if you > > just drew a 3rd Edition card. Is it a big deal? Probably not. There are > > a lot of cards it could be, but it is a little bit of information. I > > hope to continue to be able to play this game without sleaves. If the > > card quality is as low as I have read, I would switch to sleaves to > > preserve my cards before doing it to prevent cheating. Agreed. As an aside, the torn cards look less bad once sleeved (talking pure eye pleasure here, the Toreador way), not to mention that torn cards are more easily markable without drawing attention ("what, that white spot in the corner ? Can't help it if 3rd Ed is shit, and I don't have that many Golcondas !!"). > Starting at this year's NAC, I plan to occasionally hold non-3rd Ed. cards > upside-down in my hand. Let the good times roll. Mate, you're one sick maniac !! lol Next, Jay is so good at VTES that he asks other players to draw randomly from his hand the cards he plays... -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary. > > Jay Kristoff > >

Pat <patric...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote: > Although you get 150 of the each color, when 100 of each would be better > for V:TES. 150 of each color sounds good to me. 102 of each color would be "perfect", so you can use 90 of them for one deck, and 12 for another deck's crypt*.. But with 150 there's plenty of "broken sleeve replacement" room, and room to sleeve tupdog crypts :) This sounds good. For some reason, I thought people would not recommend Ultra Pro *shrug* (* Although I might mix-match that with some of the pretty-artwork-but-lower- quality sleeves for crypts, since they're less susceptible to damage). Anyway, thanks for your advice, and for actually responding to my question instead of the derail. I am not going to start using sleeves because I *like* them, nor because I care if you think I'm cheating.. it's just in anticipation that there are more Horribly Miscut cards than just my copy of Frondator... :)

> > I totally agree with Jay. There is absolutely no need for card sleeves > > to be required in any tournament, since the current tournament rules > > already address that issue, as does the Judge's Guide: > > > > TOURNAMENT RULES > > 4.1. Cards Allowed > > > > All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal > > Struggle or Jyhad cards. > > > > If Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards are both used, in > > order to prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the Jyhad or > > Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card sets must be of sufficiently mixed > > card type - that is, Master cards must appear with both Jyhad and V:TES > > card backs (or at least three different card types must have Jyhad > > backs). "Sufficiently mixed" is the key here. What about players who just don't have those big Master Rares in anything but Jyhad ? People were already complaining about the difficulty of informing players that they should sleeve their decks, now you must inform them that they have to change their decks because all their Rare Masters are Jyhad ? And what if they begin play with such a deck, unaware ? Game loss ? No : sleeves. Let's not waste the time and energy where players complain about possible cheating and say : "all decks including 3rd Ed or Jyhad cards must be sleeved". [ quoted text not captured ] Totally agreed. > After reading so much disagree on the matter, I doubt (Oprheus this's a > kind of democracy I think... ;) ) I don't. ;-) You know, vampires, all that jazz... Seriously, whatever needs to be done must be done. Also, this forum isn't representative of the european majority, you'll notice that many americans expressed their opinions, among whom maybe 3 will show up at the tournament (no offense intended : on many subjects, americans and europeans don't react the same way, that's all). Did you ask on the italian forum ? I know french players won't see a problem there at all. Damnans expresses his own opinion, but what do the spanish as a whole think ? And the german / austrian ? The Swiss play as we do, at least some of the Belgians are used to it too. I wouldn't know for more faraway european countries, but the ones mentionned above will represent a great part of the people present at your event, it might be nice to know what they think : if you really care about a majority it should be that of the players intending to come to your event !! > we'll choose the mandatory sleeves > option, but for sure you'll be warmely invited to use them, for game > fun and more cheat avoiding gameplay... And players who are warned about it and are reaaaaally allergic can always choose to play neither Jyhad nor 3rd Ed, although that would seem silly to me compared to the simple act of sleeving their decks for the event (maximum 3 decks, possibly only one set of sleeves bought). > But the problem still remain for future events, I suppose... Yes it does. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The point is, I don't believe the suggestion you communicated to Christian > Perron and that he responded by stating their group would consider is > something they're allowed to do. They are. It's been done before, including in the presence of Steve or Stewart Wieck. > > The options would be : you don't have to put opaque sleeves if you don't > > play either Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards ; > > That's different than the real rules, however. Than the "fixed" rules, yes, but it can be added. > > but I doubt the 3rd Ed part will be met, > > It's not in any way necessary for 3E cards. 3E card backs are identical > to other VtES card backs. No they're not. They are of lighter tint and therefore look a little "brighter". Feel free to check and tell me what you think. > Players should not be allowed to "mark" 3E > or any other types of cards by permitting them to be the only one(s) > oriented in a certain direction in their stack of library cards. So the > front-to-back reversal thing completely orthagonal to this issue. You really think players will bother with putting their 3rd Ed cards the wrong way in their decks ? And then reversing them when they come in their hands, showing everyone that they do ? > It's > just that players might be well-advised to use opaque card backs with > their 3E-combined decks so as not to give away cards in their hands by > holding them "upside-down" from their opponents' perspectives. Yes, but the same goes with the card on top of your library. Which means a lot of cards over the game. > > But yes, the organisation will have to announce it in advance, > > The problem I find with the "announce it in advance" concept is > that organizers often don't consider the players' point of view. They'll > do something like sticking some little notice up on their website a week > ahead of time - forgetting that many players had discovered all the > information they (thought they) needed to know about an event long before > then and have no reason to check the organizer's website just before > leaving for an event. To really "announce it in advance", organizers > need to announce all requirements players need to know about from > the very beginning. They can't be changing the rules after the first > wave of information has already gone out or they'll miss people. I understand, but then the part about "efficiently mixed" with Jyhad backs that IS in the rules is very badly known in some parts. And what ratio is considered "sufficiently mixed" ? And the logical adaptation that should be made concerning 3rd Ed isn't "yet" in the rules but should be. The problem is the same as with Jyhad, although a little more subtle. > IMO, it's far too late for this year's EC to be considering new rules > or changes in the format unless they're prepared to make all the > arrangements to deal with players who show up never having heard of > the change. I suppose you could argue that it would be OK if they > made sure card sleeves were offered for a fairly modest price or > for free. But that's about as generous as I'd be with the concept. It could be done. Also, players who register before the tournament could have a mail sent to them including that information, and it would solve much of the communication problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Christian, my experience from tournaments is, the more a judge makes a > hazzle about unimportant things like sleeves, leaving the play area > etc.the more mistakes are made with the important things. I still > prefer the univisible judge who ist there when needed. Mate, you're giving the best "pro-sleeves" argument ever here !! Yes, if judges don't have to bother about "is he cheating with his 3rd Ed or Jyhad cards" they can take care of real issues. Which is exactly why our national judges chose to make sleeves mandatory. And they judge well now. ;-) > To get a warning > because i didnt announced an unspoken deal (happened to me) is for > me boosting the ego of the judge. That's another matter, that could be discussed thoroughly (again). > So i have to agree to Ankur. Play the game. I don't follow your reasonning here. Mine is : sleeve your decks, less worry about cheating, and play the game !! > Frank (who made about three decisions at the whole german qualifier > and still had no cheater) I don't understand what you mean there. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As you said some posts before, my idea in using mandatory sleeves was to avoid minor annoiaces to judges about using mixing cards type in decks. There will be a lot of other matter of discussions in the EC2006 that these seems the easiest problem to solve from right now to keep judges' minds focused on their true mission! After all there're a lot of good reasons to use sleeves for own decks: - they let you keep track of your cards on the table - they let you protect the cards fro enviroment accidents and shuffling routine - they let you express your personality with much different patterns - they aren't so expensive after all and you need just one set for these tournament event - they keep the cards in mint/near mint condition, so you can trade 'em for they real value - they avoid marking cards problem (yes there's still marking sleeve problems, but that's really lamer) We probably should ask for European opinion in matter, using some polls in the various national forums... but I think it'll take so much times... a lot of people like to do 'Bastian Contrario'! (i.e. to be always against all, no matter) I hope that almost all the players will come with sleeves... and that's the best way to solve the problem and to avoid time consuming check operations at the tables. I'll check our italian forums on the matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I really don't know what are all of you discussing here (I am replying > to particular post only to keep context). > > As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that > already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), I agree lol. I had to because I was implicated in the subject, and I had to answer most of those arguments, but I won't have the time to do this everytime, and already had to drop such a conversation after dozens of posts... Anyway, I feel like everything has been said by both "sides" on the issue now. But your input is interesting. > but sleeves, > assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a > problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot > regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the > forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong. Exact. I have on occasion either lost or gotten a misplaced card, the sleeves always helped find the truthful owner. > If you play in a pub, at least a Czech style pub, where beer flows like > a river, sleeves are simply a must. minor spills here and there, and in > a month, your cards resemble used beer mats. This leads me to a > suspicion, that all the sleeve haters are some stupid prohibition > water-drinkers, who dwell only in game stores (I call it geek stables). Lol. I think I'd like to play in Czechy. ;-) > And obviously don' t own a cat. My cat once, when she was a kitty, > pissed in my card box, where I had my !Torrie deck. I tell you, it's > better to throw away few sleeves than a pile of Art Scams and Embraces. > Or to throw away the cat. lol. That was funny. My cat prefers to play with the counters and loose them everywhere, and get on / under my Heroclix maps, occasionally ripping them apart. But my other cat has thrown up on my cards on occasion, and I'm rather glad they were sleeved (or cried if they were not...) !! > As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that > already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), but sleeves, > assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a > problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot > regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the > forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong. Man, you're caught in a Temporis loop !! That's baaaad... -- Orpheus --------------- "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift

[ quoted text not captured ] Never considered the Sleeves question that way... :-) Not to consider che chemical colors used for printing cards... are them bio-degradable? All those tress being cut, let me ponder the idea to stop buying vtes... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Alias" <ransom...@seznam.cz> wrote in message news:1157710320.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > I tell you, it's > better to throw away few sleeves than a pile of Art Scams and Embraces. > Or to throw away the cat. Naw, you're delusional. Throw away the cat. :) > As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that > already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), but sleeves, > assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a > problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot > regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the > forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong. If I am not using sleeves, when something like a fame comes up I try to tuck it inside a Rigid card protector. Try telling me you forgot it wasn't yours and accidentally shuffled that in!. -John P. Winnipeg

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in news:4500b9ae$0$15649$626a...@news.free.fr: >> The question here is intent, Orpheus. If someone intends to cheat >> then only it is a problem. The reason I'm surprised by the suggested >> requirement is that the notion of someone cheating at vtes is kind of >> lame. >> >> Seriously, whoever you people are, quit being lame. >> >> Play the game. >> >> Ankur > > Of course we agree Ankur : cheating is lameness incarnate. > > As is colluding. > > I've seen collusions (a lot) at big events all over Europe, and have > sometimes suspected cheating. > > Cheaters are lame. So let's not give them weapons to ruin our games, > right ? -- My $0.02 is; what weapon..? Lets take a different track, and look at exactly what information is being denied the cheating player, by forcing everyone to sleeve their decks. Take it to its iterative extreme; say Francois the Super-Cheater (FtSC) develops a method to mark every unsleeved card in his deck, such that he can _specifically_ identify his top card at will, with a glance. This is, simply put, basically the equivalent of having an Elder Library on the table (or Tusk). So you know what the next card in your deck is... big f-ing deal! What a lame effect to be "buying" with your cheating ways, given the "play and replace" nature of VTES card-flow... It costs an MPA and a pool to get that same effect in-game! The pathetic reward to risk ratio here makes FtSC one of the stupidest cheaters in the world. ...and whats to keep FtSC from just cleverly marking his sleeves instead of his cards? As a Judge, you _still_ have to be on the lookout for unfair play, sleeves or no sleeves. A mandatory sleeve policy seems to be merely a placebo, something to make you _think_ you're addressing cheating. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Dr Jester" <drjest...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1157714130.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Never considered the Sleeves question that way... :-) > > Not to consider che chemical colors used for printing cards... are > them bio-degradable? > Largely they are, yes. Organic molecules, many derived from renewable resources, like soy beans and castor oil. Ink pigments tend to be mineral in nature, though mostly benign in the environment. > All those tress being cut, let me ponder the idea to stop buying > vtes... ;) Trees are a renewable resource (and an atmospheric scrubber before harvesting). Petroleum (Plastic sleeves) is not. Sheesh, does a gas- guzzling American have to teach you enviro-Euros these things? ;-) Buy more VTES, buy less sleeves... DaveZ Atom Weaver (...contributed to eliminating 500 mtons of VOCs and HAPs in industrial coatings, fiberglass composites, and inks this year. Estimated career-long tally of ~6,000 mtons of VOCs and HAPs eliminated.)

> > Never considered the Sleeves question that way... :-) > > > > Not to consider che chemical colors used for printing cards... are > > them bio-degradable? > > > Largely they are, yes. Organic molecules, many derived from renewable > resources, like soy beans and castor oil. Ink pigments tend to be mineral > in nature, though mostly benign in the environment. > > > All those tress being cut, let me ponder the idea to stop buying > > vtes... ;) > > Trees are a renewable resource (and an atmospheric scrubber before > harvesting). Petroleum (Plastic sleeves) is not. Sheesh, does a gas- > guzzling American have to teach you enviro-Euros these things? ;-) Buy > more VTES, buy less sleeves... Although I get your point, I think that VTES cards are, not unlike Laura Palmer, wrapped in plastic too. The boosts wrappers don't appear too natural to me, and the new starts now include 2 plastic wrappers in the cardboard box. I can understand people making such drastic choices as to "not buy any plastic", but I really think it's a bad arguments here, as the same players who oppose to buy a few packs of sleeves obviously buy all kinds of plastic in their everyday lives, including VTES wrappers. And was there such a fuss about buying tones of plastic dice for RPGs ? My excuses to all those who really don't buy any plastic and also respect the environment at 100 %, I really admire those, as my small efforts must not go above 10% of what I could really do if I totally got into it (and didn't buy anymore VTES, or, much worse... Heroclix !!). [ quoted text not captured ]

> But I do believe there are many "opportunists", who think it isn't wrong > if they take out one less counter than they should, if they forget the > loss from Fame or Anarch Revolt, etc. "Opportunists" are cheaters. Straight and simple. They are just willing to cheat when there's virtually no chance of being caught. That doesn't exactly change their moral fiber. And, such a person will derive a benefit from any of a number of foreseen or unforeseen scenarios if the chance presents itself. I fail to see how this is dramatically different from creating such scenarios to begin with. "Oops, I counted out 38 pool instead of 30. I noticed it, but since I did it accidentally a long while ago, I guess I won't bother to fix it." That, my friend, is cheating. > So there are degrees in cheating, and I really believe that, although > you all are right that hardcore cheaters (I don't think I met more than > 2 in my gaming experience) will always find a way, sleeving the cards > goes a looooong way to prevent "occasional" or "opportunist" cheating. It's cheating. > And seeing all the possibilities of slipping down that road that 3rd Ed > proposes, I really believe that it's important to plan counter-measures > for such an important tournament. Those counter-measures are inherent in the individual decisions that each player makes: if you're gonna cheat, no counter-measure can catch all such transgressions before they occur. > As for the extra cost : 9 euros in a lifetime ain't that much compared to > all we already spend on cards and storing accessories, is it ? That's hardly an acceptable justification for artificially inflating a tournament cost, especially when the reason for it is distrust of the players who are playing the game. Ankur Play. The. Game.

> "Sufficiently mixed" is the key here. What about players who just don't > have those big Master Rares in anything but Jyhad ? Simple! Put in non-big masters that are also from the Jyhad set. In all likelihood, a large percentage of your cards are coming from Jyhad sets anyway. > People were already complaining about the difficulty of informing > players that they should sleeve their decks, now you must inform them > that they have to change their decks because all their Rare Masters are > Jyhad ? These constraints are clearly written in the VEKN tournament rules. Sleeve requirements are something that have to be checked individually for each tournament. If I bring a deck that is valid according to VEKN rules, I do not expect to require changes to that. > And what if they begin play with such a deck, unaware ? Game loss ? A player's responsibility is to bring a valid deck to the tournament. > Let's not waste the time and energy where players complain about > possible cheating and say : "all decks including 3rd Ed or Jyhad cards > must be sleeved". That, unfortunately stops neither the "hardcore" cheater nor the "opportunistic" one. I'm strongly tempted to bring a deck that's sleeved in 7 different colors, all sufficiently mixed. I dare any judge to challenge that I haven't satisfied the rules. > And players who are warned about it and are reaaaaally allergic can > always choose to play neither Jyhad nor 3rd Ed, although that would seem > silly to me compared to the simple act of sleeving their decks for the > event (maximum 3 decks, possibly only one set of sleeves bought). Or the simple act of not cheating. Your choice really. >> But the problem still remain for future events, I suppose... > > Yes it does. In as much as cheating itself does, sure. Ankur Play. The. Game.

> > But I do believe there are many "opportunists", who think it isn't wrong > > if they take out one less counter than they should, if they forget the > > loss from Fame or Anarch Revolt, etc. > > "Opportunists" are cheaters. Straight and simple. They are just willing to > cheat when there's virtually no chance of being caught. That doesn't > exactly change their moral fiber. And, such a person will derive a benefit > from any of a number of foreseen or unforeseen scenarios if the chance > presents itself. Agreed. > I fail to see how this is dramatically different from creating such > scenarios to begin with. "Oops, I counted out 38 pool instead of 30. I > noticed it, but since I did it accidentally a long while ago, I guess I > won't bother to fix it." > > That, my friend, is cheating. Yes, of course ! But it's easier to "let go". Some players might not have your moral standards and will more easily "slip" than outright cheat. Of this I am sure, and there have been discussions about it on some forums, where it appears clearly that someone's moral ground is somebody else's stomping ground. Whether you like it or no has no sway on the matter. > > So there are degrees in cheating, and I really believe that, although > > you all are right that hardcore cheaters (I don't think I met more than > > 2 in my gaming experience) will always find a way, sleeving the cards > > goes a looooong way to prevent "occasional" or "opportunist" cheating. > > It's cheating. Are you caught in a Temporis loop too ? ;-) > > And seeing all the possibilities of slipping down that road that 3rd Ed > > proposes, I really believe that it's important to plan counter-measures > > for such an important tournament. > > Those counter-measures are inherent in the individual decisions that each > player makes: if you're gonna cheat, no counter-measure can catch all such > transgressions before they occur. You're only giving me the best argument to reduce all such occurances. Put sleeves on 3rd cards. > > As for the extra cost : 9 euros in a lifetime ain't that much compared to > > all we already spend on cards and storing accessories, is it ? > > That's hardly an acceptable justification for artificially inflating a > tournament cost, 9 euros or dollars, say, a YEAR inflates ONE tournament ?! Oh come on, you'll enjoy your sleeves after a while. Some of them even have naked women on them. ;-) How much does a Playboy centerfold costs ? > especially when the reason for it is distrust of the > players who are playing the game. Man, you're distorting the truth. The reason for it is to allow the "players who are playing the game" to play it under the best conditions, without having to deal with asshole cheaters. Nuff said. > Ankur > Play. The. Game. Yes. And give the players the best and cleanest possible play environments. Cover these 3rd Ed atrocities and Jyhad antiquities. -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

> I understand, but then the part about "efficiently mixed" with Jyhad > backs that IS in the rules is very badly known in some parts. And what > ratio is considered "sufficiently mixed" ? This is an unnecessary hurdle. How about "evenly distributed"? > And the logical adaptation that should be made concerning 3rd Ed isn't > "yet" in the rules but should be. The problem is the same as with Jyhad, > although a little more subtle. It's the same logical leap. > It could be done. Also, players who register before the tournament could > have a mail sent to them including that information, and it would solve > much of the communication problem. What about people who come spontaneously? Will you turn them away? Ankur Play. The. Game.

> Mate, you're giving the best "pro-sleeves" argument ever here !! Yes, if > judges don't have to bother about "is he cheating with his 3rd Ed or > Jyhad cards" they can take care of real issues. Which is exactly why our > national judges chose to make sleeves mandatory. And they judge well > now. ;-) . . . You mean like "whether they're cheating with opaque sleeves? >> So i have to agree to Ankur. Play the game. > > I don't follow your reasonning here. Mine is : sleeve your decks, less > worry about cheating, and play the game !! Reasoning which is (unfortunately) wrong. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Dr Jester wrote: > Yes there're a clear rule about handling cheating or cards allowance in > a deck or cards marking. It's not a problem, during a game, to pause > the table, check the "suspicious" deck and apply or not penalties... > but my intent in this matter was to give all of you an easier and less > suspicious game for the EC2006 Event. Suspecting everyone automatically makes for a more suspicious game. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> As you said some posts before, my idea in using mandatory sleeves was to > avoid minor annoiaces to judges about using mixing cards type in decks. > There will be a lot of other matter of discussions in the EC2006 that > these seems the easiest problem to solve from right now to keep judges' > minds focused on their true mission! If it worked, I think you might have a point. Sadly, it guarantees nothing. > After all there're a lot of good reasons to use sleeves for own decks: > - they let you keep track of your cards on the table > - they let you protect the cards fro enviroment accidents and shuffling > routine > - they let you express your personality with much different patterns > - they aren't so expensive after all and you need just one set for > these tournament event > - they keep the cards in mint/near mint condition, so you can trade 'em > for they real value > - they avoid marking cards problem (yes there's still marking sleeve > problems, but that's really lamer) The above reasons can't be forcibly pushed onto players. For the last reason, there could be similar "unintentional" marked opaque sleeves. For example, you have a subconscious tendency to fiddle with your reaction cards. That fiddling bends one corner of the sleeves more than usual. You notice this. You tell no one, because you're clearly using sleeves and therefore not cheating. > I hope that almost all the players will come with sleeves... and that's > the best way to solve the problem and to avoid time consuming check > operations at the tables. Except that it's not. Ankur Play. The. Game.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in news:450176c4$0$12820$626a...@news.free.fr: >> > Never considered the Sleeves question that way... :-) >> > >> > Not to consider che chemical colors used for printing cards... are >> > them bio-degradable? >> > >> Largely they are, yes. Organic molecules, many derived from >> renewable resources, like soy beans and castor oil. Ink pigments >> tend to be mineral in nature, though mostly benign in the >> environment. >> >> > All those tress being cut, let me ponder the idea to stop buying >> > vtes... ;) >> >> Trees are a renewable resource (and an atmospheric scrubber before >> harvesting). Petroleum (Plastic sleeves) is not. Sheesh, does a >> gas- guzzling American have to teach you enviro-Euros these things? >> ;-) Buy more VTES, buy less sleeves... > > Although I get your point, I think that VTES cards are, not unlike > Laura Palmer, wrapped in plastic too. The boosts wrappers don't appear > too natural to me, and the new starts now include 2 plastic wrappers > in the cardboard box. > Aye. So you're buying boosters in packaging thats needed to deliver them, and then re-buying sleeves to put them back in plastic..? Just to note, yeah, the whole thing doesnt' really add up to a lot. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheeky. Take all the VTES in the world, and sleeve it with plastic... a couple dozen SUVs putting 10-15 tons/year of carbon in the air would likely out-pace the sleeves, in terms of annual petroleum consumption. > I can understand people making such drastic choices as to "not buy any > plastic", but I really think it's a bad arguments here, as the same > players who oppose to buy a few packs of sleeves obviously buy all > kinds of plastic in their everyday lives, including VTES wrappers. And > was there such a fuss about buying tones of plastic dice for RPGs ? > As far as packaging goes, VTES boosters are pretty well-packaged, from an environmental standpoint. Vacuum metallized films are very lightweight (low mass ratio of plastic), economical, and generally good at protecting their contents. Starters are even better (paper carton, cello-wrapped interior, less plastic with more cards). > My excuses to all those who really don't buy any plastic and also > respect the environment at 100 %, I really admire those, as my small > efforts must not go above 10% of what I could really do if I totally > got into it (and didn't buy anymore VTES, or, much worse... Heroclix > !!). -- Other choices we make have a _much_ greater impact than choices in buying recreational products like VTES, or sleeves to go with them. Get a card with good fuel economy... Keep your car usage to a minimum reasonable level... If you have to replace a heater/boiler/furnace/large appliance, buy the most energy-efficient model you can afford. Keep your thermostat down a few degrees in the winter... Take shorter showers. Keep your electrical consumption down by turning off unneeded/unused applicances and lights. Buy from companies that have these same habits. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Alias wrote: > If you play in a pub, at least a Czech style pub, where beer flows like > a river, sleeves are simply a must. minor spills here and there, and in > a month, your cards resemble used beer mats. I can confirm this happens in New Zealand and the UK as well :-) I'm not sure of the relative stickyness factor between Czech, New Zealand, and UK beer but I can say the New Zealand beer is better. That's possibly not all that relevent to this discussion but it's a useful point anyhow. > And obviously don' t own a cat. My cat once, when she was a kitty, > pissed in my card box, where I had my !Torrie deck. I tell you, it's > better to throw away few sleeves than a pile of Art Scams and Embraces. Tell me about it! By some miracle I just lost about a dozen commons when this happened to me and after that my decks went into a separate box and the rares went into a folder. > Or to throw away the cat. Hmmm. > As for the serious reasons, I dont know if somebody mentioned that > already (a sane person can't read whole thread like this), but sleeves, > assuming that a playgroup uses a lot of different ones (really not a > problem. so many color and texture choices), really help a lot > regarding ownership of the cards. No more guessing, to whom the > forgotten Fame or Disarm or Anarch Troublemaker could belong. One of the guys in our group had the genius idea of just putting a little post-it type sticker on his cards when he plays them so you can't forget. But sleeves work too :) Simon

> I can understand people making such drastic choices as to "not buy any > plastic", but I really think it's a bad arguments here, as the same > players who oppose to buy a few packs of sleeves obviously buy all kinds > of plastic in their everyday lives, including VTES wrappers. And was > there such a fuss about buying tones of plastic dice for RPGs ? The presence of one occurrence of a bad thing is not justification for another occurrence of a bad thing. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Orpheus wrote: > But I do believe there are many "opportunists", who think it isn't wrong if > they take out one less counter than they should, if they forget the loss > from Fame or Anarch Revolt, etc. Very, very few of those players will risk > actually marking their sleeves or doing anything that could be really > reproached to them. But if they, say, have all their Deflections with Jyhad > backs and only new Master cards from 3rd Ed, they might be tempted to take a > look. The same way you might be tempted to look at your prey's cards if he > keeps showing them to you, as opposed with trying to see his hand. Heh. I've politely asked many a prey to stop showing me their hand. After all, it's illegal to show someone your hand. But it's still easier to opportunistically cheat by using marked sleeves than marked cards, so your point remains moot. > Or the > same way that if you draw one more card and see it by accident without > anyone seeing it, you'll have to choose between replacing it on top of your > library (and taking into account that info or not) or telling everyone. > There is a fine line here. I usually weigh the estimated time it will take to draw my next replacement with the estimated time that it will take to shuffle my library. > As for the extra cost : 9 euros in a lifetime ain't that much compared to > all we already spend on cards and storing accessories, is it ? sleeves don't last a lifetime. I've been lucky that my Deck Protector Metallized Sleeves have lasted since '02. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Yes, of course ! But it's easier to "let go". Some players might not > have your moral standards and will more easily "slip" than outright > cheat. Of this I am sure, and there have been discussions about it on > some forums, where it appears clearly that someone's moral ground is > somebody else's stomping ground. Whether you like it or no has no sway > on the matter. Sure, but if sleeving cards actually addressed that issue, I would be more likely to fall into your arguments. >>> And seeing all the possibilities of slipping down that road that 3rd >>> Ed proposes, I really believe that it's important to plan >>> counter-measures for such an important tournament. >> >> Those counter-measures are inherent in the individual decisions that >> each player makes: if you're gonna cheat, no counter-measure can catch >> all such transgressions before they occur. > > You're only giving me the best argument to reduce all such occurances. > Put sleeves on 3rd cards. That counter-measure can be thwarted. Therefore, I submit that it's not a counter-measure at all. For those who "slip", they might be tempted to mark sleeves in a tournament with a "false sense of security". More subtle changes can be made to sleeves, such as scraping shiny cards at different angles. The kind of crap that no one can see. And since one man's moral ground is another man's stomping ground. . . . >> That's hardly an acceptable justification for artificially inflating a >> tournament cost, > > 9 euros or dollars, say, a YEAR inflates ONE tournament ?! Oh come on, > you'll enjoy your sleeves after a while. Some of them even have naked > women on them. ;-) How much does a Playboy centerfold costs ? The point is that the requirement pre-supposes cheating on the part of all participants, not the 9 Euros. (Though that's not completely insignificant.) >> especially when the reason for it is distrust of the players who are >> playing the game. > > Man, you're distorting the truth. The reason for it is to allow the > "players who are playing the game" to play it under the best conditions, > without having to deal with asshole cheaters. Nuff said. Translation: To guarantee the best conditions, we have to make sure that asshole cheaters can't cheat. To that end, we'll assume that every player is and enforce rules to that effect. Moreover, the measures we take are easily thwarted and don't deter the target audience from gaining an advantage anyway. I think that is pretty accurate. > Yes. And give the players the best and cleanest possible play > environments. If only it were true. Ankur Play. The. Game.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:450147f9$0$26983$626a...@news.free.fr... >> The point is, I don't believe the suggestion you communicated to Christian >> Perron and that he responded by stating their group would consider is >> something they're allowed to do. > > They are. It's been done before, including in the presence of Steve or > Stewart Wieck. "It's been done before." is not an argument nor an endorsement. I wasn't there so I don't know. I'm just saying that finding this passage in the rules and using it to mean that organizers can make up any rule they want is absurd and problematic. How can any player ever know that they're bringing the right stuff or enough stuff to a tournament? >> > The options would be : you don't have to put opaque sleeves if you don't >> > play either Jyhad or 3rd Ed cards ; >> >> That's different than the real rules, however. > > Than the "fixed" rules, yes, but it can be added. Sorry, I disagree. >> > but I doubt the 3rd Ed part will be met, >> >> It's not in any way necessary for 3E cards. 3E card backs are identical >> to other VtES card backs. > > No they're not. They are of lighter tint and therefore look a little > "brighter". Feel free to check and tell me what you think. I think they're close enough that people shouldn't be getting paranoid about it. As many others have pointed out, there are small differences in many of the expansion. Here's just one more. So what? >> Players should not be allowed to "mark" 3E >> or any other types of cards by permitting them to be the only one(s) >> oriented in a certain direction in their stack of library cards. So the >> front-to-back reversal thing completely orthagonal to this issue. > > You really think players will bother with putting their 3rd Ed cards the > wrong way in their decks ? And then reversing them when they come in their > hands, showing everyone that they do ? No. I thought you were referring to the front-to-back orientation of the 3E cards, as that's the only thing truly different about them. I was just saying it didn't matter, either. >> > But yes, the organisation will have to announce it in advance, >> >> The problem I find with the "announce it in advance" concept is >> that organizers often don't consider the players' point of view. They'll >> do something like sticking some little notice up on their website a week >> ahead of time - forgetting that many players had discovered all the >> information they (thought they) needed to know about an event long before >> then and have no reason to check the organizer's website just before >> leaving for an event. To really "announce it in advance", organizers >> need to announce all requirements players need to know about from >> the very beginning. They can't be changing the rules after the first >> wave of information has already gone out or they'll miss people. > > I understand, but then the part about "efficiently mixed" with Jyhad backs > that IS in the rules is very badly known in some parts. Hey, at least it's posted and consistent. If players can't read the tournament rules before going to a tournament then how do you expect them to read a tournament organizer's website or discover from any other source of information that sleeves are required? Your position makes no sense. > And what ratio is considered "sufficiently mixed" ? It's judgement. The essential point is, how much information can a player gleen from seeing the cardback in the library? > And the logical adaptation that should be made concerning 3rd Ed isn't "yet" > in the rules but should be. The problem is the same as with Jyhad, although > a little more subtle. That's never going to happen. I don't think you're going to convince anyone that 3E cardbacks warrant such treatment. >> IMO, it's far too late for this year's EC to be considering new rules >> or changes in the format unless they're prepared to make all the >> arrangements to deal with players who show up never having heard of >> the change. I suppose you could argue that it would be OK if they >> made sure card sleeves were offered for a fairly modest price or >> for free. But that's about as generous as I'd be with the concept. > > It could be done. No, it can't. It's already too late, given that many will not look at another source of information between now and the EC. > Also, players who register before the tournament could > have a mail sent to them including that information, and it would solve much > of the communication problem. That doesn't solve the problem of people who already have reservations and know when and where to show up but don't plan to pre-register. That's my point: you keep trying to solve a problem that can't totally be solved. In order to get the information out, it has to be there from the start. Fred

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > As you said some posts before, my idea in using mandatory sleeves was to > > avoid minor annoiaces to judges about using mixing cards type in decks. > > There will be a lot of other matter of discussions in the EC2006 that > > these seems the easiest problem to solve from right now to keep judges' > > minds focused on their true mission! > > If it worked, I think you might have a point. Sadly, it guarantees > nothing. After all I'm not looking for a perfect solution or I'd look, first of all, for perfect players! or not? It's just a way to reduce cheating or time loss checking problems, before they happen... it'll not solve all the problem, but better than do nothing at all IMHO. > > After all there're a lot of good reasons to use sleeves for own decks: > > - they let you keep track of your cards on the table > > - they let you protect the cards fro enviroment accidents and shuffling > > routine > > - they let you express your personality with much different patterns > > - they aren't so expensive after all and you need just one set for > > these tournament event > > - they keep the cards in mint/near mint condition, so you can trade 'em > > for they real value > > - they avoid marking cards problem (yes there's still marking sleeve > > problems, but that's really lamer) > > The above reasons can't be forcibly pushed onto players. For the last > reason, there could be similar "unintentional" marked opaque sleeves. For > example, you have a subconscious tendency to fiddle with your reaction > cards. That fiddling bends one corner of the sleeves more than usual. You > notice this. You tell no one, because you're clearly using sleeves and > therefore not cheating. Yeah for sure or use some infra red marker with special pair of glasses... too James Bond play? Maybe, but we cannot prevent everything... we try to reduce cheat gaps... if some one happens to cheat without no one to know, good for him... we're playng vtes, not Pokemon :P > > > I hope that almost all the players will come with sleeves... and that's > > the best way to solve the problem and to avoid time consuming check > > operations at the tables. > > Except that it's not. We're disussing it and trying to get European feedback about it... let's see... Maybe it'll be mandatory in the end... > > Ankur > Play. The. Game. Play the game of course... [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message > news:450147f9$0$26983$626a...@news.free.fr... > >> > But yes, the organisation will have to announce it in advance, > >> > >> The problem I find with the "announce it in advance" concept is > >> that organizers often don't consider the players' point of view. They'll > >> do something like sticking some little notice up on their website a week > >> ahead of time - forgetting that many players had discovered all the > >> information they (thought they) needed to know about an event long before > >> then and have no reason to check the organizer's website just before > >> leaving for an event. To really "announce it in advance", organizers > >> need to announce all requirements players need to know about from > >> the very beginning. They can't be changing the rules after the first > >> wave of information has already gone out or they'll miss people. > > > > I understand, but then the part about "efficiently mixed" with Jyhad backs > > that IS in the rules is very badly known in some parts. > > Hey, at least it's posted and consistent. If players can't read the > tournament rules before going to a tournament then how do you expect them > to read a tournament organizer's website or discover from any other source > of information that sleeves are required? Your position makes no sense. > > Fred You're right nor EC organization neither WW can be responsable for players not reading the rules, the other rulings or the tournament specail features... if a player will come with a Dramatic Upheaval in his deck, who's fault then? If I write on the official EC website, in the page for pre-registration and send again a reminder in the confirming e-mails e the following one (bold, big, blinkig words)... what's the matter if he still refuse to read and understand? You don't know or read the laws, are you excused for breaking them? I think that with so much time, a bit of organization in supplying sleeves at the tournament (perhaps lending them) and a lot of INFORMATION before, it'd be possible... but if WW says NO, that close the argumentations here. [ quoted text not captured ]

> After all I'm not looking for a perfect solution or I'd look, first of > all, for perfect players! or not? It's just a way to reduce cheating or > time loss checking problems, before they happen... it'll not solve all > the problem, but better than do nothing at all IMHO. I fundamentally disagree with your contention that it will reduce cheating. >> The above reasons can't be forcibly pushed onto players. For the last >> reason, there could be similar "unintentional" marked opaque sleeves. >> For example, you have a subconscious tendency to fiddle with your >> reaction cards. That fiddling bends one corner of the sleeves more than >> usual. You notice this. You tell no one, because you're clearly using >> sleeves and therefore not cheating. > > Yeah for sure or use some infra red marker with special pair of > glasses... too James Bond play? Maybe, but we cannot prevent > everything... we try to reduce cheat gaps... if some one happens to > cheat without no one to know, good for him... we're playng vtes, not > Pokemon :P Right. That's *exactly* the reason you don't need to resort to tactics that are at best insulting and ineffective against any true threat to fair play. Furthermore, you might make the issue worse: some people will walk into this "highly sterilized, cheat-free environment" and not notice cheating, thus giving cheaters more freedom. Cheating is more difficult to detect with sleeves. Just assume that everyone is there to play the game and focus on judging. Random spot checks ought to catch whatever transgressions you intend to catch. >> Except that it's not. > > We're disussing it and trying to get European feedback about it... let's > see... Maybe it'll be mandatory in the end... Sigh. Ankur Play. The. Game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok.. it's the EC after all, the biggest torunament in the year in Europe... for sure it'll be a suspicious, problematic, judges consuming game... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Ok.. it's the EC after all, the biggest torunament in the year in > Europe... for sure it'll be a suspicious, problematic, judges consuming > game... ;) Or, it could be fun, competitive, and full of brilliant play. You set the tone. It's your choice really. Ankur Play. The. Game.

"Dr Jester" <drjest...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157728482.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message >> news:450147f9$0$26983$626a...@news.free.fr... >> > I understand, but then the part about "efficiently mixed" with Jyhad backs >> > that IS in the rules is very badly known in some parts. >> >> Hey, at least it's posted and consistent. If players can't read the >> tournament rules before going to a tournament then how do you expect them >> to read a tournament organizer's website or discover from any other source >> of information that sleeves are required? Your position makes no sense. > > You're right nor EC organization neither WW can be responsable for > players not reading the rules, the other rulings or the tournament > specail features... if a player will come with a Dramatic Upheaval in > his deck, who's fault then? If I write on the official EC website, in > the page for pre-registration and send again a reminder in the > confirming e-mails e the following one (bold, big, blinkig words)... > what's the matter if he still refuse to read and understand? > You don't know or read the laws, are you excused for breaking them? The problem is that your website is not an official source of tournament rules. That's my problem with the whole concept Orpheus is trying to sell: there is already one and only one source of tournament rules - the VEKN tournament rules document. You're correct that players need to take the responsibility of reading them and understanding them. Having done that, that should be all they're required to do. They should not be required to go find your website and read it as well in order to know how to prepare for a tournament - to say nothing about continuing to read it week after week JUST IN CASE there are any changes at the last minute! And WHERE on your website is a player supposed to go to be sure he's found your special rules?!? Especially since tournament organizers are notoriously DISorganized about how they convey such information. It could be anywhere - on the first page in huge, underlined letters or on some little link on the registration page that nobody notices. How would I know if I've searched enough? Sorry, I don't think this concept works. > I think that with so much time, a bit of organization in supplying > sleeves at the tournament (perhaps lending them) and a lot of > INFORMATION before, it'd be possible... but if WW says NO, that close > the argumentations here. If you're prepared to provide the sleeves, especially as loaners for free, then I'd be a lot less inclined to see any problem caused. I'm still skeptical about the meaning of the rule Orpheus quoted. I'd like to get that issue clarified. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, I got your point of view and I think that loaning sleeves for free could be a way to make mandatory ruling less forcing on the players that truly dislike them. And for sure we'll put the statement about it CLEARLY where it cannot be avoided to read (perhaps also in the same Decklist document). After all, with sleeves read to be loan for free, also the more distract player can provide to it before the tournament start. About rules meaning, well, it's better to wait official clarification, that's always the last word on the matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It's impossible to satisfy everybody... but we're doing our best about it. Let's see what will be in the end [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe we'll never solve the problem... I've to tell I'm more concerned on checking Decklists and decks at the moment. That'll be a real torment... -_- [ quoted text not captured ]

Wanna solve the cheating issue? Do the Auction for Jyhad orphans thing..... You make a REALLY BIG sign that you put at the entrance. you also hand out a form that evryone entering the competition has to sign. These two things both state that if you are caught cheating, you will be tied to a chair and forced to watch "Power Rangers" Episodes 1-98345658. Twice. Then, once your mind has been reduced to a blob of quivering jelly, you will have the privilege of watching your "hosts" auction of ALL of your cards that you brought with you. Proceeds to go towars even more prizes for the honest players that win. Sorted?

> Maybe we'll never solve the problem... I've to tell I'm more concerned > on checking Decklists and decks at the moment. That'll be a real > torment... -_- Good luck with that. I usually just collect decklists and possibly randomly check a few. If you're on the final table, I do a comprehensive check of the deck against its list. I did this for the GLQ a couple of years ago, so it works even for big and important tournaments. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Dr Jester wrote: > Ok, I got your point of view and I think that loaning sleeves for free > could be a way to make mandatory ruling less forcing on the players > that truly dislike them. I'm not so sure. The added time it will take to verify that the free sleeves you're giving me aren't marked plus the time it takes to install and remove them from my sleeves seems much more of a hassle than the fact that I should already be considered prepared for the tournament to begin with.

Orpheus wrote: > > Christian, my experience from tournaments is, the more a judge makes a > > hazzle about unimportant things like sleeves, leaving the play area > > etc.the more mistakes are made with the important things. I still > > prefer the univisible judge who ist there when needed. > > Mate, you're giving the best "pro-sleeves" argument ever here !! Yes, if > judges don't have to bother about "is he cheating with his 3rd Ed or Jyhad > cards" they can take care of real issues. Which is exactly why our national > judges chose to make sleeves mandatory. And they judge well now. ;-) Just one question, If the national judges chose to make sleeves mandatory to prevent cheating, then are you saying that as a nation you are all cheaters? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu... >> After all I'm not looking for a perfect solution or I'd look, first of >> all, for perfect players! or not? It's just a way to reduce cheating or >> time loss checking problems, before they happen... it'll not solve all >> the problem, but better than do nothing at all IMHO. > > I fundamentally disagree with your contention that it will reduce > cheating. > >>> The above reasons can't be forcibly pushed onto players. For the last >>> reason, there could be similar "unintentional" marked opaque sleeves. Hello, as a former magician and card trickster, i can tell you for sure that is harder to mark plastic opaque sleeves than cards with 3 different printed backgrounds. Period >>> For example, you have a subconscious tendency to fiddle with your >>> reaction cards. That fiddling bends one corner of the sleeves more than >>> usual. You notice this. You tell no one, because you're clearly using >>> sleeves and therefore not cheating. >> >> Yeah for sure or use some infra red marker with special pair of >> glasses... too James Bond play? Maybe, but we cannot prevent >> everything... we try to reduce cheat gaps... if some one happens to cheat >> without no one to know, good for him... we're playng vtes, not Pokemon :P > > Right. That's *exactly* the reason you don't need to resort to tactics > that are at best insulting and ineffective against any true threat to fair > play. Furthermore, you might make the issue worse: some people will walk > into this "highly sterilized, cheat-free environment" and not notice > cheating, thus giving cheaters more freedom. > Taking a measure against would be cheating (given the 3 different card backgrounds) is better than taking no measure at all against it. Furthemore, handling the checks for decks constructed with three different printed background sets would be harder at best. > Cheating is more difficult to detect with sleeves. Untrue, unless you play with marked sleeves, that is equal to play with marked un-sleeved cards - only difference lies in that with 3 different background there will be less trouble and pain to check would be marked sleeves, and not three different backgrounds. <snip> regards Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome www.italybynight.org

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:IkmMg.13405$6Z1....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > Hello, > as a former magician and card trickster, i can tell you for sure that is > harder to mark plastic opaque sleeves than cards with 3 different printed > backgrounds. Period ... > Taking a measure against would be cheating (given the 3 different card > backgrounds) is better than taking no measure at all against it. I can appreciate your point of view as someone who knows about the subject of marking cards. I just wanted to point out that the second statement above is not an absolute. It depends on how likely one thinks it is that people will try to cheat and on how one values the freedom to not play with card sleeves. In short, your mileage may vary. Fred

In message <1157727762....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Dr Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >We're disussing it and trying to get European feedback about it... >let's see... Maybe it'll be mandatory in the end... If cheating is a problem, mandatory sleeves, if anything, make the problem worse; people think the problem is solved, and cheaters have an easier time cheating. Why do you want to make the problem worse? If cheating isn't a problem, what at you trying to achieve with this? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <xe2dnZjLBpE32JzY...@comcast.com>, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> writes: >150 of each color sounds good to me. >102 of each color would be "perfect", so you can use 90 of them for one deck, >and 12 for another deck's crypt*.. But with 150 there's plenty of "broken >sleeve replacement" room, and room to sleeve tupdog crypts :) You probably want 110 or so - a few spares, and the problem I've had of 50 sleeves meaning something close to 50 (up or down) with some sets. 150 is overkill, but not a huge problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > What the hell is a golf clap? Fred, I swear to G-d you say these ridiculous things just to convince the rest of us that you aren't as old as you really are. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

Orpheus <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Now for a general response to all those who say "cheaters will > cheat". I don't believe that's true. I don't believe there are many > real hardcore cheaters in the Jyhad world. How do you stop cheating in the following ways, which you will be unable to detect or prevent, and which are far more powerful than mere 'card issues': a. Influencing out a minion I already have in play, on purpose b. Starting with 31 (or 32) pool c. Clock-watching when there is very little time left d. Table-talking when there is very little time left e. "Accidentally" showing a card f. Etc. So, by the argument presented by the 'major' EU tournament organizers, everyone should be assumed to be trying to cheat in these ways and they should all be disallowed somehow, yes? Judge at every table, then, eh? Kevin M., Charter Member of the "Play. The. Game." Assn. [ quoted text not captured ]

> How do you stop cheating in the following ways, which you will be unable > to detect or prevent, and which are far more powerful than mere 'card > issues': > > a. Influencing out a minion I already have in play, on purpose What's the use ? Lose pool ? > b. Starting with 31 (or 32) pool Nicely ask players to put their pool 5 by 5, it helps a great deal. In some tournies judges officially "encouraged" this and it worked quite well - not only against cheating but also against unvoluntary mistakes, which can happen too. > c. Clock-watching when there is very little time left There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. > d. Table-talking when there is very little time left There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. > e. "Accidentally" showing a card You're a big boy, it's up to you to take it into account or not. That's the kind of cheating that will help you more often than not. > f. Etc. You just have to ad lib. ;-) > So, by the argument presented by the 'major' EU tournament organizers, > everyone should be assumed to be trying to cheat in these ways and they > should all be disallowed somehow, yes? Velly funny doctol Jones. Not in anyway accurate or close to anything I suggested, though. > Judge at every table, then, eh? In big events, Judges go round and round, sometimes stay at tables for a while, and are available whenever needed. We had wonderful judgements at this year's french Open and Championship. Hope that helps, -- Duncan O'rpheus, of the O'rpheus clan from the scottish highlands.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:1dvMg.9367$cw.1213@fed1read03... > Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> What the hell is a golf clap? > > Fred, I swear to G-d you say these ridiculous things just to convince the > rest of us that you aren't as old as you really are. ;) Well, it turns out the thing actually has to with, *choke* URG, GOLF! That explains it: I don't involve myself in activities that have a serious chance of BORING people to death! Fred (Now if had to do with the Clap, that'd be more interesting...)

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:2$aCF2Yjr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <1157727762....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Dr > Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >>We're disussing it and trying to get European feedback about it... >>let's see... Maybe it'll be mandatory in the end... > > If cheating is a problem, mandatory sleeves, if anything, make the > problem worse; people think the problem is solved, and cheaters have an > easier time cheating. Why ? - Chaters would get just an hard time trying to cheat, at least in respect of marking opaque sleeves. Sure, people would be still vigilant in game matters (pools, card drawing etc). >Why do you want to make the problem worse? Mandatory sleeves won't worse the problem - they would just make marking of cards harder, that's all. regards Emiliano

Orpheus <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> How do you stop cheating in the following ways, which you will be >> unable to detect or prevent, and which are far more powerful than >> mere 'card issues': >> >> a. Influencing out a minion I already have in play, on purpose > > What's the use ? Lose pool ? Good to know that you are unaware of how this may help me. >> b. Starting with 31 (or 32) pool > > Nicely ask players to put their pool 5 by 5, it helps a great deal. > In some tournies judges officially "encouraged" this and it worked > quite well - not only against cheating but also against unvoluntary > mistakes, which can happen too. No, I won't put my pool in 5 x 5 sections. It is all in one pile, and you can count it out as you please. Oh, I also won't stop using pennies, which, of course, I stack. >> c. Clock-watching when there is very little time left > > There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. > >> d. Table-talking when there is very little time left > > There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. Try and enforce it when there are only 30 seconds left and I am "thinking" about my next move, in order to get the 0.5vp. >> e. "Accidentally" showing a card > > You're a big boy, it's up to you to take it into account or not. > That's the kind of cheating that will help you more often than not. Exactly. >> So, by the argument presented by the 'major' EU tournament >> organizers, everyone should be assumed to be trying to cheat in >> these ways and they should all be disallowed somehow, yes? > > Velly funny doctol Jones. Not in anyway accurate or close to anything > I suggested, though. EXACTLY as you specified, in that you do not force at the point of a gun all kinds of additional "rules" to cover every scenario which you assume players to be doing; rather, you let the players play the game and add these rules 'as needed'. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <GcFMg.14430$6Z1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:2$aCF2Yjr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <1157727762....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Dr >> Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >>>We're disussing it and trying to get European feedback about it... >>>let's see... Maybe it'll be mandatory in the end... >> >> If cheating is a problem, mandatory sleeves, if anything, make the >> problem worse; people think the problem is solved, and cheaters have an >> easier time cheating. > >Why ? - Chaters would get just an hard time trying to cheat, >at least in respect of marking opaque sleeves. >Sure, people would be still vigilant in game matters (pools, card drawing >etc). As demonstrated by this thread, there are a hell of a lot of people who think that sleeves somehow stop you having a marked deck. The reverse is true. Now, the cheaters who wanted to cheat using sleeves before can carry on cheating as before. However, the general level of awareness of even the possibility of cheating goes down as a bunch of people who haven't even thought about the problem suddenly think it's gone away. >>Why do you want to make the problem worse? > >Mandatory sleeves won't worse the problem - >they would just make marking of cards harder, >that's all. I submit this thread in general as evidence that too many players think that sleeves stop you marking a deck, lowering the chance of it being thought about, let alone detected. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Scythe escreveu: > Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > > > You get used to it after a while, it conserves (is it the right verb?) > > cards and makes shuffling easier. > > I believe you want 'preserves'. There. Thanks :) One of those situations where the verb in local language is very similar to an English verb but the latter doesn't sound quite right. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably the sleeves don't stop players to cheat at all, but it gives them hard time. If you're a really trickster or CIA Agent, may be you can use some kind of almost invisible marker on the sleeves... but if no one knows, I think it'd be almost impossible for a judge to find out... We're, however, asking WW for an official answer about the possibilty for us to make the sleeves mandatory, just to know if we're disccusing on nothing! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1157960309.9...@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, Dr Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >Probably the sleeves don't stop players to cheat at all, but it gives >them hard time. If you're a really trickster or CIA Agent, may be you >can use some kind of almost invisible marker on the sleeves... but if >no one knows, I think it'd be almost impossible for a judge to find >out... No, you're talking *complete and utter nonsense*. Have you not read this thread? Have you just been ignoring the bits where people make points that disagree with you? Sleeves were not allowed in Magic for quite some time because they make it *easier* to cheat. The rules for Magic (and also for V:TES, which were based on them) allowed you to require that a player de-sleeve their deck precisely because it is much, much easier to cheat with sleeves. You don't need to be a CIA agent to twist the corner of a sleeve. You don't need to be a CIA agent to put some cards into sleeves at a different angle, where sleeves have a little give. You don't need to be a CIA agent to make a small incision in the corner of a sleeve. You don't need to be a CIA agent to leave a few crumbs in the sleeve, which you can feel with your fingers. Please explain in precise detail which of the above require you to be a "trickster" or "CIA agent". Because none of them do. They can all be done by any 10-year old kid with a little time and effort. How many of the Magic players that have used sleeves to mark their decks do you reckon have also been CIA agents? Any rough guesses that aren't "zero"? If players are intentionally marking their deck using, say, Jyhad cards for political actions and retainers, they are already cheaters. It does not require a degree in subterfuge to replicate exactly the same cheating with sleeves. Why on earth do you think that cheating with sleeves is so hard? What evidence do you have that marking cards with sleeves is hard? It simply isn't hard, in any way, shape, or form. Honestly, if you don't even understand how easy it is to mark a deck with sleeves, you are not in any position to ask White Wolf to allow you to make it mandatory, as you are exactly the last person who should have ANYTHING to do with this. Seriously. You think cheating with sleeves is hard, when it isn't hard in the slightest. >Dr Jester >Christian Perron >EC2006 Organizator Please for the love of God let someone else inspect decks at the EC, as you really have left the realms of reality for some delusional fantasy land where sleeves can't be used to mark a deck unless you're a CIA operative. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> >> How do you stop cheating in the following ways, which you will be > >> unable to detect or prevent, and which are far more powerful than > >> mere 'card issues': > >> > >> a. Influencing out a minion I already have in play, on purpose > > > > What's the use ? Lose pool ? > > Good to know that you are unaware of how this may help me. And if, instead of such an insulting phrasing, you chose to explain ? You get your minion in play, it burns immediatly. You just lost X pool in your influence phase, for nothing. I'm not even sure it would be a smart move in a mass Parity Shift deck (there are very few cases where you can't do that more intelligently), in any other case it looks stupid and suicidal to me. But maybe Your Highness can enlighten the noobie I am ? > >> b. Starting with 31 (or 32) pool > > > > Nicely ask players to put their pool 5 by 5, it helps a great deal. > > In some tournies judges officially "encouraged" this and it worked > > quite well - not only against cheating but also against unvoluntary > > mistakes, which can happen too. > > No, I won't put my pool in 5 x 5 sections. It is all in one pile, and you > can count it out as you please. > > Oh, I also won't stop using pennies, which, of course, I stack. Then you're an asshole. With a tendency towards cheating. Please note I am judging your behavior, not you, whom I don't know outside of this obvious display of bad faith. And judges won't let players do that if they care about cheating in their tournament. If they don't, they're no use. > >> c. Clock-watching when there is very little time left > > > > There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. > > > >> d. Table-talking when there is very little time left > > > > There is a rule against stalling. Judges are there to enforce rules. > > Try and enforce it when there are only 30 seconds left and I am "thinking" > about my next move, in order to get the 0.5vp. It's been done. Have you EVER seen a good judge ?!? No, please don't answer this, it's rethorical. The same way your preposterous assertions have no other use but trolling. Judges can punish stalling, they can stop time, they can even add time if necessary on a table where stalling has occured, not to mention warn the offender. So stop being silly, please, we're among adults here (I think). > >> e. "Accidentally" showing a card > > > > You're a big boy, it's up to you to take it into account or not. > > That's the kind of cheating that will help you more often than not. > > Exactly. So, another moot point. Thank you for making me lose my time, be assured I won't spend anymore giving too much importance to your posts from now on. > >> So, by the argument presented by the 'major' EU tournament > >> organizers, everyone should be assumed to be trying to cheat in > >> these ways and they should all be disallowed somehow, yes? > > > > Velly funny doctol Jones. Not in anyway accurate or close to anything > > I suggested, though. > > EXACTLY as you specified, in that you do not force at the point of a gun > all kinds of additional "rules" to cover every scenario which you assume > players to be doing; rather, you let the players play the game and add > these rules 'as needed'. Ridiculous, preposterous, and nowhere near what I suggested. Please learn to read. And ask our local players if they felt "threatened by a gun" or protected against cheaters when asked to cover their decks if they had a few Jyhad cards in their decks. Nuff said, nuff wasted time. Bye. -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1157960309.9...@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>, Dr > Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: > >Probably the sleeves don't stop players to cheat at all, but it gives > >them hard time. If you're a really trickster or CIA Agent, may be you > >can use some kind of almost invisible marker on the sleeves... but if > >no one knows, I think it'd be almost impossible for a judge to find > >out... > > No, you're talking *complete and utter nonsense*. Have you not read > this thread? Have you just been ignoring the bits where people make > points that disagree with you? > > Sleeves were not allowed in Magic for quite some time because they make > it *easier* to cheat. The rules for Magic (and also for V:TES, which > were based on them) allowed you to require that a player de-sleeve their > deck precisely because it is much, much easier to cheat with sleeves. > > > You don't need to be a CIA agent to twist the corner of a sleeve. You > don't need to be a CIA agent to put some cards into sleeves at a > different angle, where sleeves have a little give. You don't need to be > a CIA agent to make a small incision in the corner of a sleeve. You > don't need to be a CIA agent to leave a few crumbs in the sleeve, which > you can feel with your fingers. > Don't forget very slight discolorations that can be intentionally or accidentally left by common household chemicals like coca cola and scratch marks that can be intentionally or accidentally left by fingernails. The most important thing about marking sleeves isn't whether it's easy or hard, it's that you only have to do it *once*. After that, you can move your marked sleeves from deck to deck. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> Orpheus wrote: > > > Christian, my experience from tournaments is, the more a judge makes a > > > hazzle about unimportant things like sleeves, leaving the play area > > > etc.the more mistakes are made with the important things. I still > > > prefer the univisible judge who ist there when needed. > > > > Mate, you're giving the best "pro-sleeves" argument ever here !! Yes, if > > judges don't have to bother about "is he cheating with his 3rd Ed or Jyhad > > cards" they can take care of real issues. Which is exactly why our national > > judges chose to make sleeves mandatory. And they judge well now. ;-) > > Just one question, If the national judges chose to make sleeves > mandatory to prevent cheating, then are you saying that as a nation you > are all cheaters? Well, do you have laws against murdering in your country ? Does it mean that you're all murderers ? Or does such an idiotic remark mean that you belong in a nation of idiots ? Why, you might even be intelligent yourself. But that type of insulting trolling certainly isn't the best way to prove it.

Orpheus wrote: > > Just one question, If the national judges chose to make sleeves > > mandatory to prevent cheating, then are you saying that as a nation you > > are all cheaters? > > Well, do you have laws against murdering in your country ? Does it mean that > you're all murderers ? Bad analogy. Murder is against the law, Cheating is against the rules. A better analogy would be gun control, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the United States (which is a debate for another newsgroup). Gun control removes guns from the people, on the theory that not having guns prevents them from committing crimes. Yet the criminals continue to find guns somehow... Yes, this is a perfect analogy. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Never considered the Sleeves question that way... :-) > > > > Not to consider che chemical colors used for printing cards... are > > them bio-degradable? > > > Largely they are, yes. Organic molecules, many derived from renewable > resources, like soy beans and castor oil. Ink pigments tend to be mineral > in nature, though mostly benign in the environment. > > > All those tress being cut, let me ponder the idea to stop buying > > vtes... ;) > > Trees are a renewable resource (and an atmospheric scrubber before > harvesting). Petroleum (Plastic sleeves) is not. Sheesh, does a gas- > guzzling American have to teach you enviro-Euros these things? ;-) Buy > more VTES, buy less sleeves... Just one last post on that "sleeves Vs ecology" wrong turn (not specifically adressed to you Dave) : - that some (very few) people make ecological choices and want to stick to them is something I respect ; - that some people in all bad faith use this argument while they care nothing about in their everyday life is just plain pathetic ; - that some people try to put a hierarchy between their choices and mine, without even knowing what these are, is something I won't accept, and just shows how little these people know. It doesn't matter if they made choices as drastic as some of mine, or more, or less, or even if they really refused all the pollution they can in their lives (including of course, as I do, the use of a motor car) : each person has its own values and outside from some extreme behaviors condemned by the whole of society, no right to judge the others based on personnal and subjective moral grounds. Nuff said.

> Why on earth do you think that cheating with sleeves is so hard? What > evidence do you have that marking cards with sleeves is hard? It simply > isn't hard, in any way, shape, or form. > > Honestly, if you don't even understand how easy it is to mark a deck > with sleeves, you are not in any position to ask White Wolf to allow you > to make it mandatory, as you are exactly the last person who should have > ANYTHING to do with this. Seriously. You think cheating with sleeves > is hard, when it isn't hard in the slightest. Minimally, sleeves are not something that White Wolf has control over. They do have some modicum of control over the quality of card backs, since they print them. Ergo. . . Ankur

>> Try and enforce it when there are only 30 seconds left and I am >> "thinking" about my next move, in order to get the 0.5vp. > > It's been done. Have you EVER seen a good judge ?!? No, please don't > answer this, it's rethorical. The same way your preposterous assertions > have no other use but trolling. Actually, in this case, it's nearly impossible to make such a fair judgement unless a judge is observing the entire scenario (which isn't always the case). I'd be inclined to agree with the poster. People often take 30 seconds to think about their next move; it just seems to feel more important as the game winds down. > Judges can punish stalling, they can stop time, they can even add time > if necessary on a table where stalling has occured, not to mention warn > the offender. So stop being silly, please, we're among adults here (I > think). Legitimate time to think ought to be allowed at all stages of the game. If a 30 second hiatus in the early or midgame is acceptable, then it should be similarly acceptable when there are only 32 seconds on the clock. (Barring some particularly unusual situation.) Ankur Play. The. Game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes you're right, but consider this: first of all sleeves cheaters are not interested in mandatory or not sleeves - they for sure will bring to the tournament their *perfect* marked sleeves; then there'll will always be a judge ready to call for a deck check in case of 'strange' marks on the sleeves, I'm not saying that with this kind of solution, we'll solve the cheaters problem. We (as I speak for almost ALL the organizators - democraticaly voting) are considering the mandatory sleeves option to avoid the printing problem with Jyhad, VTES and 3rd Edition. If you don't like to buy sleeves, we'll get a stock to loan for free (and those are marked free for sure). If think that we're giving all the support and the advices you need to be prepared with it... but if you still are agaist this rule, well, I'm sorry, but that's it... (well still waiting for an Official decision about it - polling time...) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > >Dr Jester > >Christian Perron > >EC2006 Organizator > > Please for the love of God let someone else inspect decks at the EC, as > you really have left the realms of reality for some delusional fantasy > land where sleeves can't be used to mark a deck unless you're a CIA > operative. > > -- > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. I was using a paradox to explain my point of view... maybe you don't agree with the mandatory sleeves decision (as I clearly understand from your words) and maybe you're right on it, but that doesn't let you judge me and my person without knowing me at all... If you hold the Truth and the Reason in you, for me it's fine... Christian Perron

Kevin M. wrote: > No, I won't put my pool in 5 x 5 sections. It is all in one pile, and you > can count it out as you please. C'mon, this is kind of silly, isn't it? Why wouldn't a player cooperate with such a simple and reasonable request? Organize your counters in a way that makes the judge's check easier and quicker. After he does, you stack them the way you enjoy the most. It would probably look like as if the player wanted to create problems for no good reason. (...) > Kevin M., Charter Member of the "Play. The. Game." Assn. Hey, I am also a supporter Play. The. Game. Where do I sign my membership card? Abraços, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC

CthuluKitty wrote: > How do sleeves make shuffling easier? I've found that the fastest and > most reliable way to shuffle a deck is the classic bridge shuffle, which > is more or less impossible with sleeves on. Are people you play with > so concerned with card preservation that they won't shuffle this way? I can't talk about most people, but I am, for instance. I only play with sleeves, transparent ones, which means their only goal is to keep my cards M/NM. I don't know any shuffling tricks, but the way I shuffle them is actually made easier by the sleeves I use, as Fabio mentioned. Either way, I would not use any shuffling method that could scratch my cards, or cause wear on their borders. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1157982133....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Dr Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >I was using a paradox to explain my point of view... maybe you don't >agree with the mandatory sleeves decision (as I clearly understand from >your words) and maybe you're right on it, but that doesn't let you >judge me and my person without knowing me at all... If you hold the >Truth and the Reason in you, for me it's fine... It's not a question of whether I'm right or not. I *am* right. It is easy to mark sleeves. Trivial. This is not an opinion, this is a simple, solid, verifiable fact. 1) Take a sleeve. Fold over the corner. Do it nice and big. Leave a heavy book on it. Now took the book off when the sleeve has been left with a nice, obvious, visible crease. Unfold the sleeve and put a card in it. This is really obviously marked. There's a sleeve with a HUGE crease on it. 2) Now take another sleeve. Fold it over in the corner much smaller. Leave a heavy book on it. Unfold, and put a card in it. 3) Repeat, getting smaller each time. 4) Stop when you have a sleeve that is marked in the corner so that you can see it if you look for it, but is hard to spot otherwise. Bingo. Now repeat this for every card in your deck you want to mark. Use another corner if you want. Or fold the sleeve over so that it's pinched in the middle. Or near a corner. Or anywhere else you want. You have claimed that to do this requires you to be a CIA agent. This is simply, factually, verifiably so far from reality that - honestly - you are simply denying reality. If you don't like being accused of living in a delusional world, don't deny things that are trivially, obviously, verifiably true! The above is simple, and can be done by anyone with some time and patience, and some spare sleeves that they're willing to waste trying it out. Many, many variations can be found. If you already have some sleeves that are a bit battered, who's going to notice one more crumple in a specific place? (You have, of course, already weeded out any cards that would confuse you.) Please explain what of the above is hard to do. Please explain what of the above requires you to be a CIA agent. If you can't, please accept that your posts which claim that it is so hard to mark sleeves are completely nonsensical - because they are 100% nonsensical. This is why I say you are being delusional. Because it takes so little effort to mark sleeves that denying how easy it is is simply ludicrous. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1157981757....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Dr Jester <drjest...@gmail.com> writes: >We (as I speak for almost ALL the organizators - democraticaly voting) >are considering the mandatory sleeves option to avoid the printing >problem with Jyhad, VTES and 3rd Edition. Given the many different back types out there - it's far more than those three, as many players can identify the set of a card from the back - why does this tournament need to change the rules that have been in operation for many years? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Clément" <lcm...@ig.com.br> wrote in message news:1157984509.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Kevin M. wrote: > > No, I won't put my pool in 5 x 5 sections. It is all in one pile, and you > > can count it out as you please. > > C'mon, this is kind of silly, isn't it? Why wouldn't a player cooperate > with such a simple and reasonable request? What's reasonable is often a matter of your point of view. If I don't find organizing my pool like that to be useful and I do find it to be a pain in the ass to keep it that way then screw it. You'll just have to count. > Organize your counters in a > way that makes the judge's check easier and quicker. After he does, you > stack them the way you enjoy the most. Judges check? Sure, cooperate with a judges check if they're going to take the time to come around and check everyone's pool - although I've seen few tournaments where judges would actually do this. Orpheus appeared to be talking about maintaining it that way all the time. > It would probably look like as if the player wanted to create problems > for no good reason. Hardly. They just don't happen to agree with you about what's "reasonable". Fred

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1157979045.2...@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This sort of gets into the legal notion of "prior restraint", which has a bunch of implications in American constitutional law (because our constitution makes a point of guaranteeing various individual freedoms, one of them being the right to keep and bear arms). What it boils down to, in my estimation is the difference between passing a law against something which is actually immoral in and of itself - like murder in the case of law or cheating in the case of our tournament rules - vs. passing a law or rule against acts that are perfectly benign in and of themselves (e.g. owning a gun or playing unsleeved cards) because it is perceived that enforcing that law/rule will make it easier for the enforcers and/or the public to prevent immoral acts from taking place. The problem with that sort of prior restraint is that it places blanket restrictions on the moral and immoral alike. It may sometimes be a practical solution to a difficult enforcement problem but I think such rules should always be viewed with a lot of skepticism. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "Clément" <lcm...@ig.com.br> wrote: > > Kevin M. wrote: > > > No, I won't put my pool in 5 x 5 sections. It is all in one pile, and you > > > can count it out as you please. > > > > C'mon, this is kind of silly, isn't it? Why wouldn't a player cooperate > > with such a simple and reasonable request? > > What's reasonable is often a matter of your point of view. True. I should explain what I meant by "reasonable" here. I believe it's is reasonable to cooperate with a tournament official if he asks the player to organize his counters in a certain way that makes his job easier (i.e., check the pool total at a given time). After that, nobody should be telling anyone how they should keep their pool, of course, as long as it is not concealed or somehow organized in a deliberately confusing way. > If I don't find organizing my pool like that to be useful and I do find it > to be a pain in the ass to keep it that way then screw it. You'll just > have to count. > > > Organize your counters in a > > way that makes the judge's check easier and quicker. After he does, you > > stack them the way you enjoy the most. > > Judges check? Sure, cooperate with a judges check if they're going to take > the time to come around and check everyone's pool That's what I am talking about! =) > - although I've seen few tournaments where judges would actually do this. I see. That's standard beginning-of-round routine around here, though. In fact, most players already organize their pool counters in some way that facilitates counting them before the table begins, no request needed. > Orpheus appeared to be talking about maintaining it that way all the > time. Orpheus' post was in response to a possible way of cheating, other than card marking, which was "b. Starting with 31 (or 32) pool". To that, he replied: "nicely ask players to put their pool 5 by 5, it helps a great deal. In some tournies judges officially "encouraged" this and it worked quite well - not only against cheating but also against unvoluntary mistakes, which can happen too". I understood he was specifically talking about a pre-game starting pool check. In this situation, to have pool counters organized in a way that you can count them in a quick glance is very helpful to the judges. It sounds kind of silly that a player would complain about cooperating in this case, IMHO. [ quoted text not captured ]

Clément wrote: > True. I should explain what I meant by "reasonable" here. I believe > it's is reasonable to cooperate with a tournament official if he asks > the player to organize his counters in a certain way that makes his job > easier (i.e., check the pool total at a given time). > > After that, nobody should be telling anyone how they should keep their > pool, of course, as long as it is not concealed or somehow organized in > a deliberately confusing way. Oh, man. Now I'm getting sucked in here. Yeah, no one should be telling anyone how they should keep their pool organized. But if someone asks "Hey, could you make your pool easier to count", it is a reasonable thing to do so. As otherwise, if you aren't willing to make your pool easy to count, how willing are you for me to reach over and count your pool every thirty seconds so I can see where you stand. I mean, yeah, you are welcome to keep your pool however you want. But I am in my rights to know how much pool you have. And if I have to pick up your pool and count it every thirty seconds 'cause you don't want to leave it on the table in a reasonably easy to count manner, I'm going to do so. Likely to convince you to place it in an easier to count formation. -Peter

Orpheus wrote: > > Orpheus wrote: > > > > Christian, my experience from tournaments is, the more a judge makes a > > > > hazzle about unimportant things like sleeves, leaving the play area > > > > etc.the more mistakes are made with the important things. I still > > > > prefer the univisible judge who ist there when needed. > > > > > > Mate, you're giving the best "pro-sleeves" argument ever here !! Yes, if > > > judges don't have to bother about "is he cheating with his 3rd Ed or > Jyhad > > > cards" they can take care of real issues. Which is exactly why our > national > > > judges chose to make sleeves mandatory. And they judge well now. ;-) > > > > Just one question, If the national judges chose to make sleeves > > mandatory to prevent cheating, then are you saying that as a nation you > > are all cheaters? > > Well, do you have laws against murdering in your country ? Does it mean that > you're all murderers ? I am sure that France has a similar law. That is exactly what the law is there for. It recognises the potential for murder in all citizens and enacts penalties to persuade citizens that murdering another citizen is not worth the punishment that it entails. Yet, murders happen in both countries. What would be your recommendation to stop that? Sleeves, perhaps.... The difference is that the VEKN rules do not require sleeves. Therefore VEKN does not recognise sleeves as a deterent to cheating. In France, apparently cheating is more common, and extra measures (in this case sleeves) are required to prevent it. Care to argue that point? > Or does such an idiotic remark mean that you belong in a nation of idiots ? Apparently, we're not smart enough to mandate sleeves at our tournaments. You got me there, I'm sleeveless. Is your point that it is idiodic not to require sleeves? > Why, you might even be intelligent yourself. But that type of insulting > trolling certainly isn't the best way to prove it. It is a valid point. It is a hypothetical arguement. It is an arguement of intellect. Can you address the point above with out getting emotionally involved or perhaps that is too much to ask. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Clément wrote: > > True. I should explain what I meant by "reasonable" here. I believe > > it's is reasonable to cooperate with a tournament official if he asks > > the player to organize his counters in a certain way that makes his job > > easier (i.e., check the pool total at a given time). > > > > After that, nobody should be telling anyone how they should keep their > > pool, of course, as long as it is not concealed or somehow organized in > > a deliberately confusing way. > > Oh, man. Now I'm getting sucked in here. > > Yeah, no one should be telling anyone how they should keep their pool > organized. But if someone asks "Hey, could you make your pool easier to > count", it is a reasonable thing to do so. I entirely agree. I just focused on the "judge checking pool total" example for the sake of argument. But sure, there are other situations in which it would be reasonable to organize your pool in a way that is easier to count (for example, if the counters are totally or partially concealed from other players at the table). That's why I stated in my original post that a player who refuses to cooperate with such a simple and justifiable request is being silly, at best, or would probably seem to be creating a problem for no good reason. But I realise that people may diverge on what is a reasonable request or not. So, as long as the rules are being observed, I'll just play the game (or Play. The. Game. =). And if I need to reach a player's pool and count it every once in a while so I have the information I need to make my game decisions, I'll just do it (as you suggested). Not necessarily to convince anyone that they should keep their pool in any particular way, but mainly, you know, just to know how much pool that player has (information I am entitled to, by the rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1158017941.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Yeah, no one should be telling anyone how they should keep their pool > organized. But if someone asks "Hey, could you make your pool easier to > count", it is a reasonable thing to do so. It depends what, exactly, you want them to do and what their method of keeping pool is in the first place. Personally, I don't think this is terribly important in most cases because I usually don't really care what an exact number of pool is until it's down below 8 or so. Most people's pool method is pretty countable below eight. (Don't ask Paul Johnson about my competance in counting pool, however. I deny that ever happened, I wasn't present, and if I was, I was under the influence of hallucinigenic narcotics at the time and don't remember a thing.) (Not that I remember a thing under normal circumstances, mind you.) (Anyway, be that as it may...) Where it isn't, I might consider making the request for the reasons you state - that otherwise, I may start needing to ask them on a recurring basis and, for the ease of all concerned, it's just better that way. Every 30 seconds is an exagerration, though. I hope. Anyway, I can't remember the last time I've had a notion to do this. You really shouldn't need to care that much whether a guy's down to 16 or still up at 17. (Parity shift decks? Dunno...) Fred

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > Maybe we'll never solve the problem... I've to tell I'm more concerned > > on checking Decklists and decks at the moment. That'll be a real > > torment... -_- > > Good luck with that. I usually just collect decklists and possibly > randomly check a few. If you're on the final table, I do a comprehensive > check of the deck against its list. I did this for the GLQ a couple of > years ago, so it works even for big and important tournaments. So Ankur, one of the reasons you don't like requiring sleeves is that it assumes that everyone is cheating. But isn't requiring decklists making a similar assumption? And you've just mentioned that you have required decklists before. I personally think decklists are a major pain in the ass. But you know what? I deal with it. Even though it's not the most convenient thing to do, if I go to a tournament that requires a decklist, I just provide the decklist. I don't throw a hissyfit over the assumption that the organizers think I'm cheating. People deal with decklists. I don't see why people can't deal with sleeves.

> I personally think decklists are a major pain in the ass. But you know > what? I deal with it. Even though it's not the most convenient thing to > do, if I go to a tournament that requires a decklist, I just provide > the decklist. I don't throw a hissyfit over the assumption that the > organizers think I'm cheating. People deal with decklists. I don't see > why people can't deal with sleeves. Decklists, when published, add to the knowledge of the collective body of knowledge Tournament winning decks are published in the TWDA which is a very good research tool for successful deck archtypes and decks themselves. Sleeving adds no such value. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Required decklists facilitate the theft of intellectual property and decrease the incentives for coming up with original and creative decks. I'm all for the TWDA but participation in the TWDA should be solely a *voluntary* process. In fact, one of the most disturbing things about the VEKN rules (IMHO) is that it does not specify guidelines for how organizers should deal with decklists after the event. Organizers can hoard the information just for themselves or share it with just a few close friends. Organizers may publicly post information about decks without the consent of the players involved. Your goal of developing a "very good research tool for successful deck archtypes(sic)" can be achieved through voluntary decklist submissions. Required decklists are not a necessary condition to achieve this end. In fact, I would venture to say that they are not intended to achieve this end at all. It is clear that the Decklists mentioned in VEKN rules are designed to minimize cheating. If the primary goal is indeed to promote knowledge of deck archetypes, then only the winning deck (or decks in the finals) need to be recorded, and this only needs to be done *after* the tournament. Instead, the current system requires *all* players to submit decklists for the purpose of ensuring the decks are not altered. Thus your argument fails to adequately address the issue of *required* decklists and is more or less irrelevant.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Decklists, when published, add to the knowledge of the collective body > > of knowledge Tournament winning decks are published in the TWDA which > > is a very good research tool for successful deck archtypes and decks > > themselves. > > Thus your argument fails to adequately address the issue of *required* > decklists and is more or less irrelevant. Slight correction. Your argument is more or less irrelevant *unless* you take the position that all players should be forced to participate in the TWDA regardless of their preferences. (And in this case we would be debating a significantly different point of contention).

> Anyway, I can't remember the last time I've had a notion to do this. You > really shouldn't need to care that much whether a guy's down to 16 or > still up at 17. (Parity shift decks? Dunno...) I agree that 16 or 17 may be too small a difference, but it certainly makes a difference when players are at 4-10ish kind of pool. Here, just asking the question of what your pool amount is (or blood on a vampire) could be a "tell" as to what you are thinking about, even if you're not saying it. Acknowledging that kind of tell can be devastating to play. Moreover, setting your pool up in such a way as to mandate a person's query to that effect isn't particularly sportsmanlike of a player, especially since such information is supposed to be clearly and obviously available to all players. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Frederick Scott wrote: > Every 30 seconds is an exagerration, though. I hope. Oh, sure. However, is someone was really adamant about *not* wanting their pool to be countable, I'd consider counting it as often as humanly possible, just to screw with them :-) But yeah, really, pool count is only a huge issue once they get down below 10, although having nice easy to count stacks of 5 or whatever at the start of the game makes it pretty easy to see that everyone starts with the right amount of pool. For instance, I use pennies as pool all the time, and put everything in stacks of five, which is easier for others to count, but easier for me to count too. -Peter

> So Ankur, one of the reasons you don't like requiring sleeves is that it > assumes that everyone is cheating. But isn't requiring decklists making > a similar assumption? And you've just mentioned that you have required > decklists before. Actually, it's not the reason I usually collect decklists. I collect decklists for two reasons: 1) To assist in tournament reporting without requiring some external communication with the winner, which can be complicated in some cases. 2) To correct inadvertent additions or removals from decks (such as a misplaced Fame and so on) in a seamless way. True, a decklist can also be used to address accusations of cheating (and they will be so used), but that is only a reactive use of the decklists themselves. I don't think anyone at the GLQ really felt threatened by the collection of decklists. Furthermore, decklists are not a new material that a player must bring that requires expense or a change in playstyle. Sleeves are. Even furthermore than that, sleeves don't actually address the cheating problem, to the dismay of the "pro-sleeve" argument. Shutting your ears to that and repeating "nananananana" or "fatimahasagunfatimahasagun" isn't really going to change that fact. And frankly, if they're always thinking about Fatima, they're going to lose anyway, so why not just disqualify them before they start playing? :) > I personally think decklists are a major pain in the ass. But you know > what? I deal with it. Even though it's not the most convenient thing to > do, if I go to a tournament that requires a decklist, I just provide the > decklist. I don't throw a hissyfit over the assumption that the > organizers think I'm cheating. People deal with decklists. I don't see > why people can't deal with sleeves. Largely because they're fundamentally different. That's the only reason I can think of. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Oh, sure. However, is someone was really adamant about *not* wanting > their pool to be countable, I'd consider counting it as often as > humanly possible, just to screw with them :-) Making pool not countable (or impeding its countability in any form) is "obscuring game state", and is not allowed. [VEKN 5.1]

> Required decklists facilitate the theft of intellectual property and > decrease the incentives for coming up with original and creative decks. If you don't trust an *organizer* enough to maintain a modicum of intellectual respect for players, then I think that perhaps you should simply not play. Even if someone "steals" your idea, how does it decrease your incentive for developing original and creative decks? The creative process is entirely independent of what happens to it afterwards. Besides, if you provided a decklist. . . people saw you play the deck at that tournament. The proof that it is yours is inherent in the giving of your decklist. > I'm all for the TWDA but participation in the TWDA should be solely a > *voluntary* process. In fact, one of the most disturbing things about > the VEKN rules (IMHO) is that it does not specify guidelines for how > organizers should deal with decklists after the event. Organizers can > hoard the information just for themselves or share it with just a few > close friends. Organizers may publicly post information about decks > without the consent of the players involved. Or they could be reasonable about it. If a player asked me not to post his deck to the TWDA, I wouldn't. Case closed. I can't imagine that any other organizer would do differently. > Your goal of developing a "very good research tool for successful deck > archtypes(sic)" can be achieved through voluntary decklist submissions. > Required decklists are not a necessary condition to achieve this end. In > fact, I would venture to say that they are not intended to achieve this > end at all. Sure. But the TWDA tends to collect decks that have had some modicum of success at some point under some conditions. The collective "information" that's present in the TWDA (along with its well-discussed weaknesses) has some non-zero value beyond just lists of decks. That Jeff Thompson filters them according to some (potentially random) criteria doesn't diminish the impact of that criteria on the decks chosen. > It is clear that the Decklists mentioned in VEKN rules are designed to > minimize cheating. If the primary goal is indeed to promote knowledge of > deck archetypes, then only the winning deck (or decks in the finals) > need to be recorded, and this only needs to be done *after* the > tournament. Instead, the current system requires *all* players to submit > decklists for the purpose of ensuring the decks are not altered. Ah. So what you're saying is that the collection of decklists is supported by VEKN rules, even if they are collected for the purpose of avoiding cheating. Sadly, such explicit text isn't mentioned regarding sleeves. Probably because sleeving decks doesn't actually reduce cheating at all. Go figure. And, the logistics of getting a winning decklist *can* be frustrating at times. I have run tournaments both with decklists and without. In the without cases, I recall at least three separate times where acquiring a decklist from the winning player was unnecessarily difficult. > Thus your argument fails to adequately address the issue of *required* > decklists and is more or less irrelevant. Required decklists do not require players to prepare in advance of the tournament. That's a key factor. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > So Ankur, one of the reasons you don't like requiring sleeves is that it > > assumes that everyone is cheating. But isn't requiring decklists making > > a similar assumption? And you've just mentioned that you have required > > decklists before. > > Actually, it's not the reason I usually collect decklists. I collect > decklists for two reasons: > > 1) To assist in tournament reporting without requiring some external > communication with the winner, which can be complicated in some cases. > > 2) To correct inadvertent additions or removals from decks (such as a > misplaced Fame and so on) in a seamless way. So if I do not want the contents of my deck revealed and am not interested in the TWDA (addresses Reason #1) and I have unique sleeves from the other players so inadvertent additions or removals will not be a problem (deals with Reason #2), then I can waive turning in a decklist, right? If those were the two reasons, as you suggest, then if the reasons didn't apply like in my hypothetical, then some players would not need to turn in a decklist? And since you mentioned reason #2, I would like to point out that requiring deck sleeves actually does a *better* job of addressing inadvertent additions/removals than decklists. Decklists will only detect the additions/removals when the appropriate decks are checked. Assuming more or less distinct sleeves for each player, it will be far easier to tell if you have someone else's Fame in your library if it has a different sleeve. So Reason #2 actually *supports* the notion of card sleeves over deck lists (except when people have identical card sleeves). (More on this issue in my other reply).

> So if I do not want the contents of my deck revealed and am not > interested in the TWDA (addresses Reason #1) and I have unique sleeves > from the other players so inadvertent additions or removals will not be > a problem (deals with Reason #2), then I can waive turning in a > decklist, right? If those were the two reasons, as you suggest, then if > the reasons didn't apply like in my hypothetical, then some players > would not need to turn in a decklist? For my tournaments, yes. Unless, of course, there's some *specific* reason to suspect that you may be cheating. (Say, by violating grouping rules or playing with a 94 card deck.) > And since you mentioned reason #2, I would like to point out that > requiring deck sleeves actually does a *better* job of addressing > inadvertent additions/removals than decklists. Decklists will only > detect the additions/removals when the appropriate decks are checked. But I don't need to go to the level of requiring players to play in a given fashion in a given way. It can be handled more passively, and therefore, I shall. > Assuming more or less distinct sleeves for each player, it will be far > easier to tell if you have someone else's Fame in your library if it has > a different sleeve. So Reason #2 actually *supports* the notion of card > sleeves over deck lists (except when people have identical card > sleeves). Except that it's overkill. > (More on this issue in my other reply). Ok. Ankur Play. The. Game.

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > Required decklists facilitate the theft of intellectual property and > > decrease the incentives for coming up with original and creative decks. > > If you don't trust an *organizer* enough to maintain a modicum of > intellectual respect for players, then I think that perhaps you should > simply not play. It's not necessarily an issue of "trust" per se. I've known incompetent princes, incompetent organizers, and incompetent players. Incompetent organizers have a far greater capacity to screw things up in a way that has a meaningful impact than just some incompetent players however. > Even if someone "steals" your idea, how does it decrease your incentive > for developing original and creative decks? The creative process is > entirely independent of what happens to it afterwards. Besides, if you > provided a decklist. . . people saw you play the deck at that tournament. > The proof that it is yours is inherent in the giving of your decklist. Many individuals are less likely to devote considerable time and effort to creating innovative decks if everyone is just going to rip off all of their ideas. Say I come up with a completely original deck concept and play it in a small 5-person tournament. The organizer has my decklist and shares it with another player who then takes that deck and wins a large 100-person tournament. I imagine it's going to be really hard to prove that the deck was originally mine. > > I'm all for the TWDA but participation in the TWDA should be solely a > > *voluntary* process. In fact, one of the most disturbing things about > > the VEKN rules (IMHO) is that it does not specify guidelines for how > > organizers should deal with decklists after the event. Organizers can > > hoard the information just for themselves or share it with just a few > > close friends. Organizers may publicly post information about decks > > without the consent of the players involved. > > Or they could be reasonable about it. If a player asked me not to post his > deck to the TWDA, I wouldn't. Case closed. I can't imagine that any other > organizer would do differently. Well I've certainly seen my share of irrational princes and organizers so I suppose I have less faith in the process than you do. > > It is clear that the Decklists mentioned in VEKN rules are designed to > > minimize cheating. If the primary goal is indeed to promote knowledge of > > deck archetypes, then only the winning deck (or decks in the finals) > > need to be recorded, and this only needs to be done *after* the > > tournament. Instead, the current system requires *all* players to submit > > decklists for the purpose of ensuring the decks are not altered. > > Ah. So what you're saying is that the collection of decklists is supported > by VEKN rules, even if they are collected for the purpose of avoiding > cheating. Sadly, such explicit text isn't mentioned regarding sleeves. > Probably because sleeving decks doesn't actually reduce cheating at all. > Go figure. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of this comment is. Please do remember that different people are arguing different issues. I am not taking a position on whether organizers should require sleeves when they are not specifically mentioned in VEKN rules. I am discussing whether sleeves should be required (optionally) under VEKN rules since decklists can be. Thus under your logic, if the VEKN *does* allow tournaments to require sleeves, since they are supported by VEKN rules, it's case closed. "Just because this is in the rules and that isn't" is not a valid argument on this specific issue since it's involving what *should* be in the VEKN rules in the first place. > And, the logistics of getting a winning decklist *can* be frustrating at > times. I have run tournaments both with decklists and without. In the > without cases, I recall at least three separate times where acquiring a > decklist from the winning player was unnecessarily difficult. I have tried getting winning decklists before as well (mainly for past newsletters) and I agree it can be difficult. I don't think it was a big deal however. You can enter tournament results and post tournament reports without winning decklists. And if players don't have the interest or initiative to share their decklists, then they don't get their decks entered in the TWDA. Too bad, so sad. That's their choice and/or problem. > > Thus your argument fails to adequately address the issue of *required* > > decklists and is more or less irrelevant. > > Required decklists do not require players to prepare in advance of the > tournament. That's a key factor. Actually they do. Required decklists take up a considerable amount of time to generate if you haven't printed them beforehand. Most of the events I have attended which require decklists, usually have several players madly scribbling down their deck contents before the tournament begins. Similarly, oftentimes one has to sort one's deck in order to improve the accuracy of the deck list and this leads to additional time needed to re-randomize the deck. In fact, on several occasions, preparing decklists and double checking them has taken *more* time than sleeving a deck would have. I think the "environmental" argument against sleeves is pretty much a crap excuse. So it's not worth arguing that same line of reasoning against decklists. (It would be a lame argument about wasting additional paper, ink/graphite, and possibly involve issues of access to a computer). So we can skip that issue. Another *significant* problem that required decklists have, which required sleeves does not, is the heavy tendency to promote Type I errors. I've never had a problem myself with a non-matching deck, but everytime I play in a tournament with required decklists, I'm constantly worried about a mistake in the decklist or losing a card, etc. I recall just fairly recently a tournament report where there was a problem because a player wrote the wrong vampire in the decklist (something like confusing Antoinettes or Marianas). Or the classic case of Jay Kristof in Heidelberg 2004. I think I know Jay well enough to say that I am 98% sure he was not trying to cheat. But due to a minor human error, a card didn't match and he got DQ'ed. In my personal opinion and from my personal experience, infractions involving required decklists are far more likely to involve innocuous mistakes made by individuals not intending to cheat than dedicated cheaters who are caught red-handed.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Similarly, oftentimes one has to sort one's deck in order to > improve the accuracy of the deck list and this leads to additional time > needed to re-randomize the deck. Remember, the same amount of time needed to randomize a deck once one has seen the faces whether one sorted one's deck or not.