Case Study: Player withdrawing from the game

Hello All, One of the most disruptive events in a game is when a player must leave in the middle. It's also an incredibly hard situation to judge. The benefit of case studies is that everyone can share their ideas, and hopefully reach consensus. 5 player game. A->B->C->D->E Everyone takes their first turn. D brings up a 4-cap, no one else brings out anyone, nor discards. On his second turn, B brings up a 3-cap. Still no discard. On D's second turn, D plays a clan-specific master card. Then, C gets a phone call and immediately announces, "I need to go - I'm really sorry." Assuming you don't have a substitute for C (which is pretty much always the best option), what do you about the table above? If you want/need any other clarifying information about this situation, feel free to ask (and perhaps mention why it would make a difference in your final ruling.) LSJ, I'd love it if you posted your answer, too! Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello All, > > One of the most disruptive events in a game is when a player must > leave in the middle. ... > Assuming you don't have a substitute for C (which is pretty much > always the best option), what do you about the table above? ban C for life, and cancel the tournament (I assume this is in a tournament setting, right?). more seriously, probably just play on with C just ceasing to exist. there hasn't been any meaningful player interaction, and the small decisions that may have been made based on the scant info generated by these two turns will just have to unfortunately remain, and the players just try and adapt. or you could start again, and reset the clock. depends on whether you think the players might play those two turns differently knowing what those other 3 cards are in the other players' decks. but still ban C for life. now if it was a 4 player table and someone had to skedaddle, that's a whole other can of squirmies. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Jun 5, 1:44 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > more seriously, probably just play on with C just ceasing to exist. > there hasn't been any meaningful player interaction, and the small > decisions that may have been made based on the scant info generated by > these two turns will just have to unfortunately remain, and the players > just try and adapt. Would you adjust transfers in any way, given that C is now going 3rd, but got 4 transfers on the first turn? Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] D you mean. And probably not. You're passed the ramp-up, and the difference probably isn't worth any punitive adjustment. If you (the judge on the spot) feel otherwise, you could remove one of D's upcoming transfers (after looking at D's uncontrolled region to verify that no undue harm would come of this). Or just rewind back to the beginning of C's first turn (or of the game) and restart without C.

LSJ wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Jun 5, 1:44 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> more seriously, probably just play on with C just ceasing to exist. >>> there hasn't been any meaningful player interaction, and the small >>> decisions that may have been made based on the scant info generated by >>> these two turns will just have to unfortunately remain, and the players >>> just try and adapt. >> >> Would you adjust transfers in any way, given that C is now going 3rd, >> but got 4 transfers on the first turn? > > D you mean. > > And probably not. yeah, what he said. not worth the kerjigging. D would likely want to change all of his transfers off that 8 cap onto the 11 cap, or something, blahblah, etc. just run with the game where it's at. no one's touched anyone else's resources, so just get on with it! if you are fussed, just restart the whole game. that would probably take about the same amount of time as adjusting someone's transfers (and allowing them to re-do decisions based on those numbers). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 5, 3:43 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Everyone takes their first turn. D brings up a 4-cap, no one else > brings out anyone, nor discards. > On his second turn, B brings up a 3-cap. Still no discard. > On D's second turn, D plays a clan-specific master card. Then, C gets > a phone call and immediately announces, "I need to go - I'm really > sorry." Given the situation presented, I'd be inclined to just vaporize player C's position and play on as a 4 player game--no one has done anything of note other than play a few Masters and influence out guys. Maybe rewind a bit to make sure everyone has the right number of transfers, which is doable, as only 2 turns have happened. -Peter

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nzP1k.4796$jI5...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm. Some of this probably needs some context, as it's not just an abstract question but something that really happened in Los Angeles in one of the Sunday tournaments. I was at the next table and heard arguments in heated voices about who had revealed what information (someone was resisting the idea of restarting from ground zero based on what he had revealed from his deck; someone else was making a point about how transfers worked would be completely different so they _had_ to restart, yadda, yadda, yadda). I think if it's Ira's goal to get insight about what the right thing to do was in that particular situation, he probably needs to fill in more context than what he gave. (I don't have it myself.) From the arguing I overheard, it seemed unlikely everyone was going to be happy about any solution proposed. To avoid this situation in the future, I propose phone calls taken by tournament participants be limited in duration to 2.7 seconds or less. Maybe put that in the tournament rules? Fred

On Jun 5, 3:43 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > 5 player game. A->B->C->D->E > > Everyone takes their first turn. D brings up a 4-cap, no one else > brings out anyone, nor discards. > On his second turn, B brings up a 3-cap. Still no discard. > On D's second turn, D plays a clan-specific master card. Then, C gets > a phone call and immediately announces, "I need to go - I'm really > sorry." > > Assuming you don't have a substitute for C (which is pretty much > always the best option), what do you about the table above? One important first step - make sure that tournament seating rules are still followed in C's absence. If B has preyed on D before, you need to re-order the table and restart the game. If you have forthcoming rounds, you need to double-check your seating chart and make adjustments if necessary. (if there is no re-seating, I'd follow LSJ's protocol - let the game run with adjusted transfers, or rewind to C's turn) -Matt H.

On Jun 5, 3:51 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > Would you adjust transfers in any way, given that C is now going 3rd, > > but got 4 transfers on the first turn? > > D you mean. Yes, thanks for the correction. > And probably not. You're passed the ramp-up, and the difference probably isn't > worth any punitive adjustment. If you (the judge on the spot) feel otherwise, > you could remove one of D's upcoming transfers (after looking at D's > uncontrolled region to verify that no undue harm would come of this). > > Or just rewind back to the beginning of C's first turn (or of the game) and > restart without C. I think these options are good, and reasonably obvious. The issue is: in real life, you only get to pick one path. What is the *best* judgement? What do *you* actually do, when presented with this situation? Also, thank you for taking the time to reply, LSJ and everyone else! I think having these case studies helps to identify consistent and fair judgements. Ira

On Jun 5, 10:48 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I think if it's Ira's goal to get insight about what the right thing to do > was in that particular situation, he probably needs to fill in more context > than what he gave. That is not my goal at all. The judge's judgement was certainly "right" in that situation - that's not a question in my mind. There were a variety of good solutions; David Tatu picked one of them, and we all moved on. My goals in posting this case study are: 1) To find out if my suggestion at the time of "play on, no changes to transfers" was as unfair and unreasonable as the other players thought. I felt selfish and crazy for suggesting it, based on their reactions. (I was obviously player D.) 2) To create consensus in the community of judges, attempting to identify a variety of good choices, and perhaps even the *best* choice (and why.) 3) To provide thought puzzles for beginning and experienced judges to consider, in the hopes that it will improve judging overall. For example, I didn't consider what Matt H noted, regarding seating. That's a good point, among all the others that have been made, too. Ira

On Jun 5, 8:57 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > My goals in posting this case study are: > 1) To find out if my suggestion at the time of "play on, no changes to > transfers" was as unfair and unreasonable as the other players > thought. I felt selfish and crazy for suggesting it, based on their > reactions. (I was obviously player D.) Players are often are cranky and irrational. It strikes me that the "play on, no changes to transfers" is not the optimal solution, but a reasonable one, and certainly something that the players should have reacted to by saying "Oh, ok." and just doing it. Fixing the transfers, if not too complicated, makes the situation better, but in any case, the players should not have reacted to this reasonable suggestion with anything other than "Yeah, ok." -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, if it was a tournament, the fixes are best left to the judge to weigh, not to player D. Then, of course, as Peter says, the response to whichever of the available reasonable choices the judge selects should be "OK".

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:27a1be7e-99d2-48fc...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It surely depends. A lot of decisions can get made in the first two turns based on the original starting sequence which, given either of these 'solutions', might suddenly turn into a big self-inflicted wound. If I start influencing out for a stealth-bleed predator or a fighty predator or something else that's very distinct (I know what he is from a prior round) and then suddenly get the game scrambled up on me in a way which would have caused much different decisions, I guess I'd get a little testy if someone proposes we just play on like nothing happened. Restarting the game from scratch (if not too far along) strikes me as the default situation. On the other hand, I can also understand someone getting surly about what they just revealed which everyone else on the table might use to replay their starting sequence. The point is, 1) it's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants decision (I think); and 2) I'd never blame anyone for not saying, "Yeah, ok.", the first time a solution is proposed that looks kind of hinky for their situation. Just as long as they don't take the argument into overtime. Fred

On Jun 6, 10:46 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > It surely depends. A lot of decisions can get made in the first two > turns based on the original starting sequence which, given either of > these 'solutions', might suddenly turn into a big self-inflicted wound. > If I start influencing out for a stealth-bleed predator or a fighty > predator or something else that's very distinct (I know what he > is from a prior round) and then suddenly get the game scrambled up on > me in a way which would have caused much different decisions, I guess > I'd get a little testy if someone proposes we just play on like nothing > happened. Sure. But it is a weird situation that doesn't come up much. And the solution presented (just fix it as best you can and move on) seems totally reasonable. And given that it is a rare occurance in the first place, why get testy? I mean, really. It is a card game you are playing for fun. Even if it is a tournament. Sometimes, things get wonky. The best thing to do is simply to help the judge fix it as best they can, and simply say "Ok, here we are." and continue. > Restarting the game from scratch (if not too far along) strikes > me as the default situation. If it isn't too far along, then sure, that isn't that bad of a plan too. > The point is, 1) it's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants decision (I think); > and 2) I'd never blame anyone for not saying, "Yeah, ok.", the first time > a solution is proposed that looks kind of hinky for their situation. Just > as long as they don't take the argument into overtime. Why argue at all? The judge is doing what the judge thinks is best to address the situation. The good thing to do is simply to help them fix it and suck it up, even if it looks hinky for their situation. -Peter

I think this was the easy to judge. Imagine if 6+ turns had passed. I guess your best hope then I that someone from another table had been ousted and the player that had to leave trusts someone there enough to leave his deck to be played by a proxy, if not what then? If the deck can be leaft(?) but no one has been ousted I would put the game on hold until someone is. But if the deck must go (player from out of town), I wouldn't know what to do.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:b0fe3f32-cd50-4927...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Why argue at all? So the judge knows what he needs to know to understand what the fair solution is. He doesn't know what's in your deck. He doesn't know your strategy and how such an unusual fix could affect it. (In this circumstance, ALL the 'fixes' are unusual!) He needs to know these things to make the right decision. How can he know if you don't tell him? Fred

On Jun 5, 3:43 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > One of the most disruptive events in a game is when a player must > leave in the middle. It's also an incredibly hard situation to > judge. The benefit of case studies is that everyone can share their > ideas, and hopefully reach consensus. > > 5 player game. A->B->C->D->E > > Everyone takes their first turn. D brings up a 4-cap, no one else > brings out anyone, nor discards. > On his second turn, B brings up a 3-cap. Still no discard. > On D's second turn, D plays a clan-specific master card. Then, C gets > a phone call and immediately announces, "I need to go - I'm really > sorry." If this were a chess game, the answer would be simple. Not only would the defaulting player automatically lose, but his opponent would automatically win. Here, nobody would have a problem with the idea that "C" should automatically lose. However, since there are 4 other players, perhaps it is unclear who, if anyone, should receive the corresponding "win". In theory, there is a simple answer. The rules say that when a player loses, he loses to his predator. By simple analogy, one could rule that when a player defaults, he defaults to his predator. One might apply this simple solution by removing "D"s cards and counters from the table, giving "C" a victory point, and simply continuing the game. Since no "oust" occurred, there seems no reason to give "C" a 6- pool reward, however. Some folks might argue this unfair to the other players, and possibly a collusion hazard. An alternative might be to create a system that delays the reward and gives it an opportunity to pass around the table. Here's an example off the top of my head: When the defaulting player leaves, place a "default card" in front of the defaulting player's predator, with a number of "default counters" equal to the defaulting player's last pool total. Play now continues normally, among the remaining players, except that during his untap phase, the player with the "default card" burns 2 default counter from the card, and burns an additional 2 counters from the card if his prey loses any pool during his minion phase. If the player with the default card is ousted, his predator gains control of the default card. When the default card has no more counters, it is burned, and the player who had the card when it burned gains a victory point.

On Jun 6, 3:27 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Why argue at all? So the judge knows what he needs to know to understand > what the fair solution is. He doesn't know what's in your deck. He > doesn't know your strategy and how such an unusual fix could affect it. I'd figure it is *good* that he doesn't know all these things--yeah, you know what is in your deck and what your strategy is, and consequently, all of your input into the solution is going to be colored by these factors. Which aren't necessarily something that the judge should be taking into account--the judge is presumably coming up with the best, most even solution to the given situation. I mean, yeah, ok, if the judge is coming up with a solution that is completely insane, pointing this out in a diplomatic manner and helping him come up with a better one is not at all unreasonable. But if the judge has a more or less reasonable solution that affects everyone evenly (which given the situation presented and the solution presented, strikes me as pretty even), it strikes me as the best idea for everyone just to go along with it and say "yeah, ok." > (In this circumstance, ALL the 'fixes' are unusual!) He needs to know > these things to make the right decision. How can he know if you don't > tell him? I don't think he does need to know these things--given the situation presented (not much has happened, not even 2 full turns have gone around, very little information has been given out), the solution presented seems totally reasonable. In a more complicated situation (it's turn 8, say), a more complicated solution needs to be invented. But in this case? Not so much. -Peter

On Jun 5, 4:58 pm, "Mongrel (MDH)" <mong...@hotpop.com> wrote: > One important first step - make sure that tournament seating rules are > still followed in C's absence. If B has preyed on D before, you need > to re-order the table and restart the game. Why is this necessarily a priority? It is assumed that if C is ousted or withdraws legally, before B or D, then, B will end up preying on D. If the circumstances leading to this are slightly more irregular, then why panic? It is certainly not the worst dilemma one faces in such situations.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:fcb631dc-8f1a-4109...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Jun 6, 3:27 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Why argue at all? So the judge knows what he needs to know to understand > > what the fair solution is. He doesn't know what's in your deck. He > > doesn't know your strategy and how such an unusual fix could affect it. > > I'd figure it is *good* that he doesn't know all these things--yeah, > you know what is in your deck and what your strategy is, and > consequently, all of your input into the solution is going to be > colored by these factors. Sure. That's why no player who's in the game makes the decision. > Which aren't necessarily something that the > judge should be taking into account--the judge is presumably coming up > with the best, most even solution to the given situation. I'm sorry, I completely disagree with that. This is an odd situation with a lot of angles to it, some of which may be very obvious some of which may be very subtle. The subtle ones - IMHO - may be just as important for the judge to take into account as the obvious ones. But the judge is only going to see the obvious angles. That's why players who have greater amounts of information which are relevent to fairness absolutely should feed that information to the judge. Then the judge - being a thinking, discerning person - can take it into account or toss it on the dumpster as he pleases. But if he isn't aware of it, he only has one choice. Players can and should always share their PoV with judges, if relevent. Having done so, if the choice fails to go in their favor, THEN they should back off and play (insert dot here) the (insert another dot here) game. > I don't think he does need to know these things--given the situation > presented (not much has happened, not even 2 full turns have gone > around, very little information has been given out), the solution > presented seems totally reasonable. I have not heard a "totally reasonable" solution that applies to all possible games so far. Some games, there is no reasonable solution. So the judge will have to choose the least unreasonable one. But he should hear whatever the players have to say (within sane limits) first. Fred

In article <Iyn2k.11$il...@newsfe12.phx>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, I completely disagree with that. This is an odd situation > with a lot of angles to it, some of which may be very obvious some of > which may be very subtle. The subtle ones - IMHO - may be just as > important for the judge to take into account as the obvious ones. I'm not seeing how what deck anyone is playing should have an impact on the situation--you sit down to play a game with essentially random opponents (I'm assuming this isn't a final round here), play two turns, and one of them has to go? Just going on from there seems like a totally reasonable way to proceed, as it is keeping the random aspect of the seating and just going on. Yeah, rewinding a bit to fix transfers is likely a good idea. But I'm not seeing how in a situation like the one presented the subtle angles need to have any impact at all. > the judge is only going to see the obvious angles. That's why players > who have greater amounts of information which are relevent to fairness > absolutely should feed that information to the judge. Then the judge - > being a thinking, discerning person - can take it into account or toss it > on the dumpster as he pleases. But if he isn't aware of it, he only has > one choice. Sure--feeding information is reasonable (now mind you, this started with you saying you'd "argue", rather than "feed information" :-), but even then, I don't see how it is relevant as to what your (or anyone's) deck is or what your strategy is going to be in the situation presented; the game is early and just started. Something weird happend. The best way to deal with it is just to pick up the pieces and move on. > Players can and should always share their PoV with judges, if relevent. That is the trick. I'm not seeing how it is remotely relevant in the situation presented. > I have not heard a "totally reasonable" solution that applies to all > possible games so far. There is no single totally reasonable solution that applies to all possible games. But given the situation as presented, the solution provided strikes me as totally reasonable. And requires no input from the players in regards to their decks and strategies, any more than a judge requires input from players in regards to their decks and strategies when setting up a preliminary round. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Jun 7, 9:30 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com > There is no single totally reasonable solution that applies to > all possible games. I am unconvinced that this is so. At least, it seems to me that it ought to be possible to devise a single universally-applied solution that is, if not necessarily perfect in every way, at the very least far more reasonable than having the judge devise a new solution each time he encounters a new situation. I think a number of different systems could be devised. But the starting assumption should be that, not only does the defaulting player lose the victory point he brought with him to the table, but he leaves it behind at the table so that it will be given, sooner or later, to one of the remaining players, or perhaps divided between them. This might need to be modified under the current rules, in which the zero-sum assumptions of the base game have already been modified.

In article <f320e864-4c21-4bae...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > I am unconvinced that this is so. At least, it seems to me that it > ought to be possible to devise a single universally-applied solution > that is, if not necessarily perfect in every way, at the very least > far more reasonable than having the judge devise a new solution each > time he encounters a new situation. But the situations are going to be different every time, and no single, universally applied situation is going to remotely work for different situations. Assume Player C, for whatever reason, needs to abruptly leave the game in the following games: Game 1: It is a 5 players game, everyone has taken 1 turn, no one has influenced out anyone. Game 2: It is a 5 player game, it is turn 10, Player A is ousted, Player C (the one leaving) is at 4 pool and has 1 tapped, bloodless minion in play. Game 3: It is a 4 player game, it is turn 4, everyone has some minions in play, folks have taken some actions, nothing significant has happened, but it is way too late to just remove someone and move on. No blanket solution will address all of these situations, even remotely. As a judge, I'd say that Game 1 just moves on from there as a 4 player game, adjusting transfers as necessary; Game 2 just continues as a 5 player game with player C being represented by the number 4; Game 3 needs to have someone sit in as player C if at all possible. > I think a number of different systems could be devised. But the > starting assumption should be that, not only does the defaulting > player lose the victory point he brought with him to the table, but he > leaves it behind at the table so that it will be given, sooner or > later, to one of the remaining players, or perhaps divided between > them. That isn't going to be necessarily appropriate in all situations. It is unfortunate if a 5 player game needs to become a 4 player game, but the same thing happens when someone drops between rounds (i.e. a 20 player tournament suddenly becomes a 19 player tournament after the first round). And I don't think that this is a common enough circumstance that there needs to be a mandated solution--in, what, 10+ years of competitive VTES play, I can't remember a single time when someone had to leave *in the middle* of a game--people drop between rounds. And at least a few times, someone just didn't show up for the start of a round after they had been seated. But getting a call in the middle of a game and suddenly up and leaving due to an emergency? I can't remember a single time that I have seen this happen in a tournament I have been involved in. Such that I suspect it really doesn't happen all that often. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 8, 9:37 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <f320e864-4c21-4bae-ae08-e5e7c9b97...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > I am unconvinced that this is so. At least, it seems to me that it > > ought to be possible to devise a single universally-applied solution > > that is, if not necessarily perfect in every way, at the very least > > far more reasonable than having the judge devise a new solution each > > time he encounters a new situation. > > But the situations are going to be different every time, and no single, > universally applied situation is going to remotely work for different > situations. Perhaps not, but you have yet to convince me, yet, that a single solution cannot be applied to most situations. Note that by "single solution" I merely mean a single system of rules that are simple enough to be set up in advance and applied by judges as necessary. I do not necessarily a single, simple rule. Here, for example, is a system that might work (or might not) work, but at any rate, has not been disproved by your examples: When the defaulting player leaves, place a "default sheet" in front of the defaulting player's predator with the defaulting player's last pool total written on it. Play now continues normally, among the remaining players, except that during his untap phase, the player with the "default sheet" adds 1 "default counter" to the sheet, and adds an additional 1 default counter to the sheet at the end of his turn if his prey loses any pool during that turn. If the player with the default card is ousted or withdraws, his predator gains control of the default card. When the default card has counters greater than or equal to half the pool total written on it, it is burned, and the player who had the card when it burned gains one victory point and gains pool equal to 6 minus the number of default counters on the card (but never loses pool). The player who controls the card at the end of the game gains a half victory point. > Assume Player C, for whatever reason, needs to abruptly > leave the game in the following games: > > Game 1: It is a 5 players game, everyone has taken 1 turn, no one has > influenced out anyone. Place a default sheet with (probably) "27" written on it in front of player B, and continue as indicated above. > Game 2: It is a 5 player game, it is turn 10, Player A is ousted, Player > C (the one leaving) is at 4 pool and has 1 tapped, bloodless minion in > play. Place a default sheet with "4" written on it in front of Player B and continue as indicated above. > Game 3: It is a 4 player game, it is turn 4, everyone has some minions > in play, folks have taken some actions, nothing significant has > happened, but it is way too late to just remove someone and move on. Place however a default sheet with (probably) about "15" written on it in front of player B, and continue as indicated above. > No blanket solution will address all of these situations, even remotely. The above system, which is probably bad for other reasons and perhaps could be improved some, does seem to address all these situations, at least remotely. > As a judge, I'd say that Game 1 just moves on from there as a 4 player > game, adjusting transfers as necessary; Well, if everyone agrees to effectively restart/revise the game as a 4 player, I don't see why that cannot be done. Rules can be bent if all consent. But rules are for when there is disagreement, and, it seems to me that once a game has begun, it has begun. If such a system is devised, then it seems to me that a separate rule for such situations is not worth the remote chance that such timing will occur

In article <ee4a39c2-07fe-4998...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > Perhaps not, but you have yet to convince me, yet, that a single > solution cannot be applied to most situations. Note that by "single > solution" I merely mean a single system of rules that are simple > enough to be set up in advance and applied by judges as necessary. I > do not necessarily a single, simple rule. If the "simple" system you envision is anything like the one you present below, I'm not really seeing it as simple. Or comprehensive, especially when an awful lot of the situations that will be covered with it can be easily fixed by simply pretending the player wasn't there in the first place, rewinding a bit to fix things like transfers, and just moving on. > Here, for example, is a system that might work (or might not) work, > but at any rate, has not been disproved by your examples: > > When the defaulting player leaves, place a "default sheet" in front of > the defaulting player's predator with the defaulting player's last > pool total written on it. Play now continues normally, among the > remaining players, except that during his untap phase, the player with > the "default sheet" adds 1 "default counter" to the sheet, and adds an > additional 1 default counter to the sheet at the end of his turn if > his prey loses any pool during that turn. If the player with the > default card is ousted or withdraws, his predator gains control of the > default card. When the default card has counters greater than or > equal to half the pool total written on it, it is burned, and the > player who had the card when it burned gains one victory point and > gains pool equal to 6 minus the number of default counters on the card > (but never loses pool). The player who controls the card at the end > of the game gains a half victory point. That is a whole lot of work to fix something that isn't really even worth worrying about--you seem very concerned with the "vanishing" VP from a player going away, which I'm in no way convinced is remotely relevant to the situation at hand. VPs "vanish" all the time, when folks drop from tournaments between rounds--do we need to then add a "default sheet" to the game that would have been a 5 player game due to a perfect 20 players, but is instead a 4 player game as someone dropped between rounds? That, and it is a really significant introduction into a game--adding the need to keep track of "default counters" and keeping track of them in hopes of getting extra pool at some point? Seems way complicated and unnecessary--I realize that this is just an example, but if it is your idea of a simple system that covers all contingencies, I'm unconvinced that this sort of thing is going to be in any way better than letting the judge use their judgement. > Place a default sheet with (probably) "27" written on it in front of > player B, and continue as indicated above. How is this preferable to just playing the game as a 4 player game and fixing transfers? > Place a default sheet with "4" written on it in front of Player B and > continue as indicated above. Which isn't much different than simply representing the player with 4 pool counters and moving on. But without extra record keeping and encumbering rules. > Place however a default sheet with (probably) about "15" written on it > in front of player B, and continue as indicated above. Which is going to be far more damaging to the play of the game (taking someone who was in a viable position and just vanishing them from the game in the middle) than just finding someone (who was probably already ousted somewhere else in the room) and having them sit in and just play from there with the hopefully borrowed deck. > The above system, which is probably bad for other reasons and perhaps > could be improved some, does seem to address all these situations, at > least remotely. I'm not seeing it, but ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 9, 5:45 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <ee4a39c2-07fe-4998-83e8-def959735...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > > nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > Perhaps not, but you have yet to convince me, yet, that a single > > solution cannot be applied to most situations. Note that by "single > > solution" I merely mean a single system of rules that are simple > > enough to be set up in advance and applied by judges as necessary. I > > do not necessarily a single, simple rule. > > If the "simple" system you envision is anything like the one you present > below, I'm not really seeing it as simple. Huh??? That's why I explicitly said it need not be "simple". Did you miss that clarification somehow? It only need not be too complex to manage, understand and apply. > Or comprehensive, especially > when an awful lot of the situations that will be covered with it can be > easily fixed by simply pretending the player wasn't there in the first > place, rewinding a bit to fix things like transfers, and just moving on. It is comprehensive. You are complaining -- not that it does not cover all situations -- but that some of the situations it covers, viewed individually -- could have been handled by tailor made solutions that are simpler and less comprehensive. This is silly. Nor do I agree that an "awful lot" of such situations can be fixed in the manner described. > That is a whole lot of work to fix something that isn't really even > worth worrying about--you seem very concerned with the "vanishing" > VP from a player going away, which I'm in no way convinced is > remotely relevant to the situation at hand. It is EXTREMELY relevant. In a chess game, when a player, realizing he is losing, decides to just knock over the chess board, and dance out of the room, should his opponent's victory "vanish", merely because his opponent is a sore loser? Same here. Suppose a player, who may be losing, who may or may not be motivated by a desire to spite the remaining players at the table (but whose spiteful motivations and doomed chances of victory, in any case, are best known only to himself) decides to just walk out of the room, should he be permitted to deprive his fellow players of the victory point they would have gotten from him had he behaved honorably, and stayed behind, and lost? The spiteful desire to make the victory point he brought to the table "vanish" may be precisely his motivation for leaving. And in many cases, he may be the only person who knows this. > VPs "vanish" all the time, when folks > drop from tournaments between rounds That is not even remotely comparable. > --do we need to then add a "default > sheet" to the game that would have been a 5 player game due to a > perfect 20 players, but is instead a 4 player game as someone > dropped between rounds? Huh? Do you really think my concern is with players who drop out BETWEEN tournament rounds? I thought the concern was players who leave in the middle of games. > That, and it is a really significant introduction into a game--adding > the need to keep track of "default counters" and keeping track of > them in hopes of getting extra pool at some point? The main goal is the victory point. The possibility of pool gain is designed to disappear if not imminent, but perhaps that needlessly complicates the proposal. > Seems way complicated and > unnecessary--I realize that this is just an example, Exactly. If someone more clever than myself can come up with a more elegant proposal, I am all ears. > but if it is your > idea of a simple system that covers all contingencies, NO NO NO!!!! Let me clarify again. It is my Idea of a single COMPREHENSIVE system (ie. one that hopefully covers all contingencies), which, despite being comprehensive, is not too complicated or difficult to apply when needed. AGAIN -- it need not be "simple" as long as it is not "too complex". > > Place a default sheet with (probably) "27" written on it in front of > > player B, and continue as indicated above. > > How is this preferable to just playing the game as a 4 player game > and fixing transfers? It is preferable because more COMPREHENSIVE, obviously. My complex solution can be applied in all situations, whereas the above solution can be applied only in this tiny narrow situation. But, as I already explained, you could still do the above if all are in agreement. At the risk of making my solution more complicated, one might add a clause that the judge has the option of doing something like the above at the very beginning of 5 player games. > > Place a default sheet with "4" written on it in front of Player B and > > continue as indicated above. > > Which isn't much different than simply representing the player with > 4 pool counters and moving on. By saying "Not much different" you have just conceded that my solution does indeed work in this situation. Your claim is merely that you could devise a simpler solution to apply ONLY in this situation. > But without extra record keeping and > encumbering rules. Right. My solution is more complex than yours, because it is more comprehensive than yours. > > Place however a default sheet with (probably) about "15" written > > on it in front of player B, and continue as indicated above. > > Which is going to be far more damaging to the play of the game > (taking someone who was in a viable position and just vanishing > them from the game in the middle) than just finding someone (who > was probably already ousted somewhere else in the room) and > having them sit in and just play from there with the hopefully > borrowed deck. If the defaulting player's deck remains available, and if a replacement player is available, perhaps having a replacement player sit in (without, I think, being allowed to familiarize himself with the deck) should ALWAYS be the preferred solution. Perhaps this preference should be part of the single comprehensive system (at the risk of making it more complex). I note that this solution (when it is an option) also has the benefit I value, but that you scoff at, of preserving for the table the victory point that the defaulting player brought to the table. The idea is not that all situations should be treated the same (my system does not do that) but rather there should be a single comprehensive system that always tells the judge how to deal with the situation. If the judge makes things up as he goes along, then no-one, even the judge, can ever be sure how his judgment has been influenced. He may formulate a solution that helps someone he likes, or screws someone he dislikes. He may overcompensate and formulate a solution that helps someone he dislikes, and screws someone he likes. Perceptions of unfair favoritism -- even when unjustified -- can be created by those who disagree with the appropriateness of the solution. Even where the judge does his best to be fair, an appearance of impropriety can be created, along with resentment. If the solution is decided in advance, by a single set of rules that always tells the judge how to act, then such problems can be avoided. If people are dissatisfied, they will blame the rules, not the judge, and bad feelings will tend to be avoided.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-4B6499.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <Iyn2k.11$il...@newsfe12.phx>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> I'm sorry, I completely disagree with that. This is an odd situation >> with a lot of angles to it, some of which may be very obvious some of >> which may be very subtle. The subtle ones - IMHO - may be just as >> important for the judge to take into account as the obvious ones. > > I'm not seeing how what deck anyone is playing should have an impact on > the situation I play Baltomore Purge. BOOM! Everybody's early strategy changes. Quite possibly it changes who they'd transfer out first. > Yeah, rewinding a bit to fix transfers is > likely a good idea. But I'm not seeing how in a situation like the one > presented the subtle angles need to have any impact at all. In my experience, assuming there are no subtle angles to any game is a very poor idea. And since I don't see the harm in making your case for a judge, I just don't think there's much of an argument here. I just don't see how you can have a bone to pick with someone at least pointing out information for a judge. >> the judge is only going to see the obvious angles. That's why players >> who have greater amounts of information which are relevent to fairness >> absolutely should feed that information to the judge. Then the judge - >> being a thinking, discerning person - can take it into account or toss it >> on the dumpster as he pleases. But if he isn't aware of it, he only has >> one choice. > > Sure--feeding information is reasonable (now mind you, this started with > you saying you'd "argue", rather than "feed information" :-), I see. "Argue" is a semantically loaded word for you, then, I'd suggest. You might want to think about that. People don't necessarily mean, "nitpick" or become obstructionistic or become annoying when they use the word "argue". (Though one person's interesting debate is often another person's nitpicking, I realize.) > but even > then, I don't see how it is relevant as to what your (or anyone's) deck > is or what your strategy is going to be in the situation presented; I'm sorry you don't. Maybe in a lot of games it wouldn't. But this is really a "never say never" situation. If you have a deck with a suprising element or maybe just a surprise opening play that only occasionally comes up and you finally drew it, it's unfair to restart the game from scratch so the other players can plan on it. And the judge may not see how unfair it is (perhaps because of other elements in your current hand or that you might reasonably expect to draw soon) unless you tell him. > the > game is early and just started. Something weird happend. The best way to > deal with it is just to pick up the pieces and move on. In the above situation, that's clearly not fair. There may not be a fair solution, but restarting the game might be more unfair than any other solution. In any case, as I noted above, I don't see the harm in making the case. Fred

On Jun 5, 1:43 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello All, > > One of the most disruptive events in a game is when a player must > leave in the middle. It's also an incredibly hard situation to > judge. The benefit of case studies is that everyone can share their > ideas, and hopefully reach consensus. > > 5 player game. A->B->C->D->E > > Everyone takes their first turn. D brings up a 4-cap, no one else > brings out anyone, nor discards. > On his second turn, B brings up a 3-cap. Still no discard. > On D's second turn, D plays a clan-specific master card. Then, C gets > a phone call and immediately announces, "I need to go - I'm really > sorry." > > Assuming you don't have a substitute for C (which is pretty much > always the best option), what do you about the table above? > > If you want/need any other clarifying information about this > situation, feel free to ask (and perhaps mention why it would make a > difference in your final ruling.) I would base it on the remaining pool of the player who withdrew. 30-26 Pool, 0 VP for predator 25-21 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 1 Pool 20-16 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 2 Pool 15-11 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 3 Pool 10-5 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 4 Pool 4-1 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 5 Pool Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

nys...@cs.com wrote: > It is EXTREMELY relevant. In a chess game, when a player, realizing > he is losing, decides to just knock over the chess board, and dance > out of the room, should his opponent's victory "vanish", merely > because his opponent is a sore loser? > > Same here. Suppose a player, who may be losing, who may or may not be > motivated by a desire to spite the remaining players at the table (but > whose spiteful motivations and doomed chances of victory, in any case, > are best known only to himself) decides to just walk out of the room, > should he be permitted to deprive his fellow players of the victory > point they would have gotten from him had he behaved honorably, and > stayed behind, and lost? No. And it doesn't occur that way in VTES, either. > The spiteful desire to make the victory point he brought to the table > "vanish" may be precisely his motivation for leaving. And in many > cases, he may be the only person who knows this. Fortunately, he doesn't have the power to make his VP vanish. >> VPs "vanish" all the time, when folks >> drop from tournaments between rounds > > That is not even remotely comparable. It is to the case at hand -- where the player leaves the table before "losing" -- indeed, before affecting the table at all beyond the additional transfer his prey got. >> Seems way complicated and >> unnecessary--I realize that this is just an example, > > Exactly. If someone more clever than myself can come up with a more > elegant proposal, I am all ears. The current solution is to allow the judge to arbitrate the VP appropriately. > The idea is not that all situations should be treated the same (my > system does not do that) but rather there should be a single > comprehensive system that always tells the judge how to deal with the > situation. The point is that such a system is not possible by any means other than allowing the judge to use her judgment (which is the current system). Other rules ("systems") may be taped onto that foundation, but they typically serve only to obscure the unchanged fact that the judge's judgment is the foundation. There are, simply, too many variables. > If the judge makes things up as he goes along, then no-one, even the > judge, can ever be sure how his judgment has been influenced. True under any system -- if you tape a simple or complex system over the foundation, you still have the judge determining which of the choices from the sparse set of choices listed in the system is to be applied to a given circumstance. > He may > formulate a solution that helps someone he likes, or screws someone he > dislikes. He may overcompensate and formulate a solution that helps > someone he dislikes, and screws someone he likes. Perceptions of > unfair favoritism -- even when unjustified -- can be created by those > who disagree with the appropriateness of the solution. Even where the > judge does his best to be fair, an appearance of impropriety can be > created, along with resentment. True under any system. > If the solution is decided in advance, by a single set of rules that > always tells the judge how to act, then such problems can be > avoided. If people are dissatisfied, they will blame the rules, not > the judge, and bad feelings will tend to be avoided. But the solution for the whole set of each and every possible game state cannot be decided in advance. The set is to large to make such an endeavor tractable.

In article <zsj3k.410$Sy6...@newsfe14.phx>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I play Baltomore Purge. BOOM! Everybody's early strategy changes. Quite > possibly it changes who they'd transfer out first. In the original situation presented, there is no time to play Baltimore Purge, as no one has taken an action yet. How is it relevant that you are playing Baltimore Purge to how the game is fixed when someone bails? If it is much later in the game, it might have an impact, but everyone then has the same information. That *you* have special information (i.e. that you'll be playing Baltimore Purges in the future) in the start of the game strikes me as irrelevant. > In my experience, assuming there are no subtle angles to any game is > a very poor idea. And since I don't see the harm in making your case > for a judge, I just don't think there's much of an argument here. I > just don't see how you can have a bone to pick with someone at least > pointing out information for a judge. Again, I can't see how it is relevant in the proposed situation--assuming a fairly early departure (like the originally proposed situation in this thread), the only thing necessary to take into account is "how do I as the Judge fix the game to the point that it is like the 5th player never existed". Rewinding a bit to adjust transfers seems like a reasonable action to take. Finding out what decks everyone is playing seems completely irrelevant, just like it is completely irrelevant what decks everyone is playing when you set up a table for round 2, or whatever. > I'm sorry you don't. Maybe in a lot of games it wouldn't. But this is > really a "never say never" situation. If you have a deck with a suprising > element or maybe just a surprise opening play that only occasionally > comes up and you finally drew it, it's unfair to restart the game from > scratch so the other players can plan on it. I see where you are coming from, but still, it strikes me as irrelevant. Yeah, it is a drag if your once and a while awesome surprise opening goes off and then the game needs to be rewound. But as a judge, that Player X is sad that their once and a while awesome surprise opening goes off and now they are sad that someone might see it coming strikes me as way less of something to care about than simply fixing the game as best as I can and getting it going again. And I'd like to assume that everyone playing would see that as the primary goal. > In the above situation, that's clearly not fair. There may not be a fair > solution, but restarting the game might be more unfair than any other > solution. In any case, as I noted above, I don't see the harm in making > the case. Fair enough. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <956fe94c-f1b0-47e2...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > Huh??? That's why I explicitly said it need not be "simple". Did > you miss that clarification somehow? It only need not be too complex > to manage, understand and apply. Yet started out by saying "...a single system of rules that are simple enough to be set up in advance and applied by judges as necessary." The rule you propose (me full well realizing that it was an off the cuff idea, but it is the idea I'm discussing) do not strike me as remotely "simple enough". > It is EXTREMELY relevant. In a chess game, when a player, realizing > he is losing, decides to just knock over the chess board, and dance > out of the room, should his opponent's victory "vanish", merely > because his opponent is a sore loser? The situation you are proposing is an imagined one. I realize that you can imagine it happening, but I have never seen it happen (someone losing and suddenly vanishing from the game). If they choose to self destruct and oust themselves, the end result requires no resolution. Their predator gets a VP and 6 pool. The situation that is being discussed here is someone, due to forces beyond their control, being forced to leave the game (sudden emergency). Someone simply deciding to remove themselves from the game 'cause they don't like how it is going is covered completely by rules on "bad sportsmanship", and doesn't need any illumination. > Same here. Suppose a player, who may be losing, who may or may not be > motivated by a desire to spite the remaining players at the table (but > whose spiteful motivations and doomed chances of victory, in any case, > are best known only to himself) decides to just walk out of the room, > should he be permitted to deprive his fellow players of the victory > point they would have gotten from him had he behaved honorably, and > stayed behind, and lost? This isn't an issue. As it is covered by bad sportsmanship (they get warned/banned/whatever). And I have, again, in 10+ years of competitive VTES, never seen this happen. > The spiteful desire to make the victory point he brought to the table > "vanish" may be precisely his motivation for leaving. And in many > cases, he may be the only person who knows this. I think you are imagining situations that don't ever actually occur. If someone wants to oust themselves, they can easily do so. And often do. But people just up and leaving the game out of (secret) spite? Highly far and few between. If ever. > That is not even remotely comparable. See, I was under the impression that you were concerned about vanishing VPs due to the disparity between winning a 4 player game and winning a 5 player game (i.e. I thought you were worried about VP differential and how it affected the game). Now I realize that you are worried about vanishing VPs due to people trying to screw folks out of VPs in games they are losing by up and leaving the game out of spite. Now that I understand that is your angle, I don't really have anything left to say, as it is a situation that is incredibly rare, at best. I don't think it is remotely necessary to invent a sweeping policy to address such a thing other than the pre-existing bad sportsmanship rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 9, 8:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > It is EXTREMELY relevant. In a chess game, when a > > player, realizing he is losing, decides to just knock over > > the chess board, and dance out of the room, should his > > opponent's victory "vanish", merely because his opponent > > is a sore loser? > > > Same here. Suppose a player, who may be losing, who > > may or may not be motivated by a desire to spite the > > remaining players at the table (but whose spiteful > > motivations and doomed chances of victory, in any case > > are best known only to himself) decides to just walk out of > > the room, should he be permitted to deprive his fellow > > players of the victory point they would have gotten from > > him had he behaved honorably, and stayed behind, and > > lost? > > No. And it doesn't occur that way in VTES, either. Okay. But I was not addressing a claim that it does or does not do so in VTES. I was responding to a claim that it did not matter whether it did or not. I think it does matter. > > The spiteful desire to make the victory point he brought to > >the table "vanish" may be precisely his motivation for > >leaving. And in many cases, he may be the only person > > who knows this. > > Fortunately, he doesn't have the power to make his VP > vanish. I agree that this is indeed "fortunate." I thought, however, that I was taking issue with someone who disagreed with that sentiment. > >> VPs "vanish" all the time, when folks > >> drop from tournaments between rounds > > > That is not even remotely comparable. > > It is to the case at hand -- where the player leaves the table > before "losing" -- indeed, before affecting the table at all > beyond the additional transfer his prey got. Fair enough. However, I did not take the position that a 4-player restart/revision was unacceptable or inappropriate in this situation. Therefore, I did not assume that any disagreement was still confined to this narrow scenario, where the game has technically, but only barely, started > True under any system -- if you tape a simple or complex > system over the foundation, you still have the judge > determining which of the choices from the > sparse set of choices listed in the system is to be applied to > a given circumstance. It is, however, often possible for 5 players to sit down and play a game of V:TES without a judge present. There is an agreed-upon set of rules to guide them, even if said rules are occasionally rough at the edges. However, there is no common understanding, even a rough one, to help them decide how to continue the game after a bad sport storms out. In most cases, the game is simply ruined -- unless a judge can be found to craft a tailor-made solution. So "true under any system" is correct, but does rather ignore the difference in degree. > But the solution for the whole set of each and every > possible game state cannot be decided in advance. > The set is to large to make such an endeavor tractable. You are doubtlessly correct. I still cannot help wondering if a system could not be devised that might not offer a bit more guidance than the current one.

On Jun 9, 5:15 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I would base it on the remaining pool of the player who withdrew. > 30-26 Pool, 0 VP for predator > 25-21 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 1 Pool > 20-16 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 2 Pool > 15-11 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 3 Pool > 10-5 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 4 Pool > 4-1 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 5 Pool Interesting idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "base it on..." Do you mean, "Here is a rule I would follow strictly," or "here are some general guidelines to illuminate my personal judgement" ? If the latter, awesome - nice to see. If the former, it seems too strict and rigid to cover all cases. For instance, say everyone at the table brings out big cap minions, and we're about to start turn 4.1, so no one has taken an action yet. Then, player C, who currently has 19 pool (after bringing out an 11-cap) needs to leave. In my judgement, I wouldn't award any pool to B, because B has done nothing to earn that VP. It would be most balanced for the game overall (assuming C needs to take his cards) if C simply vanishes and now it's a 4 player game. Thoughts? Also, I can imagine a reverse situation where C has 10 weenies in torpor, 30 pool and B just put Dragonbound in play. That would be a really tough situation to judge, and obviously there would be a lot of factors (certainly how close B is to dying), but I could definitely see awarding B a VP and some pool. Though actually in that case, I'd probably lean towards leaving 30 pool for B to bleed through, and have the imaginary C take pool damage from dragonbound each turn. Ira

On Jun 9, 5:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The current solution is to allow the judge to arbitrate the VP appropriately. > > > The idea is not that all situations should be treated the same (my > > system does not do that) but rather there should be a single > > comprehensive system that always tells the judge how to deal with the > > situation. > > The point is that such a system is not possible by any means other than allowing > the judge to use her judgment (which is the current system). I believe that the current system is pretty good. My issue with the current system is that there are multiple correct answers given the same input. In the fairly simple case I described (C must leave on turn 2.4), these answers were all proposed: a) Do nothing, play on. b) Remove one of D's upcoming transfers c) Rewind to the beginning of the game If I were the judge, and I ruled (a), I would be correct. If LSJ were the judge and he ruled (b), he would be equally correct. And if David Tatu were the judge, and he ruled (c), he would be equally correct, too. We would all be correct by definition: we're the judge, and we use our judgement. I believe we can improve our current system if judges make similar rulings given the same input. I believe that consistency across judges can be achieved through Case Studies, followed by discussion and hopefully consensus. LSJ helpfully posted his thoughts on this Case Study. I hope all future judges, when encountering a similar situation, will be able to refer to this discussion. Ira

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:353c2b9d-b5df-4a5e...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > I believe we can improve our current system if judges make similar > rulings given the same input. Laudable - but nearly impossible. As Scott said, there are too many variables. In this context, that means you couldn't keep track of all the variables to have much chance of knowing when you were encountering "the same input" - as some other occurance. If there ever was one. > I believe that consistency across > judges can be achieved through Case Studies, followed by discussion > and hopefully consensus. Oh, my, it seems painfully obvious you cannot. Or rather, perhaps you could but the cross-section of discussed cases would always be so small as to be fairly worthless as a tool for future judging. In fact, the "consensus" might actually be counter-productive because of the temptation to use some temptingly similar discussed case as a baseline only to discover a few specific details can make a lot of difference in reckoning "fairness". Apparent consensus in a conjectural discussion might thus prove to be an attractive nuisance more than anything else. > LSJ helpfully posted his thoughts on this > Case Study. I hope all future judges, when encountering a similar > situation, will be able to refer to this discussion. For purposes of listing possible diverse answers that might be considered and reasons to consider them, I agree there's value here. For hard and fast guidance, however, very little. Fred

On Jun 10, 1:26 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > It is, however, often possible for 5 players to sit down and play a > game of V:TES without a judge present. There is an agreed-upon set of > rules to guide them, even if said rules are occasionally rough at the > edges. However, there is no common understanding, even a rough one, > to help them decide how to continue the game after a bad sport storms > out. Which is an example of, I suspect, what is 'causing the disconnect here--in what situation are you: A) Playing VTES without a judge present, B) Playing with someone who is enough of a bad sport that they'll just up and leave in the middle of the game, and C) Care enough about the outcome of the game that someone just left that you'll need a set of rules to address what happens in said circumstance? I can see some combination of these factors occuring, but all 3 at once? If you are just playing a casual game, why are you playing with someone who is enough of a douche bag that they will stand up in the middle of the game and leave out of spite? If you are playing with people like this, why are you doing so voluntarily without a judge around (i.e. I have certainly played VTES with total douche bags, but only ever at tournaments 'cause I had to)? If you are playing casually, and someone *does* need to leave in the middle of a game due to an emergency, why are you going to care, really, about the outcome of the current game? One of your pals is jetting off in an emergency, I suspect everyone can survive just sucking it up and starting a new game (or inventing a way to finish the current one on the fly). -Peter

On Jun 10, 12:33 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 9, 5:15 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I would base it on the remaining pool of the player who withdrew. > > 30-26 Pool, 0 VP for predator > > 25-21 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 1 Pool > > 20-16 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 2 Pool > > 15-11 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 3 Pool > > 10-5 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 4 Pool > > 4-1 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 5 Pool > > Interesting idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "base it on..." Do > you mean, "Here is a rule I would follow strictly," or "here are some > general guidelines to illuminate my personal judgement" ? it's so strict, it's written in Titanium. How's that for taking a hard line? > If the latter, awesome - nice to see. If the former, it seems too > strict and rigid to cover all cases. For instance, say everyone at > the table brings out big cap minions, and we're about to start turn > 4.1, so no one has taken an action yet. Then, player C, who currently > has 19 pool (after bringing out an 11-cap) needs to leave. In my > judgement, I wouldn't award any pool to B, because B has done nothing > to earn that VP. It would be most balanced for the game overall > (assuming C needs to take his cards) if C simply vanishes and now it's > a 4 player game. Thoughts? I would award the player the pool and be done with it. Honestly, I would call player C a prick for starting a tournament game with something "pending". > Also, I can imagine a reverse situation where C has 10 weenies in > torpor, 30 pool and B just put Dragonbound in play. That would be a > really tough situation to judge, and obviously there would be a lot of > factors (certainly how close B is to dying), but I could definitely > see awarding B a VP and some pool. Though actually in that case, I'd > probably lean towards leaving 30 pool for B to bleed through, and have > the imaginary C take pool damage from dragonbound each turn. Nope, if you let someone get 10 weenies into play and put dragonbound and then they still have 30 pool, then you are just a poor predator and deserve nothing. Let the mockery begin as the other players taunt you with cries of "the littest predator". [ quoted text not captured ]

err... cries of "the littlest predator". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 10, 8:03 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 1:26 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > It is, however, often possible for 5 players to sit down and play a > > game of V:TES without a judge present. There is an agreed-upon set of > > rules to guide them, even if said rules are occasionally rough at the > > edges. However, there is no common understanding, even a rough one, > > to help them decide how to continue the game after a bad sport storms > > out. > > Which is an example of, I suspect, what is 'causing the disconnect > here--in what situation are you: I really see this as an abstract discussion. I'm not sure we get anywhere by discussing my "disconnect" or my "situation". > A) Playing VTES without a judge present, Guilty. > B) Playing with someone who is enough of a bad sport that they'll just > up and leave in the middle of the game, > and Guilty, probably. And I would do so again, probably. I am not judgmental, and I do not willingly think ill of others. A persons true reasons for leaving are rarely crystal clear, and I usually give the benefit of the doubt. And sometimes, a bad sport is merely someone who has had a bad day. It is only for the abstract purposes of creating rules that it pays to assume the worst. With the rules in place, one is always free to assume the best. > C) Care enough about the outcome of the game that someone just left > that you'll need a set of rules to address what happens in said > circumstance? Guilty. Obviously, I care about the outcome of the game, or I would not be playing it. Whether or not it is feasible, or sufficiently feasible to be worth the trouble, to construct a set or rules to address such circumstance, is something on which I am undecided, and is what we are discussing. > I can see some combination of these factors occuring, but all 3 at > once? I usually play without a judge present, and always have an interest in the outcome. The only unusual factor is the second one -- a player leaving in the middle of the game. But it does happen. > If you are just playing a casual game, why are you playing with > someone who is enough of a douche bag that they will stand up in the > middle of the game and leave out of spite? With all due respect, it is none of your business who I choose to play with. Nor am I necessarily eager to assume that someone who leaves in the middle of a game is a "douche bag". > If you are playing > casually, and someone *does* need to leave in the middle of a game due > to an emergency, why are you going to care, really, about the outcome > of the current game? Why am I playing if I don't care about the outcome? > One of your pals is jetting off in an emergency, Who says he's my pal? > I suspect everyone can survive just sucking it up and starting a new > game (or inventing a way to finish the current one on the fly). Of course we'll "survive".

On Jun 10, 12:50 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I really see this as an abstract discussion. I'm not sure we get > anywhere by discussing my "disconnect" or my "situation". Yes. An abstract discussion based on a situation that doesn't happen enough to justify inventing rules to fix. By "disconnect" I mean that we are talking past each other--you are basing your whole argument on something that I clearly think is a non issue. Thus, there is a disconnect in our argument. By "situation" I mean the situation you present. > Guilty. I play VTES without a judge all the time. But with people who are my friends. And I have never once been in a situation playing casually where I have felt the need to have a rule to do what you want it to. > Guilty, probably. And I would do so again, probably. I don't know what to tell you then. When I play casual VTES, it is with people who I like, at least marginally. And none of them (as they are all, ya know, more or less grownups) are likely to get up in the middle of the game and leave out of spite. Self oust 'cause they are in a horrible situation and wish to comedy spite someone? Sure, all the time. Roll over and die 'cause they are in a horrible situation? Sure, all the time. But get up and leave the game in disgust? Never in a million years. And I haven't ever seen anyone do that in any case-- I've seen people leave the game in disgust after getting ousted in competetive play, sure. But have them just up and leave in the middle of a game? It just doesn't happen at all, let alone often enough to justify a special rule to address it when it does. > I am not judgmental, and I do not willingly think ill of others. Sure. But who are you playing VTES with? Random strangers in a bus station? This game simply doesn't have the huge, wide appeal that results in wild crowds of VTES players milling about, such that you regularly end up in casual games with random strangers. When you play casual VTES, you are generally playing with the same 4 (or whatever) people you always play VTES with. Unless you are at a tournament. In which case there is a judge, and this is all moot. > A persons > true reasons for leaving are rarely crystal clear, and I usually give > the benefit of the doubt. And sometimes, a bad sport is merely > someone who has had a bad day. How often are people up and leaving in the middle of games in your experience? Honestly? Again, in 10+ years of fairly regular competitive play, I can't recall a single time where this has happened in a tournament I was involved in. Yeah, once and a while someone will drop between rounds for whatever reason (something has come up, an emergency situation, they are having a crappy time). Sure. But in the middle of an actual game? Virtually never. If ever. > It is only for the abstract purposes > of creating rules that it pays to assume the worst. With the rules in > place, one is always free to assume the best. Sure. But you are basing your abstract argument on a situation that simply doesn't occur in reality enough to worry about. I mean, you could also want the VEKN to come up with rules for what to do in case a tournament is overrun by howler monkeys, as that is also disruptive to play. But that isn't likely to happen much either. > Guilty. Obviously, I care about the outcome of the game, or I would > not be playing it. Sure. But in the incredibly insignificant number of times that something like this happens? It seems reasonable to simply start a new game. Or whatever. Without needing special rules to address the outcome. > I usually play without a judge present, and always have an interest in > the outcome. The only unusual factor is the second one -- a player > leaving in the middle of the game. But it does happen. Sure. But enough to need a special rule? If you are playing in a tournament, there is a judge to fix the issue. If you are playing casually, what difference does it make? Just adjust as necessary and move on. > With all due respect, it is none of your business who I choose to play > with. Nor am I necessarily eager to assume that someone who leaves in > the middle of a game is a "douche bag". Me neither. But if they are leaving out of disgust in the middle of a game? That is some pretty severe douch-baggery. I don't play casual VTES with people like this. I'm not sure why anyone does. If someone leaves in the middle of a game due to an emergency (i.e. their wife calls in the middle of a game and the basment has flooded)? That happens, and we adjust as neccessary. People scooping their cards and taking their ball and going home in the middle of a game? Have never seen it. > Why am I playing if I don't care about the outcome? I realize that the outcome is an important part of a game. But in the small number of situations where the game is disrupted due to someone leaving in the middle, you really can't just up and move on? > Who says he's my pal? Who are you playing VTES with? Are you trolling for players in the subways? Are you sticking fliers on car windshields? Really--if you are playing casual VTES, who is it with such that their behavior is random and erratic and possibly spiteful? If the answer is "no one, really--this is just an abstract situation" then it is an abstract situation that isn't really worth worrying about. -Peter

On Jun 10, 1:59 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I play VTES without a judge all the time. But with people who are my > friends. That may explain why our experience differs. > When I play casual VTES, it is > with people who I like, at least marginally. It is possible for me to like a person, at least marginally, even if he is a rather bad sport. > Sure. But who are you playing VTES with? It seems evident you think me a liar, or there would be no point to this stupid interrogation. I already told you that I often play casually with people who are not my friends. Why not simply believe me? Is it really so impossible for you to imagine that someone else's experience differs from yours? > Random strangers in a bus station? No. Not at a bus station. Perhaps, if you think about it, a more likely sort of location will occur to you. > How often are people up and leaving in the middle of games in your > experience? Honestly? I don't know how often, but the last time I saw it happen was about 2 weeks ago. > Who are you playing VTES with? Are you trolling for players in the > subways? Are you sticking fliers on car windshields? Really--if you > are playing casual VTES, who is it with such that their behavior is > random and erratic and possibly spiteful? Are you finished, yet, with this silly interrogation?

On Jun 10, 1:59 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > When you play > casual VTES, you are generally playing with the same 4 (or whatever) > people you always play VTES with. No, I am not. > Unless you are at a tournament. In > which case there is a judge, and this is all moot. I disagree. Rules that can effectively provide guidance in casual situations can also provide guidance in tournament situations.

In article <ef1a0b53-b1a8-4f5a...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > That may explain why our experience differs. Likely. Really--who are you playing VTES with? Are you playing regular games with people you don't see on a regular basis? Do you regularly have random strangers come along and sit in on games? > It is possible for me to like a person, at least marginally, even if > he is a rather bad sport. Sure. But why play VTES with them then? Isn't this an activity you partake in for fun? Why invite people who are bad sports? > It seems evident you think me a liar, or there would be no point to > this stupid interrogation. Hostile much? I'm neither calling you a liar or interrogating you. I'm really, honestly not understanding the situation you are proposing here. > I already told you that I often play casually with people who are not my friends. Who are they? Like, I'm not looking for names. I'm looking for a general sense of where this is happening and how. If you are playing in a local game store, sure, there are people there that aren't likely to be folks you hang out with on a day to day basis. But still, they are likely to be people you know and interact with on a regular interval. And know well enough to know whether or not they are likely to up and leave in the middle of a game out of spite or disgust (and even then, I still can't imagine this happening on a regular enough basis to even worry about--are you playing VTES with angry 15 year olds? Even the random strangers I play VTES with at conventions are well behaved and have manners...) > Why not simply believe > me? Is it really so impossible for you to imagine that someone else's > experience differs from yours? No, it isn't. But if I had a sense of what the experience actually was, other than vagueness, I might get a better sense of what you are talking about. > No. Not at a bus station. Perhaps, if you think about it, a more > likely sort of location will occur to you. Yeah, yeah, game store. Sure. But really--are there hordes of different VTES groups that don't regularly interact? Do you find random VTES playing strangers wandering in, sitting down for a game, and then randomly leaving in the middle of a casual game? Enough to worry about? > I don't know how often, but the last time I saw it happen was about 2 > weeks ago. How and why did that happen? Really--I'm interested to get an idea of what you are envisioning here. > Are you finished, yet, with this silly interrogation? Dude. Chill. Again--I have played this game a lot for a long time. In many different environments. With many, many different people. And what you are talking about (people scooping and leaving in the middle of the game) just is not something I have seen happen. In competition or otherwise. If people are sucking and having a bad time, they just get ousted, grumble, and take off, but not in the middle of the game. 'Cause the people who are playing this game are, more or less, grown ups. Who tend to know how to behave in public. I mean, maybe you *are* playing in an environment where you regularly play games with hot headed, fickle 15 year olds who do crap like this. But I've never encountered or heard of such an environment. I'm not denying the possibility that such an environment might exist, but until someone points it out to me, all I have to go on is what I have seen and heard. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 10, 4:35 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <ef1a0b53-b1a8-4f5a-9c08-dcca38a6a...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > That may explain why our experience differs. > > Likely. Really--who are you playing VTES with? None of your business.

In article <aa83f810-898c-4862...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > None of your business. Dude. A) The unbridled hostility here is, well, going to give you an ulcer. B) If you are going to claim that X is happening, and then refuse to give examples of X happening, and going to refuse to give examples of an environment where X is happening, you are unlikely to be able to convince anyone that X is happening. And if your whole argument is based upon instances of X happening, then you aren't going to have much of an argument. I can't make you respond, as I have neither the power nor inclination to do so. And if it is making you cranky to respond, you are better off not responding. But dude. You need to realize that the internet is a place where people are going to argue with you. And ask that you defend your arguments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 10, 10:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I can't make you respond, as I have neither the power nor inclination to > do so. And yet ... you keep trying. Dude, I am not cranky. But it really IS none of your business. I tried to tell you polite. You did not get it. I tried to tell you rude. You did not get it. You are still going on about it. I do not have to discuss my friends to you. I do not have to discuss my acquaintances with you. I do not have to justify to you my decisions of who I do or do not play cards with. I can play cards with immature 15 year olds if I want to. I can play cards with cranky senior citizens if I want to. And I may continue to do so no matter how badly they behave. And I do not have to describe their bad behavior to you. Please take a deep breath and allow that to sink in. And no, the fact that I refuse to discuss such particulars with you does NOT in any deprive me of the right to discuss the issue of players who walk out of games.

Howdy, At the risk of intruding into a personal flamewar... On Jun 10, 8:22 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Jun 10, 10:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > I can't make you respond, as I have neither the power nor inclination to > > do so. > > And yet ... you keep trying. Well, yes, he is trying to understand where you're coming from, which is quite helpful in trying to carry on a discussion. Or at least that's what it looks like to me. This is clearly just my opinion and my perception, but you seem to be taking a lot of what looks to me to be Peter's honest curiosity very, very personally, and it's hard to understand why. Context might help. > Dude, I am not cranky. But it really IS none of your business. I > tried to tell you polite. You did not get it. I tried to tell you > rude. You did not get it. You are still going on about it. You seem _very_ cranky to me. I must've missed your 'polite'. And I think you must've interpreted large amounts of Peter's 'polite' as rude. > I do not have to discuss my friends to you. I do not have to discuss > my acquaintances with you. I do not have to justify to you my > decisions of who I do or do not play cards with. I can play cards > with immature 15 year olds if I want to. I can play cards with cranky > senior citizens if I want to. And I may continue to do so no matter > how badly they behave. And I do not have to describe their bad > behavior to you. He's not asking you to justify your friends of play environment. He's trying to understand what kind of play environment you have that is so different from his. Because it is, apparently, very different than any environment he's played in. > Please take a deep breath and allow that to sink in. > > And no, the fact that I refuse to discuss such particulars with you > does NOT in any deprive me of the right to discuss the issue of > players who walk out of games. Correct. But given that Peter's argument is that the set of circumstances that you are trying to make rules for occurs so rarely as to be vanishingly small, and thus is not worth adding special rules for, further discussion of that issue without presenting a counterargument (most easily in the form of 'my experience, X, differs significantly from yours) is likely to moot the whole discussion. I realize that you have already made the claim that your mileage varies; it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask how and (to the extent you understand it) why. I mean I've personally scooped my cards and walked out of a game (to my great shame) so I know it happens. (It was in a tourney, though, not a casual game. And, ironically, I'd just pulled the Bakija Gambit, screwing myself horribly.) And I've been in a casual game where a player got upset (The whole table ganged up on him because he was playing [pre-revision] Anarch Revolts. He was shocked, shocked!) and scooped and stalked out. But even I find it hard to imagine a context in which this is a common, or even uncommon occurence in casual play. The two instances I've named are the only ones that come to mind in hundreds of games I've played or seen over ten years. What is so different about your experience, and why? Hope that helps, Alex

In message <4e13345e-94a1-4e29...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, nys...@cs.com writes: >I do not have to discuss my friends to you. You don't. But if you're saying "This happens" and refuse to give examples, you might as well not say anything in the first place. - Without any detail, no-one can provide any useful advice on how to handle such situations. - Without any detail, no-one can take this into account when trying to formulate any generic advice for the problem generally. - Without any detail, it's hard to tell if this is a real problem, or just people being dicks. Spending time on the former = good. Spending time on the latter = pointless. If you don't want people to ask you questions about your playgroup or your friends, you're better off not bringing them up. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jun 10, 11:22 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > And yet ... you keep trying. I'm not trying to make you do anything. You started a discussion about a rule that you are basing on your perception of a problem. I don't think said problem actually exists to the point that it is worth worrying about, so I am challenging your argument. You claim otherwise. Yet when I ask you to describe an environment where such a problem happens on a regular basis, or in what context such a problem occurs, you refuse to explain. Which dosen't do anything but collapse your argument. You can't bring up (well, ok, you *can*, but doing so in the way that you are just makes you look, well, like you are making things up) something to support your argument, refuse to explain it, and then expect to have a valid argument. > Dude, I am not cranky. But it really IS none of your business. I > tried to tell you polite. You did not get it. I tried to tell you > rude. You did not get it. You are still going on about it. Sure. 'Cause your refusal makes no sense to me. I mean, you have every right in the world to refuse to explain yourself, but if you are propping up an argument on something that needs explanation, and then don't explain, not so much a valid argument. > I do not have to discuss my friends to you. I do not have to discuss > my acquaintances with you. I do not have to justify to you my > decisions of who I do or do not play cards with. I can play cards > with immature 15 year olds if I want to. I can play cards with cranky > senior citizens if I want to. And I may continue to do so no matter > how badly they behave. And I do not have to describe their bad > behavior to you. No, you don't. But if you expect your argument to make any sense or hold any water, doing so will certainly help. > And no, the fact that I refuse to discuss such particulars with you > does NOT in any deprive me of the right to discuss the issue of > players who walk out of games. No it doesn't. But it also makes your argument look like it is based on things that you are either imagining or just making up. And you can have all the arguments you want that are based on things that look like you are imagining or just making up. But they aren't very convincing. -Peter

On Jun 11, 1:46 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You don't. But if you're saying "This happens" and refuse to give > examples, you might as well not say anything in the first place. I never made any claim as to how often "this happens". I never even claimed to have ever seen such a thing happen until Peter challenged me to discuss my personal experience. I never made a claim that I considered this to be a serious problem. I never disagreed with or attempted to counter assertions that this happens too rarely to worry about. Only when explicitly challenged did I counter, from personal experience, the assertion that such things never happen at all. Until challenged by Peter, my discussion was entirely hypothetical. I was participating in a thread in which, I thought, the assumption that such things DO occasionally occur had already been raised. My only contribution to this thread was to wonder aloud if pre- existing set of rules could be created in advance to address such situations. I demurred when LSJ expressed his opinion -- far more authoritative than my own -- that this was not worth the trouble or even feasible. When I mentioned casual play to LSJ I was merely making an abstract point. He had said: "True under any system", and the only point of my response was to indicate that this was more true of some systems than others. The point was not to complain about something I regarded as a serious casual-play problem. > If you don't want people to ask you questions about your playgroup or > your friends, you're better off not bringing them up. I never brought them up. Peter brought them up. I then, somewhat reluctantly, answered a few of his questions, after indicating to him that I preferred to keep the discussion in the abstract.

On Jun 11, 8:23 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm not trying to make you do anything. You started a discussion about > a rule that you are basing on your perception of a problem. I'm sorry. This is not true. I never based any argument or position on my personal experiences. > I don't > think said problem actually exists to the point that it is worth > worrying about, [...] But you cannot seem to accept that I am not expressing an opinion on this point, or choosing to argue with you on this point. > [...] so I am challenging your argument. You are holding both sides of an argument of your own invention. > You claim otherwise. Incorrect. The only claim I ever made -- and even then only when you challenged me -- was that I had seen such things occur. > Yet when I ask you to describe an environment where such a > problem happens on a regular basis, or in what context such a problem > occurs, you refuse to explain. Right. You cannot seem to accept that I have no interest in the argument you seem desperate to have with me.

On Jun 11, 2:04 am, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > Well, yes, he is trying to understand where you're coming from, which > is quite helpful in trying to carry on a discussion. He's being a bit pushy about it. > Or at least > that's what it looks like to me. This is clearly just my opinion and > my perception, but you seem to be taking a lot of what looks to me to > be Peter's honest curiosity very, very personally, and it's hard to > understand why. His "honest curiosity" has become rude, because he refuses to take "no" for an answer. > You seem _very_ cranky to me. I must've missed your 'polite'. I thought I was being reasonably polite when I told him I preferred to keep the discussion in the abstract, and did not wish to discuss my "situation". > And I > think you must've interpreted large amounts of Peter's 'polite' as > rude. I think that refusing to take "no" for an answer, in such situations, is in itself inherently rude. It was also rude, I thought, for him to suggest that if I encountered any problems it was my fault for playing with the wrong people. It was also rude for him to invite the implication that if I refused to provide the information he asked, he and/or others would infer that I was lying (he has continued this rudeness in his latest post, though what he thinks I am lying about is a mystery). > He's not asking you to justify your friends of play environment. He did try to tell me what sort of people I should or should not be playing with. > Correct. But given that Peter's argument is that the set of > circumstances that you are trying to make rules for occurs so rarely > as to be vanishingly small, and thus is not worth adding special rules > for, further discussion of that issue without presenting a > counterargument (most easily in the form of 'my experience, X, differs > significantly from yours) is likely to moot the whole discussion. Perhaps. But none of my responses, at least since my response to LSJ, have indicated on my part any desire to continue such a discussion, or any desire to contest such opinion. > I mean I've personally scooped my cards and walked out of a game (to > my great shame) so I know it happens. (It was in a tourney, though, > not a casual game. And, ironically, I'd just pulled the Bakija > Gambit, screwing myself horribly.) And I've been in a casual game > where a player got upset (The whole table ganged up on him because he > was playing [pre-revision] Anarch Revolts. He was shocked, shocked!) > and scooped and stalked out. So such things *do* occur. Peter will be surprised > But even I find it hard to imagine a > context in which this is a common, or even uncommon occurence in > casual play. I never argued there was such a context. I explicitly stated that I regarded such occurrences as uncommon, but merely stated "they do happen" -- much as you just did. > The two instances I've named are the only ones that come > to mind in hundreds of games I've played or seen over ten years. What > is so different about your experience, and why? I never claimed that my experience was extremely different.

In message <d3783520-7842-4c24...@8g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, nys...@cs.com writes: >On Jun 11, 1:46 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> You don't. But if you're saying "This happens" and refuse to give >> examples, you might as well not say anything in the first place. > >I never made any claim as to how often "this happens". Hence Peter *asking for details*. Is this happening every week with your friends? Is this happening once when a guy from out of town shows up and has to leave in a hurry because he doesn't know when the last bus is? Peter is trying to have a conversation, and find out more about what's going on. Then the rest of us can find out whether it's possibly worth making plans for this situation because it happens all the time, or if it's just some random guy being a dick. This is how things work on the Internet. You, for whatever reason, have decided that you're being persecuted and hounded. God knows why. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 11, 2:03 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Hence Peter *asking for details*. I told him "no". I told him I preferred to keep the discussion in the abstract. > Is this happening every week with your friends? [Sigh] > This is how things work on the Internet. Evidently.

In article <8b72b5d9-5a19-464e...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > I'm sorry. This is not true. I never based any argument or position > on my personal experiences. So you are basing an argument on a totally hypothetical idea that has no basis in reality. Which is just as pointless. You proposed a solution to a problem that isn't actually a problem. When I pointed this out, you claimed it actually was a problem. I asked you to provide examples. You decided that this was some sort of harassment or something and got all huffy. Here we are. > But you cannot seem to accept that I am not expressing an opinion on > this point, or choosing to argue with you on this point. Then what are you arguing about? > Incorrect. The only claim I ever made -- and even then only when you > challenged me -- was that I had seen such things occur. And my counter claim was that such things don't occur enough to worry about. You seemed to think otherwise. When I asked you to provide an example to defend this idea, you freaked out. > Right. You cannot seem to accept that I have no interest in the > argument you seem desperate to have with me. If you have no interest in the argument I am desperately trying to have with you, then why are you bothering to respond? You clearly aren't doing it for the entertainment value. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You proposed a solution to a problem that isn't actually a problem. I proposed a solution to the problem others raised in this thread. > When > I pointed this out, you claimed it actually was a problem. I expressed no opinion how serious or significant a problem it was. > I asked you to provide examples. I told you I had no interest in providing one > > Incorrect. The only claim I ever made -- and even then only when you > > challenged me -- was that I had seen such things occur. > > And my counter claim was that such things don't occur enough to worry > about. I expressed no disagreement with that view. > You seemed to think otherwise. No. I merely disagreed with the proposition that such things never occur at all. > When I asked you to provide an > example to defend this idea, you freaked out. No. I merely continued to refuse, no matter how unreasonably you insisted. > If you have no interest in the argument I am desperately trying to have > with you, then why are you bothering to respond? You clearly aren't > doing it for the entertainment value. It is just as entertaining for me as it is for you.

In article <db0ec758-c8fa-4ced...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com wrote: > He's being a bit pushy about it. Pushy? I'm asking you questions in relation to an argument you have posed. Have you been on the internet before? > His "honest curiosity" has become rude, because he refuses to take > "no" for an answer. Then stop responding, for cripes sake. You can't get all indignant that I have the audacity to continue asking you questions when you continue to respond. If you aren't interested in the discussion? Stop having it. > I thought I was being reasonably polite when I told him I preferred to > keep the discussion in the abstract, and did not wish to discuss my > "situation". Again, you proposed a solution to a problem. I countered that the solution was unnecessary, as the problem did not occur enough to worry about it. When I asked for examples, you refused to give them. Ok. Fine. Imagine if you will the following discussion: Player A: "Werewolf pack is overpowered and needs fixing!" Player B: "Uh, no, it isn't a problem at all." Player A: "But in a hypothetical sense, it can be!" Player B: "Can you provide examples of how it is overpowered?" Player A: "No! How dare you ask me for examples!" Yeah. That is an argument that will get somewhere. > I think that refusing to take "no" for an answer, in such situations, > is in itself inherently rude. Then just don't respond. If you don't like the questions, ignore them. It won't help your argument. But you always have that option. > It was also rude for him to invite the > implication that if I refused to provide the information he asked, he > and/or others would infer that I was lying (he has continued this > rudeness in his latest post, though what he thinks I am lying about is > a mystery). When have I ever accused you of lying? I said it sounded like you were imagining things or making stuff up. Different all together. > He did try to tell me what sort of people I should or should not be > playing with. Good lord. Yes. That is exactly what I was doing. I was trying to tell you what sort of people you should or should not be playing with. That was my intention all along. You are correct. I am deeply interested in how you, faceless, nameless person on the internet spends his or her time. And when you spend it differently than how I think, I become outraged. I also lose sleep over it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 11, 3:59 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Pushy? Yes. > I'm asking you questions in relation to an argument you have > posed. You think I don't know that? > Have you been on the internet before? Yes. > Then stop responding, for cripes sake. Have you considered following your own advice? > Again, you proposed a solution to a problem. Correct. > I countered that the > solution was unnecessary, as the problem did not occur enough to worry > about it. I neither agreed nor disagreed, and chose not to argue on this point. > When I asked for examples, you refused to give them. Yes, I did. > Ok. Fine. Hmmm. Is acceptance sinking in? > Imagine if you will the following discussion: > > Player A: "Werewolf pack is overpowered and needs fixing!" > Player B: "Uh, no, it isn't a problem at all." > Player A: "But in a hypothetical sense, it can be!" > Player B: "Can you provide examples of how it is overpowered?" > Player A: "No! How dare you ask me for examples!" I'm not analogous to Player A. I am analogous to Player C, who proposed a "fix" for Werewolf Pack in response to Player A, but did not himself express an opinion on whether the card was overpowered. > When have I ever accused you of lying? I said it sounded like you were > imagining things or making stuff up. Different all together. Equally rude, though. > Good lord. Yes. That is exactly what I was doing. Yes. > I was trying to tell > you what sort of people you should or should not be playing with. Indeed. > That > was my intention all along. I don't know what your intention was. It was what you did. > You are correct. Right. > I am deeply interested in > how you, faceless, nameless person on the internet spends his or her > time. That I doubt. To be honest, I did not think your interest was sincere at all. > And when you spend it differently than how I think, I become > outraged. If you say so. > I also lose sleep over it. How sad.

Howdy, > > I mean I've personally scooped my cards and walked out of a game (to > > my great shame) so I know it happens. (It was in a tourney, though, > > not a casual game. And, ironically, I'd just pulled the Bakija > > Gambit, screwing myself horribly.) And I've been in a casual game > > where a player got upset (The whole table ganged up on him because he > > was playing [pre-revision] Anarch Revolts. He was shocked, shocked!) > > and scooped and stalked out. > > So such things *do* occur. Peter will be surprised I doubt it. Peter offered a taxonomy of such play earlier, using an A/ B/C scheme. 'A' was 'playing without a judge'. 'B' was 'playing with bad sport'. 'C' was 'care enough about outcome to need rules to handle withdrawl'. He said he could imagine two out of three, but not all three. In my examples above, the first has 'B' and 'C', but not 'A'. The second has 'A' and 'B', but not 'C'. > > But even I find it hard to imagine a > > context in which this is a common, or even uncommon occurence in > > casual play. > > I never argued there was such a context. I explicitly stated that I > regarded such occurrences as uncommon, but merely stated "they do > happen" -- much as you just did. Huh. OK. I guess I (and probably others) inferred from your offer of a solution to the problem the fact that you considered it an important problem. Which doesn't necessarily follow, though it is a little strange for it to not be true. I can certainly see how such a logic error could lead to the 'disconnect' that Peter diagnosed; I think most people will make this type of assumption by default. Hope that helps, Alex

On Jun 11, 4:16 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > Have you considered following your own advice? I'm not the one here acting outraged that someone had the audacity to ask them questions. I'm just involved in a relatively entertaining discussion with someone who has become completely irrational. > How sad. Wow. I thought you were just irrational. Now I think you are deluded. Ok then. -Peter

On Jun 11, 5:39 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm not the one here acting outraged that someone had the audacity to > ask them questions. Correct. You are the one acting outraged that someone had the audacity to refuse to answer the questions.

On Jun 11, 3:59 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > I told you I had no interest in providing one Which is certainly your right. It just makes the argument for your solution completely pointless. > No. I merely continued to refuse, no matter how unreasonably you > insisted. Great! You don't have to do anything at all. But if you are going to try to support a position, refusing to provide supporting examples isn't going to help you do that. But whatever makes you happy. > It is just as entertaining for me as it is for you. I dunno--I'm pretty entertained. You are the one who appears outraged that I am demanding things of you, telling you who you should be playing games with, and desperately wanting to know all about your personal life and habits. If that is how you register entertainment, go you. -Peter

On Jun 11, 5:44 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > Correct. You are the one acting outraged that someone had the > audacity to refuse to answer the questions. I'm hardly outraged. Just amused. And handing out helpful advice. Which is probably my error, but what are you gonna do? -Peter

On Jun 11, 5:02 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > I doubt it. Peter offered a taxonomy of such play earlier, using an A/ > B/C scheme. 'A' was 'playing without a judge'. 'B' was 'playing with > bad sport'. 'C' was 'care enough about outcome to need rules to > handle withdrawl'. He said he could imagine two out of three, but not > all three. In my examples above, the first has 'B' and 'C', but not > 'A'. The second has 'A' and 'B', but not 'C'. My proposal, poor as it was, was meant to be addressed to ANY case where a player leaves in the middle of the game. These ultra-narrow ABC requirements were formulated by Peter, and, though they were apparently inspired by certain abstract points I made about bad motivations and/or casual play, they are otherwise entirely disconnected from my actual views. The "C" requirement seems inherently circular -- by definition, it will not apply if the person applying it thinks a solution unnecessary. > Huh. OK. I guess I (and probably others) inferred from your offer of > a solution to the problem the fact that you considered it an important > problem. Which doesn't necessarily follow, though it is a little > strange for it to not be true. Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps I was just reading the thread, and just could not resist the urge to brainstorm an idea. But even if I were of the opinion that this were an "important problem" I would be under no obligation to promote or defend that opinion in argument if I did not feel so inclined. Still less would I have an obligation to defend it on the basis of anecdotal evidence culled from my personal experience.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, Peter, he has just stated he is a troll. Can you stop feeding him now? Thanks. ;) 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

On Jun 11, 6:59 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Ok, Peter, he has just stated he is a troll. Can you stop feeding him > now? Thanks. ;) Fair enough. -Peter

On Jun 10, 7:50 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jun 10, 12:33 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 9, 5:15 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I would base it on the remaining pool of the player who withdrew. > > > 30-26 Pool, 0 VP for predator > > > 25-21 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 1 Pool > > > 20-16 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 2 Pool > > > 15-11 Pool, 0 VP for predator but predator earns 3 Pool > > > 10-5 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 4 Pool > > > 4-1 Pool, 1 VP for Predator and predator earns 5 Pool > > > Interesting idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "base it on..." Do > > you mean, "Here is a rule I would follow strictly," or "here are some > > general guidelines to illuminate my personal judgement" ? > > it's so strict, it's written in Titanium. How's that for taking a hard > line? > > > If the latter, awesome - nice to see. If the former, it seems too > > strict and rigid to cover all cases. For instance, say everyone at > > the table brings out big cap minions, and we're about to start turn > > 4.1, so no one has taken an action yet. Then, player C, who currently > > has 19 pool (after bringing out an 11-cap) needs to leave. In my > > judgement, I wouldn't award any pool to B, because B has done nothing > > to earn that VP. It would be most balanced for the game overall > > (assuming C needs to take his cards) if C simply vanishes and now it's > > a 4 player game. Thoughts? > > I would award the player the pool and be done with it. Really? Would anyone else do it that way? To me, in the example I described, I would certainly give nothing to Player B. That seems unfair to Player's A, D, and E. Why should B get 2 pool for C taking 11 transfers at the beginning of the game and then leaving? Norm, could you explain your logic a bit more? I understand the value of guidelines, but it seems like the whole point of the rule "the judge uses his judgement" is that you can't possibly have a hard and fast, written in titanium, applies-in-all-cases guideline. > Honestly, I would call player C a prick for starting a tournament game with something "pending". Assume it was a difficult-to-predict emergency (which, in the case I experienced, I think it was.) > > Also, I can imagine a reverse situation where C has 10 weenies in > > torpor, 30 pool and B just put Dragonbound in play. That would be a > > really tough situation to judge, and obviously there would be a lot of > > factors (certainly how close B is to dying), but I could definitely > > see awarding B a VP and some pool. Though actually in that case, I'd > > probably lean towards leaving 30 pool for B to bleed through, and have > > the imaginary C take pool damage from dragonbound each turn. > > Nope, if you let someone get 10 weenies into play and put dragonbound > and then they still have 30 pool, then you are just a poor predator > and deserve nothing. C has 10 weenies *in torpor*. And no other ready minions. B is 3 turns from ousting his prey with a high degree of certainty, even though C is at 30 pool. Are you being serious here, really? I certainly disagree with a judgement to give B nothing, and just have C disappear with B given nothing to show for his efforts of torporing 10 minions and getting Dragonbound in play. Consider this situation, then: B is at 1 pool, no ready minions, will surely die next turn, and has no hope to oust C. C has 3 pool, but good defenses with intercept, bounce, votes, etc, and regular poolgain each turn with blood dolls, hunting grounds, etc. On B's turn, C gets a phone call and needs to leave immediately. Obviously it would be best to have someone take over for C, proxy his deck, etc. And, there's not enough information to really know exactly what would be best. But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. According to your titanium guidelines, you would award B 5 pool and a VP, but that's totally unfair to A, and really anyone else at the table besides B. Care to comment? The point I'm trying to make is: your guidelines are good for a general case, but in a specific case, you need to use your judgement. Like the case of the first 3 turns of the game, when B has done nothing C and C leaves. Ira

On Jun 10, 1:00 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > I believe we can improve our current system if judges make similar > > rulings given the same input. > > Laudable - but nearly impossible. As Scott said, there are too many > variables. In this context, that means you couldn't keep track of > all the variables to have much chance of knowing when you were > encountering "the same input" - as some other occurance. If there > ever was one. There are many complex fields of study that are taught partially through Case Studies, and they've been shown to be an effective teaching tool. One of the most common ways to teach Ethics, which requires judgement of multiple shades of gray, is through Case Studies. Of course, if Peter and nystulc just want to flame back and forth all day, I agree that it becomes less useful. :) > Oh, my, it seems painfully obvious you cannot. Or rather, perhaps you > could but the cross-section of discussed cases would always be so small > as to be fairly worthless as a tool for future judging. I disagree. From my experience, the same sorts of challenges come up over and over while judging tournaments. There are always variations on a theme. Sure, you won't have *exactly* the same input conditions, but humans are excellent at identifying patterns and extrapolating related answers. > the "consensus" might actually be counter-productive because of the > temptation to use some temptingly similar discussed case as a baseline > only to discover a few specific details can make a lot of difference in > reckoning "fairness". I disagree. Spending time thinking about complicated, multi-faceted judging situations can only help to make a judge more aware of all the issues when making a future judgement. Thinking about things from multiple different perspectives, considering all the options, is a skill that can be improved and honed with practice. Case Studies are an opportunity for such a practice. Also, and I didn't mention this before, Case Studies are an opportunity to identify any outliers. If someone responds to a Case Study with an obviously-bad solution, it's useful for the community to give them feedback and an opportunity to reassess their judgement for that case. So not only do Case Studies help hone in on the several good solutions, they also help rule out the obviously bad solutions. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > Norm, could you explain your logic a bit more? I understand the value > of guidelines, but it seems like the whole point of the rule "the > judge uses his judgement" is that you can't possibly have a hard and > fast, written in titanium, applies-in-all-cases guideline. Right, a "judge uses his judgement" is an impossible standard to uphold. It's just rhetoric, and lends itself to favoritism. Set up some standards so that the judge can make a quick decision and not get mired in debate. 30% of the work gets you 30% of the prize. > > Honestly, I would call player C a prick for starting a tournament game with something "pending". > > Assume it was a difficult-to-predict emergency (which, in the case I > experienced, I think it was.) Okay, but the other player has played as well and has shaped his game against a prey who is bringing out a 11 cap. This includes discards and other actions that simply may not be useful against his new prey. He should get something to compensate him for having to "realign" his game against a unexpected new prey. > > > Also, I can imagine a reverse situation where C has 10 weenies in > > > torpor, 30 pool and B just put Dragonbound in play. That would be a > > > really tough situation to judge, and obviously there would be a lot of > > > factors (certainly how close B is to dying), but I could definitely > > > see awarding B a VP and some pool. Though actually in that case, I'd > > > probably lean towards leaving 30 pool for B to bleed through, and have > > > the imaginary C take pool damage from dragonbound each turn. > > > Nope, if you let someone get 10 weenies into play and put dragonbound > > and then they still have 30 pool, then you are just a poor predator > > and deserve nothing. > > C has 10 weenies *in torpor*. And no other ready minions. B is 3 > turns from ousting his prey with a high degree of certainty, even > though C is at 30 pool. I just can ever see this situation happening as it is so ludicrous. > Are you being serious here, really? I certainly disagree with a > judgement to give B nothing, and just have C disappear with B given > nothing to show for his efforts of torporing 10 minions and getting > Dragonbound in play. But how the hell does he maintain 30 pool? It is a completely unrealistic situation. So yes I am being serious. That player has done nothing to his prey to oust him, and should probably be thanking his lucky stars that his immovable prey has left the game,as 30 pool is an insane amount to try an bleed through and indicated that the player has both done nothing to oust his prey and has done nothing to stop his prey. He gets nothing, which is exactly what he should get. > Consider this situation, then: > B is at 1 pool, no ready minions, will surely die next turn, and has > no hope to oust C. C has 3 pool, but good defenses with intercept, > bounce, votes, etc, and regular poolgain each turn with blood dolls, > hunting grounds, etc. On B's turn, C gets a phone call and needs to > leave immediately. I guess that it is B's lucky day. Saved by the bell, so to speak. > Obviously it would be best to have someone take over for C, proxy his > deck, etc. And, there's not enough information to really know exactly > what would be best. But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. > And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and > therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. If he is ousted for sure then 5 pool isn't going to matter that much. > According to your titanium guidelines, you would award B 5 pool and a > VP, but that's totally unfair to A, and really anyone else at the > table besides B. Care to comment? He did get his prey within "lunging range", and at that few pool, really anything can happen. He earned, so give it to him. > The point I'm trying to make is: your guidelines are good for a > general case, but in a specific case, you need to use your judgement. > Like the case of the first 3 turns of the game, when B has done > nothing C and C leaves. I still think the "titanium" rules are a good hard and fast guideline that is easily explainable as "The predator is rewarded proportionally as to the impact he had on his prey." The predator of the player who leaves should be rewarded for the effort that he expended trying to oust the leaving player, he shoudn't be punished, which is how it currently works. You get the VP if you prey is almost ousted. There are plenty of other mechanisms in the game that recognize "lunging range". A few of them are Forshadowing Destruction, From a Sinking Ship, Failsafe, King Rising. Each one of these recognises the inherant danger of being ousted when a player has less than 10 or 10 or less pool. I hope that explains my reasoning for the "titanium" rules. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Jun 12, 8:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > I hope that explains my reasoning for the "titanium" rules. I'm still lost, honestly. I completely understand, respect, and mostly agree with your guidelines... as a guideline. But applying that in all cases definitely doesn't fly for me. Maybe someone else would care to comment on what they'd do in these three cases. These are intentionally degenerate (base) cases so that we have a foundation on which to build. It seems best to strive for agreement on the most obvious cases first. I'll start new thread with the individual cases. > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. > Right, a "judge uses his judgement" is an impossible standard to uphold. Huh? It's an incredibly easy standard to uphold. Are you the judge? Did you just make a ruling? Congratulations! Your ruling was correct because you used your judgment. > It's just rhetoric, and lends itself to favoritism. Favoritism if your judge is choosing to judge that way, but it also lends itself to flexibility and fair rulings appropriate for the unique situation at hand. > Okay, but the other player has played as well and has shaped his game > against a prey who is bringing out a 11 cap. This includes discards > and other actions that simply may not be useful against his new prey. > He should get something to compensate him for having to "realign" his > game against a unexpected new prey. Now on that point I completely agree. IMO, 2 pool isn't the appropriate compensation. If, at the beginning of the 4th turn of the game, player C must leave, then I'd just let him leave, and move on. If a player complained that their discards were effected, then I'd probably let them swap a card in their discard pile with a card in their hand (though I'd let everyone at the table do it.) > > C has 10 weenies *in torpor*. And no other ready minions. B is 3 > > turns from ousting his prey with a high degree of certainty, even > > though C is at 30 pool. > > I just can ever see this situation happening as it is so ludicrous. Con Boon Breed deck being preyed on a rush combat deck. Unlikely to happen, but something similar could. > But how the hell does he maintain 30 pool? It is a completely > unrealistic situation. It could happen. I have 2 ready minions, 8 in torpor, and 10 pool. I call two Con Boons that pass. My predator rushes and torpors my remaining two ready minions. > his lucky stars that his immovable prey has left the game,as 30 pool > is an insane amount to try an bleed through and indicated that the > player has both done nothing to oust his prey and has done nothing to > stop his prey. He gets nothing, which is exactly what he should get. You accept the fact that C has 30 pool, but you don't accept that C has 10 minions in torpor and dragonbound is in play? I can point you to a JOL game where I ended the game with 11 minions in torpor, so I know from personal experience that Dragonbound can do 10+ damage per turn, and suddenly 30 pool is gone in 3 turns. > > Obviously it would be best to have someone take over for C, proxy his > > deck, etc. And, there's not enough information to really know exactly > > what would be best. But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. > > And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and > > therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. > > If he is ousted for sure then 5 pool isn't going to matter that much. The 5 pool won't matter, but the VP will. > He did get his prey within "lunging range", and at that few pool, > really anything can happen. He earned, so give it to him. Player A is being treated completely unfairly in that situation, though. He carefully crippled B before B could actually oust C. Player A should get credit for the double oust, and B shouldn't get anything, because that's what would have happened if C stayed in the game. > You get the VP if you prey is almost ousted. In most situations, I agree with you - that makes sense. But in the situation I described above, where even if your prey is almost ousted you have no chance of actually ousting them, then you don't get any VPs in my book. Ira

On Jun 12, 9:50 pm, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course, if Peter and nystulc just want to flame back and forth all > day, I agree that it becomes less useful. :) No, no. That's over. Actually, I discovered that nystulc is someone I actually kinda know (and the answer to "what kind of random mooks are you playing with anyway?" is, apparently, "me" :-), sent him an apology, and moved on. And "flame"? Really? I mean, yeah, ok, crankiness. And my willingness to antagonize faceless people on the internet is not one of my most admirable traits. But it's not like I'm Derek or anything :-) -Peter

On Jun 13, 3:52 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > I hope that explains my reasoning for the "titanium" rules. > > I'm still lost, honestly. I completely understand, respect, and > mostly agree with your guidelines... as a guideline. But applying > that in all cases definitely doesn't fly for me. That is a shame. I would never imagine that creating standards for judgement would be difficult to get consensus. > Maybe someone else would care to comment on what they'd do in these > three cases. These are intentionally degenerate (base) cases so that > we have a foundation on which to build. It seems best to strive for > agreement on the most obvious cases first. > > I'll start new thread with the individual cases. > > > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > > But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. What didn't he do? His prey is now 1/3 of the way toward being ousted. How much simpler can it be. > > Right, a "judge uses his judgement" is an impossible standard to uphold. > > Huh? It's an incredibly easy standard to uphold. Are you the judge? > Did you just make a ruling? Congratulations! Your ruling was correct > because you used your judgment. Fantastic, then I will use the "titanium" rules and you can uses your "judgement". We both get to win! Yeah! > > It's just rhetoric, and lends itself to favoritism. > > Favoritism if your judge is choosing to judge that way, but it also > lends itself to flexibility and fair rulings appropriate for the > unique situation at hand. See, that is the problem. If every situation is unique then there can be no objective standards. It's Matlock: the Eternal Struggle. > > Okay, but the other player has played as well and has shaped his game > > against a prey who is bringing out a 11 cap. This includes discards > > and other actions that simply may not be useful against his new prey. > > He should get something to compensate him for having to "realign" his > > game against a unexpected new prey. > > Now on that point I completely agree. IMO, 2 pool isn't the > appropriate compensation. If, at the beginning of the 4th turn of the > game, player C must leave, then I'd just let him leave, and move on. > If a player complained that their discards were effected, then I'd > probably let them swap a card in their discard pile with a card in > their hand (though I'd let everyone at the table do it.) So you don't get 2 pool, but everyone gets recursion. Wow! that's not screwed up? Oh I discarded this "Out of Control" and you influenced Jayne Jonestown, the lynchpin of your deck, and subsequently played Society of Leopold. So now I get to screw your game because Player X left the table. You're not the only one that can think up completely ridiculous examples to support their case, ira. > > > C has 10 weenies *in torpor*. And no other ready minions. B is 3 > > > turns from ousting his prey with a high degree of certainty, even > > > though C is at 30 pool. > > > I just can ever see this situation happening as it is so ludicrous. > > Con Boon Breed deck being preyed on a rush combat deck. Unlikely to > happen, but something similar could. Nope, it doesn't happen. Impossible! Once someone gets like 6 minion out, they should be drawing heat from the whole table. > > But how the hell does he maintain 30 pool? It is a completely > > unrealistic situation. > > It could happen. I have 2 ready minions, 8 in torpor, and 10 pool. I > call two Con Boons that pass. My predator rushes and torpors my > remaining two ready minions. Again, so unlikely as to not be a case study. Completely unsound. How do you get 10 minions in play and pass Con Boons? Where are the table votes? > > his lucky stars that his immovable prey has left the game,as 30 pool > > is an insane amount to try an bleed through and indicated that the > > player has both done nothing to oust his prey and has done nothing to > > stop his prey. He gets nothing, which is exactly what he should get. > > You accept the fact that C has 30 pool, but you don't accept that C > has 10 minions in torpor and dragonbound is in play? I can point you > to a JOL game where I ended the game with 11 minions in torpor, so I > know from personal experience that Dragonbound can do 10+ damage per > turn, and suddenly 30 pool is gone in 3 turns. I can't accept your example at all. It's just stoopid. > > > Obviously it would be best to have someone take over for C, proxy his > > > deck, etc. And, there's not enough information to really know exactly > > > what would be best. But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. > > > And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and > > > therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. > > > If he is ousted for sure then 5 pool isn't going to matter that much. > > The 5 pool won't matter, but the VP will. So your problem is that you want to "cheat" players out of their hard earned VP. Gotcha. > > He did get his prey within "lunging range", and at that few pool, > > really anything can happen. He earned, so give it to him. > > Player A is being treated completely unfairly in that situation, > though. He carefully crippled B before B could actually oust C. > Player A should get credit for the double oust, and B shouldn't get > anything, because that's what would have happened if C stayed in the > game. > > > You get the VP if you prey is almost ousted. > > In most situations, I agree with you - that makes sense. But in the > situation I described above, where even if your prey is almost ousted > you have no chance of actually ousting them, then you don't get any > VPs in my book. But no rule can fairly govern all situations, ira. Someone always wants to be "special". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 13, 6:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > That is a shame. I would never imagine that creating standards for > judgement would be difficult to get consensus. Haha. :) > > > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > > > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > > > But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. > > What didn't he do? His prey is now 1/3 of the way toward being > ousted. How much simpler can it be. I feel like I may be repeating myself, but I'll try another time just for kicks... In this situation, B is getting a benefit for the sheer luck/randomness that C is leaving. It seems unfair to me that B would get any advantage (2 pool) from that on turn 4, when none of the other players did anything more/less than B. Just shrink the game to a 4 player, and B will have a new prey that's equally close to being ousted as C was. > > > He should get something to compensate him for having to "realign" his > > > game against a unexpected new prey. > > > Now on that point I completely agree. IMO, 2 pool isn't the > > appropriate compensation. If, at the beginning of the 4th turn of the > > game, player C must leave, then I'd just let him leave, and move on. > > If a player complained that their discards were effected, then I'd > > probably let them swap a card in their discard pile with a card in > > their hand (though I'd let everyone at the table do it.) > > So you don't get 2 pool, but everyone gets recursion. Wow! that's not > screwed up? Oh I discarded this "Out of Control" and you influenced > Jayne Jonestown, the lynchpin of your deck, and subsequently played > Society of Leopold. So now I get to screw your game because Player X > left the table. > > You're not the only one that can think up completely ridiculous > examples to support their case, ira. That's a fair point. In the situation you described, I probably wouldn't let the players recurse. Only if they could reasonably demonstrate to my satisfaction that they would have done something different in their first 3 turns. But even then, I'd err on the side of just doing nothing - everyone has approximately equal consequences of a changed situation. It just doesn't make sense to my mind that B would get any reward for the sheer luck of having a prey stand up at the beginning of the 4th turn. If we're talking about deeper into the game, sure, give B some benefits, but it might be the case that his new prey is even softer. My point is: your guidelines are good, but you still have to apply your judgment. > I can't accept your example at all. It's just stoopid. OK, I won't press the point, then even though I've personally experienced something similar on JOL. Take the example of 6 minions in torpor with 11 pool, and Dragonbound. Due to be ousted in 2 turns, but they must leave. Does their predator get a VP? According to your guidelines, no. That seems potentially unfair. By using a more realistic example, the lines get blurred a bit more. That's why I wanted to use an unrealistic example... to demonstrate that in some cases, guidelines don't work and the judge must use judgment. > > > > But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. > > > > And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and > > > > therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. > > > > If he is ousted for sure then 5 pool isn't going to matter that much. > > > The 5 pool won't matter, but the VP will. > > So your problem is that you want to "cheat" players out of their hard > earned VP. Gotcha. Are you just trying to incite me? I'm trying to explain my viewpoint, and how I would judge a situation. As the judge of an event, I have no interest in cheating anyone out of anything. That's ludicrous and makes no sense. The point I was making, which I'm not sure if you missed or intentionally ignored because you had no reply, was as follows: If player B has no chance to oust C, and then C needs to leave the game and I can't find a proxy player for him, I would not give B any VPs in that situation, regardless of how much pool C had. If C was at 1 pool, but because of the situation, B had no chance to oust C (B had no minions and was going to be ousted himself on his next turn), I wouldn't give B the VP. That ruling is in disagreement with your guidelines, and therefore I thought it was a worthy topic of conversation. I'm providing yet another example of how guidelines are good, but as the judge, you still need to use your judgment. Clearly I haven't convinced you to change your view at all, so I guess I'll just move on. Maybe this has illuminated something for other judges. Maybe it's just been a waste of our time. :) >> In most situations, I agree with you - that makes sense. But in the >> situation I described above, where even if your prey is almost ousted >> you have no chance of actually ousting them, then you don't get any >> VPs in my book. > > But no rule can fairly govern all situations, ira. That last comment confuses me - are you agreeing with me? I'm the one who has been saying that the guidelines aren't fair in all situations (just most situations.) Guidelines are good, but you can't apply them unilaterally in all situations. Ira

> > > > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > > > > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > > > > But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. He played, His prey quit. He should get something. > > What didn't he do? His prey is now 1/3 of the way toward being > > ousted. How much simpler can it be. > > I feel like I may be repeating myself, but I'll try another time just > for kicks... In this situation, B is getting a benefit for the sheer > luck/randomness that C is leaving. It seems unfair to me that B would > get any advantage (2 pool) from that on turn 4, when none of the other > players did anything more/less than B. Just shrink the game to a 4 > player, and B will have a new prey that's equally close to being > ousted as C was. His prey quit. He should get something. > > > > He should get something to compensate him for having to "realign" his > > > > game against a unexpected new prey. > > > > Now on that point I completely agree. IMO, 2 pool isn't the > > > appropriate compensation. If, at the beginning of the 4th turn of the > > > game, player C must leave, then I'd just let him leave, and move on. > > > If a player complained that their discards were effected, then I'd > > > probably let them swap a card in their discard pile with a card in > > > their hand (though I'd let everyone at the table do it.) > > > So you don't get 2 pool, but everyone gets recursion. Wow! that's not > > screwed up? Oh I discarded this "Out of Control" and you influenced > > Jayne Jonestown, the lynchpin of your deck, and subsequently played > > Society of Leopold. So now I get to screw your game because Player X > > left the table. > > > You're not the only one that can think up completely ridiculous > > examples to support their case, ira. > > That's a fair point. In the situation you described, I probably > wouldn't let the players recurse. Only if they could reasonably > demonstrate to my satisfaction that they would have done something > different in their first 3 turns. But even then, I'd err on the side > of just doing nothing - everyone has approximately equal consequences > of a changed situation. It just doesn't make sense to my mind that B > would get any reward for the sheer luck of having a prey stand up at > the beginning of the 4th turn. Then you screw the guy who is the predator of the player quitting the game. > If we're talking about deeper into the game, sure, give B some > benefits, but it might be the case that his new prey is even softer. > My point is: your guidelines are good, but you still have to apply > your judgment. > > > I can't accept your example at all. It's just stoopid. > > OK, I won't press the point, then even though I've personally > experienced something similar on JOL. Game number? > Take the example of 6 minions in torpor with 11 pool, and > Dragonbound. Due to be ousted in 2 turns, but they must leave. Does > their predator get a VP? According to your guidelines, no. That > seems potentially unfair. By using a more realistic example, the > lines get blurred a bit more. That's why I wanted to use an > unrealistic example... to demonstrate that in some cases, guidelines > don't work and the judge must use judgment. Honestly, if my prey is two turns away from a guaranteed dragonbound oust of my grand prey, then I am going to crosstable rescue. Your example has alot of holes in it. Namely the other 3 players at the table. > > > > > But I can say confidently what I *wouldn't* do. > > > > > And that is give B anything. There's no way that B would oust C, and > > > > > therefore B shouldn't get any pool or VPs from C's departure. > > > > > If he is ousted for sure then 5 pool isn't going to matter that much. > > > > The 5 pool won't matter, but the VP will. > > > So your problem is that you want to "cheat" players out of their hard > > earned VP. Gotcha. > > Are you just trying to incite me? Yes, I am. I am trying to get you to be as pissed off as the player who has worked to oust his prey and his prey scoops and he has nothing to show for it. >I'm trying to explain my viewpoint, > and how I would judge a situation. As the judge of an event, I have > no interest in cheating anyone out of anything. That's ludicrous and > makes no sense. But....your judgement is biased without standards. > The point I was making, which I'm not sure if you missed or > intentionally ignored because you had no reply, was as follows: > If player B has no chance to oust C, and then C needs to leave the > game and I can't find a proxy player for him, I would not give B any > VPs in that situation, regardless of how much pool C had. If C was at > 1 pool, but because of the situation, B had no chance to oust C (B had > no minions and was going to be ousted himself on his next turn), I > wouldn't give B the VP. There is no such thing as no chance to oust. You may not believe it, but I have seen so many players backousted/crossousted when their predator "has no chance to oust" that the phrase doesn't mean anything to me. > That ruling is in disagreement with your guidelines, and therefore I > thought it was a worthy topic of conversation. I'm providing yet > another example of how guidelines are good, but as the judge, you > still need to use your judgment. Which ruling is that? > Clearly I haven't convinced you to change your view at all, so I guess > I'll just move on. Maybe this has illuminated something for other > judges. Maybe it's just been a waste of our time. :) You won't convince me to change my views with bizarre and outlandish examples. Work hard. Play hard. Earn your victory. When something interferes with the above, players should be compensated in a rational and explainable manner. > >> In most situations, I agree with you - that makes sense. But in the > >> situation I described above, where even if your prey is almost ousted > >> you have no chance of actually ousting them, then you don't get any > >> VPs in my book. You see, that situation doesn't ever really exist. There is always the possiblity of ousting your prey. Someone else may do it for you. > > But no rule can fairly govern all situations, ira. > > That last comment confuses me - are you agreeing with me? I'm the one > who has been saying that the guidelines aren't fair in all situations > (just most situations.) Guidelines are good, but you can't apply them > unilaterally in all situations. On the contrary, I disagree with you. I think that no matter how fair any rule is that there is some situation where someone gets screwed. You just have to try to minimize those situations. The problem isn't the rule. The problem is the player leaving the game. If you establish a rule that is fair and helps repair the continuity of the game from the disruption of a player leaving then it will help VTES as a whole and online play especially where there is no recourse when someone drops out of a game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 13, 10:05 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > > > > > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > > > > > But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. > > He played, His prey quit. He should get something. He gets a new prey that's about the same as his old prey. Only 3 turns have passed. > Then you screw the guy who is the predator of the player quitting the game. If B is actually getting screwed in any way by C leaving, then sure, compensate B. I agree with you there! But in the situation I described, where C leaves after 3 turns, B isn't hurt in any significant way. B simply has D as a prey, and it's all the same. That doesn't screw B. And even if it hurts B ever so slightly for having to adjust from 3 potential discards, it would be worse to screw A and D by giving B two extra pool. > > OK, I won't press the point, then even though I've personally > > experienced something similar on JOL. > > Game number? league08-010. I played with bur, Cooper, Svartsinn, and Klaital. I sent the writeup to the league list. I had 11 vampires in torpor by the end of the game, and Dragonbound was in play. I ended up winning that game because I ousted the person with Dragonbound before I got a crazy number of vamps in torpor, but my point is: my example wasn't as ludicrous as it initially seemed. > Honestly, if my prey is two turns away from a guaranteed dragonbound > oust of my grand prey, then I am going to crosstable rescue. > > Your example has alot of holes in it. Namely the other 3 players at > the table. Sure, there are always holes. There's Life Boon and crosstable Parity Shift to give you pool, and Temptation of a Greater Power letting you win a key vamp for 1 pool. Your points are valid - I'm not saying there aren't any holes. It's in fact very important for a judge to see some of the less likely, but game changing possibilities. Of course, in the end, you still have to make a judgment whether or not to give B any pool or VPs for his prey leaving. And in the situation I described, where C leaves with 30 pool, 10 minions in torpor, plus Dragonbound, I would... well, in that actual case, I would put 30 pool where C was, and proxy 10 weenies in torpor. They can be rescued crosstable, they'll stay untapped, block 0 stealth actions, and strike h1. That what I would actually do as a judge in that situation. Norm, it sounds like you would give B zero pool, zero VPs, and instantly eliminate C. That seems quite unfair to D, since D wasn't expecting to have a predator for another 3+ turns. > But....your judgement is biased without standards. My judgement is based on years of experience playing this game, and attempting to resolve a disruption to the game without giving any player an advantage. > There is no such thing as no chance to oust. You may not believe it, > but I have seen so many players backousted/crossousted when their > predator "has no chance to oust" that the phrase doesn't mean anything > to me. You are right. I should have written, "no reasonably chance to oust." > > That ruling is in disagreement with your guidelines, and therefore I > > thought it was a worthy topic of conversation. I'm providing yet > > another example of how guidelines are good, but as the judge, you > > still need to use your judgment. > > Which ruling is that? The ruling that I would make in the situation described: B's turn. B has no ready minions, 1 pool, and no reasonable chance to oust C. B is very likely to be ousted on his next turn. C has 3 pool at the moment, but will gain at least 3 on his turn with blood dolls, etc. C must leave. In that case, according to your guidelines, you would give B 5 pool and 1 VP. If I were the judge in that situation, I wouldn't give B any pool nor VPs. I'm not sure how I would actually represent C's position, but the point is that I definitely would not do it they way your guidelines suggest. Obviously there are lots of undefined details in this case, but I might represent C with 3 pool that gains 3 pool every turn, which A (after ousting B) would have to get through. > You won't convince me to change my views with bizarre and outlandish examples. The only time your guidelines break down are in the fringe examples. I'm not trying to convince you that your guidelines are bad - I've already said several times that I think your guidelines are good as a general guide. What I'm trying to convince you of is that it's worthwhile to deviate from your guidelines when the situation calls for it. > When something interferes with the above, players should be > compensated in a rational and explainable manner. Agreed. And furthermore, no player should get a benefit from someone leaving abruptly - the goal of the judge in that situation is to try to keep the table balanced as it was before, without giving someone an undue advantage. > On the contrary, I disagree with you. I think that no matter how fair > any rule is that there is some situation where someone gets screwed. > You just have to try to minimize those situations. Interesting. I think we actually agree. I would phrase it: minimize the amount that someone gets screwed. It sounds like we may just disagree on how to go about minimizing the impact to the table. > If you establish a rule that is fair and helps repair the > continuity of the game from the disruption of a player leaving then it > will help VTES as a whole and online play especially where there is no > recourse when someone drops out of a game. I mostly agree, which is why I posted this Case Study in the first place - to try to get consensus among the judging community about what is a fair rule. Except there's no rule that covers all situations (as you've stated.) Use your guidelines - I support them, and I think they're good in many (most) cases. Just use your judgement, too, when the guidelines give you a result that's unfair or doesn't actually keep the balance. Ira

On Jun 14, 2:13 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 10:05 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > The goal of the game is to reduce your prey from 30 pool to 0 pool. > > > > > > He went a third of the way, therefore he gets 2 pool. > > > > > > But you're giving him a benefit for something that he didn't do. > > > He played, His prey quit. He should get something. > > He gets a new prey that's about the same as his old prey. Only 3 > turns have passed. So basically you want to put a timer into the guidelines like "after turn x, apply titanium rules". I don't know how to apply that. Probably like after turn 2 apply titanium rules. Very few decks interact that early in the game. > > Then you screw the guy who is the predator of the player quitting the game. > > If B is actually getting screwed in any way by C leaving, then sure, > compensate B. I agree with you there! But in the situation I > described, where C leaves after 3 turns, B isn't hurt in any > significant way. B simply has D as a prey, and it's all the same. > That doesn't screw B. Again see timer above, but there is other activity on the table that you aren't describing, namely that of the three other players. > And even if it hurts B ever so slightly for having to adjust from 3 > potential discards, it would be worse to screw A and D by giving B two > extra pool. Only if you have someone quit at 3 turns without attempting a single action, playing a single master, or doing anything. > > > OK, I won't press the point, then even though I've personally > > > experienced something similar on JOL. > > > Game number? > > league08-010. I played with bur, Cooper, Svartsinn, and Klaital. I > sent the writeup to the league list. I had 11 vampires in torpor by > the end of the game, and Dragonbound was in play. I ended up winning > that game because I ousted the person with Dragonbound before I got a > crazy number of vamps in torpor, but my point is: my example wasn't as > ludicrous as it initially seemed. You had 30 pool? > > Honestly, if my prey is two turns away from a guaranteed dragonbound > > oust of my grand prey, then I am going to crosstable rescue. > > > Your example has alot of holes in it. Namely the other 3 players at > > the table. > > Sure, there are always holes. There's Life Boon and crosstable Parity > Shift to give you pool, and Temptation of a Greater Power letting you > win a key vamp for 1 pool. > > Your points are valid - I'm not saying there aren't any holes. It's > in fact very important for a judge to see some of the less likely, but > game changing possibilities. But this is not only about judging, this is also about repairing the damage that a player does to a game by scooping, in a tournament or anywhere else. > Of course, in the end, you still have to make a judgment whether or > not to give B any pool or VPs for his prey leaving. And in the > situation I described, where C leaves with 30 pool, 10 minions in > torpor, plus Dragonbound, I would... well, in that actual case, I > would put 30 pool where C was, and proxy 10 weenies in torpor. They > can be rescued crosstable, they'll stay untapped, block 0 stealth > actions, and strike h1. That what I would actually do as a judge in > that situation. I just don't understand why you are fixated on this insane example that never, ever, ever happens. 30 pool? > Norm, it sounds like you would give B zero pool, zero VPs, and > instantly eliminate C. That seems quite unfair to D, since D wasn't > expecting to have a predator for another 3+ turns. Yes, that is exactly what I would do. It doesn't give D a free ride, which is what a 30 pool sack predator is. 3 turns is forever in a game of VTES. It's not unfair to D. D is lucky that 10 vampires tapping out every turn hasn't blown him off the table. > > But....your judgement is biased without standards. > > My judgement is based on years of experience playing this game, and > attempting to resolve a disruption to the game without giving any > player an advantage. No, you just want to disadvantage players and call that fair. If you create a set of standards then your examples are frivolous and silly compared to 99% of how games go. > > There is no such thing as no chance to oust. You may not believe it, > > but I have seen so many players backousted/crossousted when their > > predator "has no chance to oust" that the phrase doesn't mean anything > > to me. > > You are right. I should have written, "no reasonably chance to oust." Ta Da! Subjectivity is introduced, and players being dragged off the table by escaped circus tigers gets a disproportionate amount of weight in this arguement. Whee! > > > That ruling is in disagreement with your guidelines, and therefore I > > > thought it was a worthy topic of conversation. I'm providing yet > > > another example of how guidelines are good, but as the judge, you > > > still need to use your judgment. > > > Which ruling is that? > > The ruling that I would make in the situation described: B's turn. B > has no ready minions, 1 pool, and no reasonable chance to oust C. B > is very likely to be ousted on his next turn. C has 3 pool at the > moment, but will gain at least 3 on his turn with blood dolls, etc. C > must leave. > > In that case, according to your guidelines, you would give B 5 pool > and 1 VP. If I were the judge in that situation, I wouldn't give B > any pool nor VPs. I'm not sure how I would actually represent C's > position, but the point is that I definitely would not do it they way > your guidelines suggest. Obviously there are lots of undefined > details in this case, but I might represent C with 3 pool that gains 3 > pool every turn, which A (after ousting B) would have to get through. C is gone, There is no C. The game is continuing. You can not simulate C realistically without giving an advantage to A. The best solution is to eliminate C, compensate his predator, and continue with the game. A set of guidelines lets all players know what to expect and what is fair. Your example of representing C as the never-ending pool sack is highly favorable to players A, who's prey will never oust, and D, who gets a regenerating pool sack as a predator, but not fair to E and B. > > You won't convince me to change my views with bizarre and outlandish examples. > > The only time your guidelines break down are in the fringe examples. > I'm not trying to convince you that your guidelines are bad - I've > already said several times that I think your guidelines are good as a > general guide. Fringe examples are the worst kind to introduce when trying to esablish a governing guideline. > What I'm trying to convince you of is that it's worthwhile to deviate > from your guidelines when the situation calls for it. I don't think so, as you could be accused of bias or favoritism. > > When something interferes with the above, players should be > > compensated in a rational and explainable manner. > > Agreed. And furthermore, no player should get a benefit from someone > leaving abruptly - the goal of the judge in that situation is to try > to keep the table balanced as it was before, without giving someone an > undue advantage. > > > On the contrary, I disagree with you. I think that no matter how fair > > any rule is that there is some situation where someone gets screwed. > > You just have to try to minimize those situations. > > Interesting. I think we actually agree. I would phrase it: minimize > the amount that someone gets screwed. > > It sounds like we may just disagree on how to go about minimizing the > impact to the table. > > > If you establish a rule that is fair and helps repair the > > continuity of the game from the disruption of a player leaving then it > > will help VTES as a whole and online play especially where there is no > > recourse when someone drops out of a game. > > I mostly agree, which is why I posted this Case Study in the first > place - to try to get consensus among the judging community about what > is a fair rule. Except there's no rule that covers all situations (as > you've stated.) Use your guidelines - I support them, and I think > they're good in many (most) cases. Just use your judgement, too, when > the guidelines give you a result that's unfair or doesn't actually > keep the balance. I agree. I just wish they were set into titanium for the online experience so that no outside judge is required and the resultant adjustments could be programmed automatically. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 14, 8:18 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jun 14, 2:13 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > So basically you want to put a timer into the guidelines like "after > turn x, apply titanium rules". I don't know how to apply that. > Probably like after turn 2 apply titanium rules. Very few decks > interact that early in the game. It seems like you are considering the possibility of deviating from the guidelines in at least one situation. Namely, very early in the game before players have interacted in a significant way. Cool - I agree with that. I won't go back and forth on the specific examples any more - I think we've both made it clear how we would judge in those (admittedly unlikely) situations. If I'm feeling up for it, I'll post them separately as Case Studies, and see how other judges would rule. > > Your points are valid - I'm not saying there aren't any holes. It's > > in fact very important for a judge to see some of the less likely, but > > game changing possibilities. > > But this is not only about judging, this is also about repairing the > damage that a player does to a game by scooping, in a tournament or > anywhere else. I guess I define "judging" in this situation as "adjusting the gamestate to minimize the impact of the person leaving." The judge needs to make the ruling, and thus I used the word "judging." But I think we completely agree that the goal is to move on with the game in as fair a way as possible. You see "fair" as "predictable and consistent guidelines," and I see "fair" as "giving no player an undue advantage in that specific situation" which often requires unpredictable and creative solutions (like a poolsack that gains 3 pool a turn, to represent a missing player with 2 blood dolls, 2 Hunting Grounds, and an Art Museum.) > Yes, that is exactly what I would do. It doesn't give D a free ride, > which is what a 30 pool sack predator is. 3 turns is forever in a > game of VTES. It's not unfair to D. D is lucky that 10 vampires > tapping out every turn hasn't blown him off the table. As a note, in that example, the 10 minions were all in torpor, so D had the perfect predator. > > My judgement is based on years of experience playing this game, and > > attempting to resolve a disruption to the game without giving any > > player an advantage. > > No, you just want to disadvantage players and call that fair. I'm assuming you're trying to incite me again here. :) My intention is to make a ruling that gives no undue advantage to anyone, as best as possible. > > You are right. I should have written, "no reasonably chance to oust." > > Ta Da! Subjectivity is introduced, and players being dragged off the > table by escaped circus tigers gets a disproportionate amount of > weight in this arguement. Whee! I believe you're referring to player C by "players being dragged off the table by escaped circus tigers". If so, Player C has absolutely no say in what happens, because Player C has already left the building. > C is gone, There is no C. The game is continuing. You can not > simulate C realistically without giving an advantage to A. Perhaps, but it's my opinion that (in some cases) instantly eliminating C will disrupt the game more than a simulation of C remaining. No solution will be perfect. In many cases, the guidelines you proposed are good. In some cases, I believe you could reach a less disruptive resolution by simulating C or otherwise deviating from your guidelines. Of course, the best solution is to get a proxy player to take over. > Fringe examples are the worst kind to introduce when trying to > esablish a governing guideline. I didn't bring up those examples to establish a governing guideline! You've already presented us with guidelines, and I've said repeatedly that I think they're quite reasonable and good. I brought up those examples to demonstrate that the guidelines sometimes yield a result that is more disruptive to the game than a more creative ruling would be. And it seemed like you were considering deviating from the guidelines when only a few turns have passed and there hasn't been any significant interaction, so maybe you'd consider deviating from the guidelines at other times when doing so would yield a less disruptive result. > > What I'm trying to convince you of is that it's worthwhile to deviate > > from your guidelines when the situation calls for it. > > I don't think so, as you could be accused of bias or favoritism. Sure, I could be accused of that, but it wouldn't be true. :) I'd rather make the best call I know how to make, causing the least disruption as possible at the table, and move on. If that requires a creative solution like a regenerating poolsack, I'll do it without hesitation, and I've found that players appreciate that. > I agree. I just wish they were set into titanium for the online > experience so that no outside judge is required and the resultant > adjustments could be programmed automatically. While that would be nice, I don't think that will ever be possible, due to the number of variables in the game. Ira

> And it seemed like you were considering deviating from the guidelines > when only a few turns have passed and there hasn't been any > significant interaction, so maybe you'd consider deviating from the > guidelines at other times when doing so would yield a less disruptive > result. No, I would consider altering the guidelines to take this into account. > > > What I'm trying to convince you of is that it's worthwhile to deviate > > > from your guidelines when the situation calls for it. > > > I don't think so, as you could be accused of bias or favoritism. > > Sure, I could be accused of that, but it wouldn't be true. :) I'd > rather make the best call I know how to make, causing the least > disruption as possible at the table, and move on. If that requires a > creative solution like a regenerating poolsack, I'll do it without > hesitation, and I've found that players appreciate that. > > > I agree. I just wish they were set into titanium for the online > > experience so that no outside judge is required and the resultant > > adjustments could be programmed automatically. > > While that would be nice, I don't think that will ever be possible, > due to the number of variables in the game. This this has been a waste of time. [ quoted text not captured ]