Forgetting mandatory effects

During the EC a player I went with was cautioned for not reminding a player of his Leandro's card text ability. This seems really odd to me, that it's punishing the wrong player. How is a forgotten "environmental" effect supposed to be handled? Examples include Leandro, Arika, contesting, Antediluvian Awakening, Tryphosa, Meddling of Semsith, Blood Awakening, Veil of Darkness, Smiling Jack, Anarch Revolt, Dragonbound, etc, etc. There are plenty. The way I see it is that it's the players' own responsibility to remember all effects he/she needs to resolve, but this caution puts the responsibility on other players around the table. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

It is everyone's responsibility to remember global effects. No one is ever exempt from being aware of game state. See also: LSJ 01-12-2002 > > >So whose responsibility is it to remember the Army of Rats or Egothha he has in play? > > The table's. Typically the onus falls on the controller of the effect or the "beneficiary" of the effect, for obvious reasons. >

Obviously if anyone sees something being forgotten this person would have to remind the player before the game state is too confused. I'm talking more of who is supposed to actively think about it. For instance, I use other players' untap phases, master phases (unless I have a sudden/wash), influence phases and discard phases to think about my turn or my strategy for the game. Even if I think about what other players are doing I try to get in to the other players head, not observe their rule-adherence. If I am cheating by not scrutinizing every players every move, I believe my play would suffer from it and that tables will more often time out (since the rules would make 5 players think the same things a lot of the time). Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> >So whose responsibility is it to remember the Army of Rats or Egothha he has in play? > > The table's. Typically the onus falls on the controller of the effect or the "beneficiary" of the effect, for obvious reasons. > "for obvious reasons." this seems flawed. It's not obvious to me. Obviously the beneficiary are benefiting from their effect being resolved, this person has an interest in it happening, we won't need a rule to control this. We would on the other hand need a rule which makes not resolving a detrimental effect and claiming to have forgotten it, since there is no impetus for a player not to abuse this if it wasn't punishable. Basically, worst case scenario, this ruling would be punishing a player for an unintended mistake and not punish a player for premeditated cheating. This is of course for detrimental mandatory effects. Most beneficial effects are not mandatory (they have a "may" in there). A few beneficial effects are mandatory, like Nahum Enosh and The Rack, but they're much fewer. "The controller" and "the beneficiary" can be different players. Does "the table" have a responsibility to remind a player of The Rack, and are all four players given a caution if it has been forgotten? Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > > > >So whose responsibility is it to remember the Army of Rats or Egothha he has in play? > > > > The table's. Typically the onus falls on the controller of the effect or the "beneficiary" of the effect, for obvious reasons. > > > "for obvious reasons." this seems flawed. It's not obvious to me. > I think it makes sense. Typically the beneficiary (or the owner of the card) has the card in front of them (and if it's in their deck, they've probably had more time to look at and read the card then the other players). Between the 5 players, the one player with Egothha or Army of Rats right in front of them, is the one who has a greater responsibility to remember it. For everyone else, it could be one (of many) cards across the table that they can't see clearly. > Obviously if anyone sees something being forgotten this person would have to remind the player before the game state is too confused. I'm talking more of who is supposed to actively think about it. > Another issue that potentially complicates this, is if a third party (not playing in the game, and not a judge or official) notices something. If it is super obvious (someone playing with the old card text or playing with a banned card) then it seems easier for them to point it out. But if it's a subtler issue, it might be something that would be better to privately tell the judge and have him do something about it, rather than get involved directly. Getting involved means you could easily accidentally provide too much information (reminding someone of something that's actually optional, like Edge pool or hunting ground blood, and giving them an advantage). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

A rule like this would encourage cheating. Say I have a Meddling of Semsith played with me as the Methuselah who is not allowed to replace cards during minion phases. I would be encouraged to replace cards even if it's not allowed since I won't be punished from doing so and obviously replacing cards is good for me. (If I would like to cheat I should of course try my best to not be caught, etc, etc, etc, of course.) There is a rule against a certain cheat. In a more Machiavellian sense the only thing to dissuade me from using that cheat would be the threat of punishment, if the punishment is misplaced to someone else, why shouldn't I cheat? Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

Unfortunately there is very little written "officially" about this subject of who is responsible for remembering what. The judges' guidelines (last updated in 2004) don't mention the subject. Here is the "official" ruling about Leandro from the VEKN site: > The victim Methuselah must choose. There is no default choice. If the players all forget about Leandor's effect until later, the situation must be remedied, but forcing one choice or the other on the victim is not a suitable remedy. [LSJ 10-DEC-2002] > This ruling seems to state, as Jeff (Adonai) said, that it is everyone's responsibility to remember the Leandro effect. There is no punishment to be handed out, just a game state error that must be remedied. By extension, it may also be everyone's responsibility to remember every effect. I know that in my playgroup I have to watch everyone like a hawk to see if they make mistakes such as accidentally replacing "do not replace" cards. Since they almost never read the full text of their cards out loud, I have to grab every unfamiliar card and read it if I don't want mistakes to be made. (I usually don't make the effort...) It's so, so hard to do that when you're trying to think about your own game, too. The problem is that the judges' guidelines say that offending players should not gain an advantage from their infractions. So there really needs to be a way to identify who commits each infraction in order to identify who cannot benefit. I think the judges' guidelines could be updated to talk about this more clearly. A different judge could just as well not given your player that warning.

> Aaron wrote: > The problem is that the judges' guidelines say that offending players should not gain an advantage from their infractions. So there really needs to be a way to identify who commits each infraction in order to identify who cannot benefit. > That's not really all that necessary. Any correction a judge makes should be aiming to put the game into the position it would have been had it all gone smoothly. A gift of pool or taking of pool (for example) should not generally be designed to benefit or harm the recipient but to restore them to their right place, as best as the judge can judge it. To my mind, the point the guidelines are making is more one of "You, as a judge, are empowered to intervene. You shouldn't just sit on your hands and say 'Too late now' or 'It was your own fault'." It's important that the judge intervenes to restore the state (which itself denies the benefit as much as is feasible), rather than being able to say that it was 70% my fault and 30% your fault.

The question is excellent. I am *also* working on a new judges' Guide, in which this *will* appear. There will be a philosophy, a penalty, and a correction for each scenario that you guys (anyone feel free to send me / post over here scenarii).

(By the way, after chatting a tad with the MTG guys, it appears they'll penalize the controller of the triggering effect, not the player for whom it triggers)

> Pascal wrote: > The question is excellent. I am *also* working on a new judges' Guide, in which this *will* appear. > > There will be a philosophy, a penalty, and a correction for each scenario that you guys (anyone feel free to send me / post over here scenarii). > Of course, you mean to say "a penalty (when necessary)" as, fr.ex., the above scenario doesn't rise to the level of being important enough for a penalty. Perhaps a discussion, private or otherwise, of what errors are "important enough for a penalty" would be useful? fr.ex. Since we have almost no cheaters in our game, compared to Magic where almost everyone is a cheater, that guideline which was copied from the Magic rules over a decade ago, which states that everyone who draws A SINGLE CARD incorrectly shall be assessed a "warning", is complete and utter shit. 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 Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Kevin, that is how the judges' guide is currently organized: philosophy -> penalty -> correction. According to the Judges' Guide, any error has a penalty. The penalty for small stuff, like replacing a card you are not supposed to, is a "caution". I think it's great that Pascal is working on an updated judges' guide. I had an on-going discussion several months ago with some of the old-time LA players about judging philosophies, and a lot of what they had to say either did not match the current guide or else had no "official" backing (which means the philosophies were based on things LSJ said, whether recorded or not, but which were never actually incorporated into the rulebook or Judges' Guide). It's interesting that Kevin, an experienced judge, already says that some errors don't merit penalties, when the Judges' Guide doesn't seem to support that. Hopefully Pascal is looking for input from judges like Kevin to find out what is actually being done around the world. The guidelines should reflect actual practices or start a discussion towards stronger standardized practices.

> Aaron wrote: > Hopefully Pascal is looking for input from judges like Kevin to find out what is actually being done around the world. The guidelines should reflect actual practices or start a discussion towards stronger standardized practices. > I'm looking for inputs from everyone on situations in which someone said "well, how do we deal with that?" This includes friendly games, tournament games, players' opinions, judges' opinions. The more I get, the wider it will be. The intent of that guide will be to provide explicit examples to refer to.

> Aaron wrote: > Kevin, that is how the judges' guide is currently organized: philosophy -> penalty -> correction. > > According to the Judges' Guide, any error has a penalty. The penalty for small stuff, like replacing a card you are not supposed to, is a "caution". > It appears that you aren't familiar with the Judge's Guide, so perhaps a reading of it is in order? I'm talking specifically about accidentally drawing an extra card. '121.Card Drawing - Drawing Extra Cards' states that the penalty for this error is not a 'caution' but a 'warning', two of which are recommended to result in a Game Loss. Can you imagine how many players would be assigned Game Losses under this insane system? As I said, I can see how it is needed in Magic, where everyone is a cheater, but it is not needed, as written, at all in VTES. > Aaron wrote: > I think it's great that Pascal is working on an updated judges' guide. I had an on-going discussion several months ago with some of the old-time LA players about judging philosophies, and a lot of what they had to say either did not match the current guide or else had no "official" backing (which means the philosophies were based on things LSJ said, whether recorded or not, but which were never actually incorporated into the rulebook or Judges' Guide). > > It's interesting that Kevin, an experienced judge, already says that some errors don't merit penalties, when the Judges' Guide doesn't seem to support that. > > Hopefully Pascal is looking for input from judges like Kevin to find out what is actually being done around the world. The guidelines should reflect actual practices or start a discussion towards stronger standardized practices. > I agree with everything that you said here, Aaron. I've judged over 100 tournaments now -- heaven knows how many tables -- and I've literally had to give two warnings and less than a dozen cautions, ever. Even when I judged in Europe I handed out only one 'caution'. Also, note that the Judge's Guide is a guide, and that it is not a rulebook of any kind, nor intended to be treated as one. Rather, it is to be used as a reference for judges that -- and I'm just speculating here -- are not experienced or familiar enough with the players and/or styles to be able to come to a fair, impartial ruling on their own. This is what I did when I was asked to judge an event at the EC, where I knew almost no one and was highly unfamiliar with the play styles, so when an error happened, I just went with the recommended penalty in the JG and gave the player a 'caution'. I wouldn't do this at the NAC, however, since I know 98% of the players and I am 100% sure that they aren't cheating or acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. Now, does this mean that judges that are familiar with a player and/or that player's style are going to give that player fewer 'cautions' and 'warnings' than to a player with whom they are unfamiliar? Of course. Is this a problem? Not if you aren't cheating, trying to cheat, or are acting unsportsmanlike, no. So I don't consider it an issue. But I'm sure that after I post this, someone will complain about my consistency and lower my user karma 8000 points. 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 Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > I've judged over 100 tournaments now -- heaven knows how many tables -- and I've literally had to give two warnings and less than a dozen cautions, ever. Even when I judged in Europe I handed out only one 'caution'. > > Also, note that the Judge's Guide is a guide, and that it is not a rulebook of any kind, nor intended to be treated as one. Rather, it is to be used as a reference for judges that -- and I'm just speculating here -- are not experienced or familiar enough with the players and/or styles to be able to come to a fair, impartial ruling on their own. This is what I did when I was asked to judge an event at the EC, where I knew almost no one and was highly unfamiliar with the play styles, so when an error happened, I just went with the recommended penalty in the JG and gave the player a 'caution'. I wouldn't do this at the NAC, however, since I know 98% of the players and I am 100% sure that they aren't cheating or acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. > > Now, does this mean that judges that are familiar with a player and/or that player's style are going to give that player fewer 'cautions' and 'warnings' than to a player with whom they are unfamiliar? Of course. Is this a problem? > > Not if you aren't cheating, trying to cheat, or are acting unsportsmanlike, no. So I don't consider it an issue. > > But I'm sure that after I post this, someone will complain about my consistency and lower my user karma 8000 points. > First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. The scenario you talk about (one where noone cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges. Second (and this is the things I'd most like a reply to), what's the point of having a partial judge? Why not just leave the decisions to the players at the tables instead? Third, a tip. I read an article about cheating in MtG on Extrala's blog a week or so back, it was rather interesting. Especially the text written by a friend of a now banned player, where he talks about how hard it actually can be to discover that someone you know/think you know is cheating. I think it would be a good read for most judges, especially those who believe that noone ever cheats in VtES.

> henrik wrote: > First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. The scenario you talk about (one where noone cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges. > I think part of the challenge is that people have completely different (but valid) views as to the extent of cheating and what should be done about it: 1. Some cheating is fairly non-existent in VTES, and thus cards (and card design) don't really need to factor in the possibility of cheating 2. An alternative approach is to assume that cheating is going to existent (though whether or not it is rampant or just occasional is a different matter) so instead the emphasis should be on minimizing the impact of cheating when it (eventually) does come up, rather than assuming that it will never be an issue. You have some cards like Gambit Accepted (the only card in the game that potentially lets you actually transfer VP's to another player) and (before it was banned) Succubus Club. If you assume that everyone's being "good," then the potential for abuse of either of these cards is much lower. But if there is some potentially shady stuff going on, then these two cards significantly magnify the potential impact of "cheating." And finally, you have the separate issue of whether not being aware of any cheating means that there is no cheating at all. Are we simply not looking hard enough? Or would we just being going on a witch hunt and cheating really is quite rare in VTES? pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Aaron wrote: > I had an on-going discussion several months ago with some of the old-time LA players about judging philosophies, and a lot of what they had to say either did not match the current guide or else had no "official" backing (which means the philosophies were based on things LSJ said, whether recorded or not, but which were never actually incorporated into the rulebook or Judges' Guide). > Aaron, did you miss the post of the link to LSJ's written rulings on the questions you raised? I posted them maybe a week or two after our discussion. vtesinla.org/rptBrightLights4.html _________________ Robert Goudie

> henrik wrote: > First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. > Who said that I never look for cheaters? > henrik wrote: > The scenario you talk about (one where no one cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges. > I'd bet cash on it, that no one cheats at Origins. In 12 years: 1. There's never been anyone who has acted like they were cheating. 2. There's never been anyone who I've heard talking about cheating. 3. There's never been anyone who has requested that I watch a player because they may be cheating. And, most importantly: 4. There's never been any REASON for anyone to cheat. Really, Origins is Just That Cool(TM). > henrik wrote: > Second (and this is the thing I'd most like a reply to), what's the point of having a partial judge? Why not just leave the decisions to the players at the tables instead? > You REALLY should come to Origins. You'd LOVE it. See, I tell everyone to figure things out on their own otherwise I'm going to have to come over there and no one will be happy with the ruling. Certainly, I *will* come make a ruling if requested to do so, but you'd be surprised at the goodwill of the players, even predators and preys, and how the majority of the tables deal with their own issues and **everyone is OK with the result**. > henrik wrote: > Third, a tip. I read an article about cheating in MtG on Extrala's blog a week or so back, it was rather interesting. Especially the text written by a friend of a now banned player, where he talks about how hard it actually can be to discover that someone you know/think you know is cheating. I think it would be a good read for most judges, especially those who believe that noone ever cheats in VtES. > I don't believe that "no one ever cheats". I just think it's ludicrously rare and nearly unworthy of messages on a VEKN.net thread. I suspected a Canadian guy of cheating once, just to get back at me because he got pissed off at me asking him to speak in English. Instead of calling a judge, I just smashed his deck's face and ousted him. I still suspect a certain Ohio player, that refuses to attend Origins, of cheating because several players at a local game shop suggested to me that he was cheating there. If he ever attends any Origins events, I'll keep a close eye on him. I've heard second-hand of one of two French guys that don't play anymore that actually did cheat. I think I heard third-hand of some Spanish guy who tried to cheat once. An American friend told me of someone about 15 years ago that cheated one single time. 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 Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Xaddam wrote: > How is a forgotten "environmental" effect supposed to be handled? Examples include Leandro, Arika, contesting, Antediluvian Awakening, Tryphosa, Meddling of Semsith, Blood Awakening, Veil of Darkness, Smiling Jack, Anarch Revolt, Dragonbound, etc, etc. There are plenty. > Xaddam's question is very interesting indeed. I and the mates of my playgroup often forget about cards like Veil of Darkness or other Gehenna cards, I don't know why. It is ridiculously often. Meddling of Semsith would be a catastrophe for us too . I think the controller of the card should be responsible for the adherence of the effect. That means he should remind the other players. Of course the other players of the table needs to help with that. If everybody thinks of the effect of his cards nothing should go wrong. In our playgroup everybody's watching and that is the way it has to be. But what to do in tournament play (opposed to casual)? Though I think it is the controllers' responsibility that his card is remembered I don't like him getting a caution or warning if somebody else is forgetting about it. Because the rest of the table was sloppy too. So I'd say nobody gets a warning or caution, the whole table has to take care of those cards. If somebody repeatedly forgets about a card effect and you get the impression that he does it intentionally (aka cheating) you'd better call the judge. That could mean that a player could try to cheat and gets away with it for two or three times. But if all players at the table pay attention it wouldn't work out. Cheaters are bad for the game, but changing the rules in a way that playing isn't fun anymore is bad for all players. So I'm against punishing players for forgetting cards unless it is plain obvious it is by purpose. So what do you think of the following: I put into play my Leandro and ask the other players to help me thinking of his effect in every methuselah's untap. With that I tell the others that they are responsible too. And normally it is in their best interest to enforce that disadvantage on their preys. The same goes with Veil of Darkness or other effects. Baron of Frankfurt

It depends on the impact. In our playgroup we just fix the issue immediately when it appears. It is not the most accurate way but certainly the quickest for fluid gameplay. Example 1: "oh, sorry I forgot to pay for Anarch Revolt, here's the pool." But in the situations when it can't be handled that way we do a complete rollback to the phase where the error occurred because every phase, action and reaction may be completely different. Example 2: "oh, sorry I forgot to pay for Anarch Revolt, here's the pool. But hmm, I will be ousted if I pay for it and that means I can not pay for the master card. We need to rollback so I can use Vessel differently. Or a combination. Example 3: "Damn, I have a vampire that has a mandatory hunt pending and I have already made another action. Is there anybody who would like to react to the hunt? No? Then I do it now. If you want to react, let's rollback." As long as everybody agree that the impact is negligible then the game can continue but if there are any disagreements then rollback is necessary. With that said, there are issues with the concept of rollback also. The Methuselah's performing rollback may gain insight in what cards they will draw. Perhaps a proper rollback should include a library shuffle.

> Joscha wrote: > Because the rest of the table was sloppy too. So I'd say nobody gets a warning or caution, the whole table has to take care of those cards. > From the Judges' Guide, 200. Correction of Game State: It is important that the player committing the infraction receive no benefit in the game for doing so. This issue came up in my playgroup several months ago. In a casual game I was in, a a player who had Carver's Meat Packing and Storage in play forgot to remove the hostage counter on his prey's Famed minion by burning two blood before rescuing it in order to let Enkidu rush it. His turn was very involved including complicated block attempts and combats. During the turn, both the player and his prey (not me) made some identifiable errors. When I realized the error with the hostage counter, the other players and another person not playing decided that the entire turn should be rewound to the Carver's controller's untap phase, which is when the hostage counter would have been burned. My solution would have been to adjust the blood totals on the player's very full vampires and move on. We went back, the player burned the hostage counter, played an entirely different master card, and redid his minion phase, with both his prey and he taking advantage of the fact that they knew what mistakes to avoid. The general consensus in the room was that it is everyone's responsibility to remember universal effects, that everyone is responsible if such an error is made, and that since everyone is responsible, it is all right for everyone to gain an advantage. I argued against this. In my opinion, which seems to be supported by the judges' guide, any player who makes a mistake should not gain a benefit from it. If indeed everyone made the mistake, then no one should get an advantage, at least in my feeble logic. That means that rollbacks should be very limited in general, because any extra information about unplayed cards gives anyone an advantage. Pascal has suggested that the person controlling the effect will be responsible for remembering the effect (or at least, he said that is what they do in MtG and he didn't dimiss it outright), and I think that it would be great to do it this way because it is very clear. Having "everyone" be responsible to remember everything just means that no one is responsible. I also don't think it would be horrible if people got a caution for making a "sloppy" mistake, followed by a warning on the second occurrence.

I'm with you in that point, nobody should gain an advantage by making a mistake. It is the problem of responsibility that makes me go "nobody should get a warning". Why should the owner of Carver's Meat Packing and Storage get a Warning if some other player forget about that card or that hostage counter? Shouldn't that player get the warning? But if you warn that player you demand of each player that he or she remembers every effect at the table, a very hard task if it's coming to vampire's specials or the pure number of played cards and its effects. Remember, two warnings mean Game Loss. I don't know if the game would be more fun if that threat is in the air. Your example is really a worst case scenario. I think it is bad sportmansship to play the turn different just because of the forgotten hostage counter. In our playgroup we'd try to play the turn in the same way like before with the same mistakes. Honesty demands that. Baron of Frankfurt

> chaitan wrote: > With that said, there are issues with the concept of rollback also. The Methuselah's performing rollback may gain insight in what cards they will draw. Perhaps a proper rollback should include a library shuffle. > I too believe that if we must rollback and wish to minimize responsablity, then a library shuffle would be necessary to make sure no one gains an advantage. That said, additional time would be added to complete the game and a penalty of some sort would then be justified. Just my 2 cents... VTES is not for the faint of heart...especially when you don't have a enough blood. Prince Of Geneva

> Killjoy71 wrote: > > > chaitan wrote: > > With that said, there are issues with the concept of rollback also. The Methuselah's performing rollback may gain insight in what cards they will draw. Perhaps a proper rollback should include a library shuffle. > > > I too believe that if we must rollback and wish to minimize responsablity, then a library shuffle would be necessary to make sure no one gains an advantage. That said, additional time would be added to complete the game and a penalty of some sort would then be justified. > > Just my 2 cents... > I agree. It's my oppinion that when one does a rolllback or replaces a card ea looks at it when one is not allowed that the card be put back, the bottom cards get seperated if one has heart of nitchetus and the deck reshuffled. It's part of the game that one dosent know wich the naxt card one draws and of the card in the library it is random. Just putting the card back and not shuffling is cheating! Prince of Lidingö

> Joscha wrote: > I'm with you in that point, nobody should gain an advantage by making a mistake. It is the problem of responsibility that makes me go "nobody should get a warning". Why should the owner of Carver's Meat Packing and Storage get a Warning if some other player forget about that card or that hostage counter? Shouldn't that player get the warning? > Well, in this case, it was the player who controlled Carver's who forgot about the hostage counter. In the case of Carver's, it is entirely reasonable that the controlling player should be responsible for remembering its effect because they can gain blood for each hostage counter in play. > Joscha wrote: > But if you warn that player you demand of each player that he or she remembers every effect at the table, a very hard task if it's coming to vampire's specials or the pure number of played cards and its effects. > That's just it - if everyone is responsible for remembering "universal" effects, then practically it isn't possible to caution/warn everyone when serious mistakes are made. I suspect that this was done intentionally by LSJ and other judges to reduce the amount of penalties given for mistake-making. Robert Goudie posted a link on this thread to some very interesting discussions with LSJ from 2004 about this stuff. It really sounded as though LSJ wanted to move away from penalizing people for making "mistakes" that affect game state, and he did this by making everyone at the table responsible, thus meaning that no one ever got a penalty. Some of his thoughts are pretty surreal. You might be able to tell that I think his philosophy was too liberal and impractical. > Joscha wrote: > Remember, two warnings mean Game Loss. I don't know if the game would be more fun if that threat is in the air. > I think we're thinking too much about warnings. Surely a caution would have been the correct response to forgetting the hostage counter. I think most mistakes are inadvertent and should receive a caution to start, not a warning. > Joscha wrote: > In our playgroup we'd try to play the turn in the same way like before with the same mistakes. Honesty demands that. > The judges' guide says that rewinds should be considered when few or no cards have been played. Otherwise it suggests adjusting pool, blood, or minion totals. That would certainly be my philosophy: Adjust the game state to one that is as close as possible to the current state but under the condition that everything had been played correctly.

> KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. > > > Who said that I never look for cheaters? > Noone said it right out. My point was that your way of looking at it, from what I've gathered from your posts here, is that next to noone cheats at VtES and that your friends would never cheat (rough cuts, but this is the picture you've given me). Also, this isn't about you personally, that wasn't my intent with the post. It's about the way of looking at cheaters/cheating that you (and probably many others) seems to have. I think that an attitude like that makes you look less for cheaters. Automatically assuming that everything is just forgetfulness and misplays gives those who wants to cheat a good place to do so. And no, this does not mean that I want total paranoia from judges instead. > KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > The scenario you talk about (one where no one cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges. > > > I'd bet cash on it, that no one cheats at Origins. In 12 years: > > 1. There's never been anyone who has acted like they were cheating. > 2. There's never been anyone who I've heard talking about cheating. > 3. There's never been anyone who has requested that I watch a player because they may be cheating. > > And, most importantly: > 4. There's never been any REASON for anyone to cheat. > > Really, Origins is Just That Cool(TM). > How does cheaters act? Except for the obivous breaking the rules part, of course. No talking about cheaters and no requesting judges is hopefully a good sign, yes. It's not really relevant to this discussion though. The fact that players haven't noticed any cheating does not mean that it doesn't exist (it might point that way though). And while this can be seen as some witch-hunt arguments, the point is still there. And for point 4. Some people just like to win. A lot. It can be reason enough for someone to cheat. I can understand how tens of thousands of dollars (as in MtG prizes) will bring more cheaters, but just because the fame and fortunes gained from winning a VtES tournament are relatively small it doesn't mean there's no reason for anyone to cheat. > KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > Second (and this is the thing I'd most like a reply to), what's the point of having a partial judge? Why not just leave the decisions to the players at the tables instead? > > > You REALLY should come to Origins. You'd LOVE it. > > See, I tell everyone to figure things out on their own otherwise I'm going to have to come over there and no one will be happy with the ruling. Certainly, I *will* come make a ruling if requested to do so, but you'd be surprised at the goodwill of the players, even predators and preys, and how the majority of the tables deal with their own issues and **everyone is OK with the result**. > This is bad, imo. Rulings, backtracking, corrections of game state shouldn't really be left to the players. They should be made by judges in order to get them consistent (over the entire VEKN would be best, but at least over the current tournament). I think that every table gets some kind of informal leader. Someone who's more charismatic than others, more likely to be listened to. Having that person push for ingame agendas is a part of the game, and that's fine in my opinion. However, those people (and I don't believe they have more or less intentions of cheating than anyone else) might also be able to get their way when it comes to backtracking etc. This might or might not be intentional from their side. It might or might not be cheating. I certainly think it's something that shouldn't happen though, yet I know for a fact that it does. Some people are more likely to be allowed to take that Parity Shift which could only target their grand prey back in their hand after playing it with the intention of taking pool from their prey. In my eyes, having misplays, rollbacks and "corrections" of gamestate handled differently on each and every table takes away from the integrity of the game. A tournament win is worth less if it might be because the winner got to have his/her way when a contest was forgotten, or during a mistakenly taken action. > KevinM wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > Third, a tip. I read an article about cheating in MtG on Extrala's blog a week or so back, it was rather interesting. Especially the text written by a friend of a now banned player, where he talks about how hard it actually can be to discover that someone you know/think you know is cheating. I think it would be a good read for most judges, especially those who believe that noone ever cheats in VtES. > > > I don't believe that "no one ever cheats". I just think it's ludicrously rare and nearly unworthy of messages on a VEKN.net thread. > Not discussing a potential problem won't really solve anything. It will help those who actually does cheat to keep cheating, since their methods will be unknown by most judges. Granted this thread is probably not where it should be done, but it kinda started here and Pascal did ask for input (I'll try to write some of that as well in a couple of days). > KevinM wrote: > I suspected a Canadian guy of cheating once, just to get back at me because he got pissed off at me asking him to speak in English. Instead of calling a judge, I just smashed his deck's face and ousted him. > > I still suspect a certain Ohio player, that refuses to attend Origins, of cheating because several players at a local game shop suggested to me that he was cheating there. If he ever attends any Origins events, I'll keep a close eye on him. > > I've heard second-hand of one of two French guys that don't play anymore that actually did cheat. I think I heard third-hand of some Spanish guy who tried to cheat once. An American friend told me of someone about 15 years ago that cheated one single time. > Not sure what the point is here. I had a friend who cheated on a casual monopoly game when I was a kid.

> Aaron wrote: > I think we're thinking too much about warnings. Surely a caution would have been the correct response to forgetting the hostage counter. I think most mistakes are inadvertent and should receive a caution to start, not a warning. > Once a mistake is made, it is made, and we can't revert this. However, we can try to enforce it not to happen again. That's the idea behind a Warning. "Do it again, and that time, the penalty will will penalize." I think we can ask players to focus on their cards. A mistake can happen, of course. I'm not saying Cautions are useless, nor that each tournament should have the same level of penalties. But really, having 20 players call the judge(s) because they forgot to choose to contest isn't something reasonable, and some discipline is an easy way of teaching players not to make the same error again. I bet Xaddam's friend will never forget about Leandro's effect from now on (btw, that new judegs' guideline isn't written at all, so far)