Play to Win situation

I have a question regarding the play-to-win rule. Assume the following situation: 5-player table. Tournament rules are in effect. Sequence is as follows: A-B-C-D-F F is already ousted by D (D has 1 VP). There is still plenty of time on the clock. A: intercept gun-combat B: Matthias () intercept C: Euro -combat/bleed D: Osebo intercept combat A has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool B has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool C has 3 vampires ready, 12 pool D has 3 vampires in torpor, 0 ready, 5 pool At the end of his turn, C plays Dragonbound. The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW. A's only ready vampire has 0 blood, no gun. He controls Palatial Estate and Fetish Club Hunting Ground. If he manages to rescue 1 single vampire, he stays alive, otherwise he ousted (3 vampires in torpor and 3 pool left). B has shown consistant ability to block actions regardless of stealth and has Miriam Benyona ready, tapped. The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn? I would say no, as he has a reasonable chance to at least get another VP, and if Miriam blocks the rescue action of player A and gets torporized, D would get a 3rd VP and the GW. One could argue that player D would have to ask player B if he is going to block the rescue action. However, during the whole game, C has taken a alot of -actions against B, which resulted in B having no chance at any VP. So it would be reasonable to assume that B would try to stop giving the GW to C (B is known to the other players as being a bit spiteful). Knowing no other details and not talking to player B, D would have a 50% chance of another VP - B's Miriam Benyona either blocks the rescue action of A or not. If D self-ousts he seems to be clearly in violation of the play-to-win rule. Player C claims that judges could not force D to not self-oust. Is this true? Thank you for helping clearing up the situation. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Amenophobis wrote: > > The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn? > If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants.

Self-ousting is only play-to-win if it results in a win. For example, the first seed of a tournament self-ousts to his predator in the final assuring a 2VP tie (and win by tournament rank). But it's all moot. You can't play the game for the player. If the judge deems the misplay spiteful or otherwise unsportsmanlike, he or she is free to punish the player. Seeing as they are already losing the game, perhaps by Warning or Disqualification (in an egregious case like self-ousting to boost a friend's VP total). My personal judgement based on your description: maybe bad play, but not unsportsmanlike. Clearly there's no violation here. Relevant sections of the tournament rules (emphasis mine): > > 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct > > Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. See also "Play to Win" in section 4.8 above. > > 4.8. Play to Win > > One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. >

> Dorrinal wrote: > Self-ousting is only play-to-win if it results in a win. For example, the first seed of a tournament self-ousts to his predator in the final assuring a 2VP tie (and win by tournament rank). > A player who is in a position where they do not have a reasonable chance of getting any more VPs can get the 0 extra VPs in any manner they choose. Including self-ousting. Note that - though apparently not relevant to the situation at hand - getting more VPs does including playing to reach the time limit. That is, not slow play or stalling, but - for example - doing things like bloating to prevent yourself (or other people) being ousted, rather than futilely attempting to oust someone.

> acbishop wrote: > If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants. > Since judges are not issued with psychic probes, what D "really thinks" isn't something a judge can factor into his or her decision. Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment.

> Amenophobis wrote: > The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW. > At this point, you have answered your own question. Assuming the judge (in this case, you) thinks D has a reasonable chance to get more VP, play-to-win requires D to attempt to get more VP. (D is allowed to use risk assessment and (for example) go for the solid 1 VP, rather than the risky 3VP-or-bust route.) Precisely what action the judge takes is up for discussion, and may depend on the reactions of the players. It is difficult to take over the deck of a player who storms off in a huff over a ruling imposed on him or her, for example, whereas it is much easier to deal with things if players call you over and ask for a ruling.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment. > Then again, the spirit of the rule is not to hand penality to peoples that play less well than the judge. In the precise case, we don't have enough details to see whether an attempt to gain the GW by D was an utter folly (let's say 3 empty vampires in torpor) or pretty doable (3 torpor vampires with 4-5 blood and an hand with enough maneuver and combat card to hope resist to A)

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment. > > > Then again, the spirit of the rule is not to hand penality to peoples that play less well than the judge. > Judgment isn't about finding the very best course of action and forcing the player to take it. (Well, if there was exactly one course of action because the player had literally two choices, due to having no cards in hand, no cards in play etc. etc., maybe it would be. But that doesn't really ever happen.) It's simply about judging what is reasonable in the circumstances.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > acbishop wrote: > > If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants. > > > Since judges are not issued with psychic probes, what D "really thinks" isn't something a judge can factor into his or her decision. > > Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment. > In that case the judge should be "equals" in terms of playing VTES like the player, cause playing bad VTES is not illegal, so the judge can ask player D the reasons he thinks he is not able to get more VPs from D's point of wiev, and judge that. Cause judge playing VTES capacity is different than player D's one (better or worse, not important). And the judge should never "play" the table, only judging it. D could reason like that: "I don't know id my ally would block the leave torpor action, and even if he claims he would do I can't be sure, so using my minions and my hand. Do I have any possibility of getting more VPs? I guess no, so I'll transfert out" Cause player D can be sure only about his impact on the table (he and his cards in play/hand) and nothing else, cause the "maybe another player would do that or that or that" are only uncertain possibilities, and D is not force to consider them. So, if D's point of view is that he can't get reasonabily another VP he's able to transfert out, by rules judge can't force any player to accept any kind of deal, so judge is not allowed to force D to ask B about the leaving torpor action etc... I hope it's clear what I'm intending to say.

> acbishop wrote: > D could reason like that: "I don't know id my ally would block the leave torpor action, and even if he claims he would do I can't be sure, so using my minions and my hand. Do I have any possibility of getting more VPs? I guess no, so I'll transfert out" > Transfering out -> 100% certain not to get a VP. Not transfering out -> in this situation, clearly more than 0% to get a VP. I'm not even considering whether D is a good player or not, because it doesn't change the math. So I wouldn't allow this as a judge. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> acbishop wrote: > In that case > Uh-oh. You mean you only just realised that judges don't have psychic probes? > acbishop wrote: > the judge should be "equals" in terms of playing VTES like the player, cause playing bad VTES is not illegal, so the judge can ask player D the reasons he thinks he is not able to get more VPs from D's point of wiev, and judge that. Cause judge playing VTES capacity is different than player D's one (better or worse, not important). > Err, how do you think the judge comes to a judgment? It's not rolling a Magic 8 ball and finding it says "Outlook unclear". Talking to people, looking at decks, looking at decklists, previous experience of the deck(s) (at this table, at other tables), and so on can all factor into it. Sometimes, the judge's judgment will be wrong. Sometimes, the judge will have to force a player to do something, because the situation is so utterly bizarre the judge has a very different view of it from the player(s) involved. It is simply a question of exercising reasonable judgment. If your judge cannot exercise reasonable judgment, get a better one.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > ... > Ok, I'm not a good judge, come here to judge the tournaments and enlight me with your judgement then. But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards. If the player explains knowing the public information of the table, and knowing his deck, hand, etc... to the judge the reasons he thinks he could be able to do that. Anyway, judging playing to win situations is not anything that is BLACK or WHITE and easy to state, if you think you should judge forcing the player to do something it's OK. But if another judge in the same situation thinks D is allowed to do that is also OK cause the reasonable judgment could be different depending on the judge reasoning.

> acbishop wrote: > But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards. > This is incorrect. If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene. [LSJ 20041120] > > LSJ wrote: > > - or would you only intervene at the time B wants to roll over for A > > getting the GW? > > The judge should be called to intervene as soon as [Play to Win] is violated. > [LSJ 20040619] > > LSJ wrote: > > How should the "play to win" rule be enforced? > > The judge "enforces" a correction to illegal play by disallowing the > illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only > the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect > whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance > for the remaining players. > > ... > > We (judges) can all make mistakes. If you feel that the judge > made a mistake, you can ask for further clarification after the > tournament from this newsgroup or via private email to me or > to the prince list or what have you. The judge's ruling must > be followed at the tournament, however. > You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > acbishop wrote: > > But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards. > > > This is incorrect. > > If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene. > > You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop. > You didn't understand what I wanted to say(it could be cause my mothern language is not English), and you're always taking everything I'm writing in the worst case scenario. We're talking about play-to-win situation here and not stalling, collusion, whatever, ... I think that you are thinking that I've never judged a tournament before also, I did, several times. So, you have your opinion, and I have mine, your reasonable judgment is different than mine, ok I accept that. And I know I won't be able to make you understand exactly what I want to say (maybe my fault cause of my English, maybe not...).

> acbishop wrote: > You didn't understand what I wanted to say(it could be cause my mothern language is not English), and you're always taking everything I'm writing in the worst case scenario. > I am reading the words that you write, not the words that are in your head. > acbishop wrote: > We're talking about play-to-win situation here and not stalling, collusion, whatever, ... > And judges msut intervene when play-to-win is violated. > acbishop wrote: > I think that you are thinking that I've never judged a tournament before also, I did, several times. > Quite the reverse. Since you haev actively stated the desire to enforce the rules wrongly, I am asking you to stop doing so! > acbishop wrote: > So, you have your opinion, and I have mine, > I have the rules and multiple rulings to support my position. In the Rules forum, it is helpful to tell people what the real rules are. What I am providing are the actual, real rules. Not the incorrect rules that you are intent on enforcing. Your interpretation of the rules is wrong. This is not an opinion. This is fact.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > acbishop wrote: > > But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards. > > > This is incorrect. > > If a player violates play-to-win, the judge must intervene. If a player stalls, the judge must intervene and make them play more quickly. If two players collude, the judge must intervene and prevent their colluding behaviour. If a player continues to respect a deal when there are two players left, the judge must intervene. > > [LSJ 20041120] > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > - or would you only intervene at the time B wants to roll over for A > > > getting the GW? > > > > The judge should be called to intervene as soon as [Play to Win] is violated. > > > You are starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and doing your players a dis-service. Please stop. > Violating PTW is a case of unsportsmanlike conduct. No where in the tournament rules or penalty guidelines is it suggested that the judge play for the player. How else should a judge intervene, other than penalizing the player? Correct way to handle the situation: "Self-ousting at this point is evidently not playing to win. You should correct your play, but if you continue with the self-oust you will be subject to penalties up to and including disqualification." Make your point without actually playing for the player in question. Because ultimately the player can still refuse, pick up his or her cards, and leave. And I'd wager that you get more cooperation by giving the player the impression that he or she is under control of his or her own play.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Violating PTW is a case of unsportsmanlike conduct. No where in the tournament rules or penalty guidelines is it suggested that the judge play for the player. How else should a judge intervene, other than penalizing the player? > Quoted again: > LSJ wrote: > The judge "enforces" a correction to illegal play by disallowing the > illegal play. If the player refuses (and instead insists on making only > the illegal play), then the judge should remove that player and effect > whatever additional measures are necessary to preserve table balance > for the remaining players. > This was asked specifically regarding play-to-win, but it can potentially apply to other forms of illegal play. (It depends precisely on the illegal play, obviously - it won't make sense for all of them!) If the judge is only alerted to it later, they can make any of a variety of game state alterations/corrections (as they can for any other infraction). Obvious examples including adjusting pool totals (up or down), moving cards in and out of play, adjusting the blood or life on a minion, tapping or untapping a card, or whatever else. These changes are not intended to be punishments, but rather game state corrections. Punishments are supposed to be handled by issuing cautions, warnings, disqualifications, losses etc. Clearly, there will be some differences of opinion on precisely what changes are made (I might give you 2 pool back, but some other judge might give you 3), and on how they are perceived.

The usenet group is an excellent resource, but LSJ's suggestion is not part of the Tournament Rules or Judges' Guide. Until this is corrected (and I wouldn't mind, because it makes good sense) my interpretation is correct.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > acbishop wrote: > > I think that you are thinking that I've never judged a tournament before also, I did, several times. > > > Quite the reverse. Since you haev actively stated the desire to enforce the rules wrongly, I am asking you to stop doing so! > Ok James, now if you could stop trolling. Everyone is tired of this... you mad ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Dorrinal wrote: > The usenet group is an excellent resource, but LSJ's suggestion is not part of the Tournament Rules or Judges' Guide. Until this is corrected (and I wouldn't mind, because it makes good sense) my interpretation is correct. > Your personal opinion does not override official rulings from the official rules authority.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Dorrinal wrote: > > The usenet group is an excellent resource, but LSJ's suggestion is not part of the Tournament Rules or Judges' Guide. Until this is corrected (and I wouldn't mind, because it makes good sense) my interpretation is correct. > > > Your personal opinion does not override official rulings from the official rules authority. > We're off usenet now. A new judge has no way of finding the rulings and information you posted except through creating a post like this. That's why I used the term corrected - VEKN.net needs to host all official rulings, because it is now the official rules authority.

my first statement is that playing bad is not illegal, we can't be all of us Erik's clons and playing perfectly all the time. So, for me the thing to check is if for the player is reasonably to think that he's not able to get more VP's. If it is reasonable on that player situation to think that he can't make more VP's then that player is not violating the play to win, he's simply playing bad. That's all.

> Dorrinal wrote: > We're off usenet now. A new judge has no way of finding the rulings > Using Google Groups to search for posts works just like it has for a number of years (and Deja News did before that). This was often done by people using other forums - White Wolf's own, Presence, the Path of Blood, regional forums, the Yahoo rulings mailing list. They were off Usenet, but still managed it. Have people's fingers suddenly fallen off?

> acbishop wrote: > my first statement is that playing bad is not illegal, we can't be all of us Erik's clons and playing perfectly all the time. > So, for me the thing to check is if for the player is reasonably to think that he's not able to get more VP's. If it is reasonable on that player situation to think that he can't make more VP's then that player is not violating the play to win, he's simply playing bad. That's all. > No, that's not all. If you decide the player is violating play-to-win, you must also intervene. If - per your previous statements - you refuse to intervene, you're doing it wrong.

> If the judge is only alerted to it later, they can make any of a variety of game state alterations/corrections (as they can for any other infraction). Obvious examples including adjusting pool totals (up or down), moving cards in and out of play, adjusting the blood or life on a minion, tapping or untapping a card, or whatever else. > James, judge can advise, or order, to be precise, to adjust life, blood, pool, he can advise player to untap/tap a card, or to move card out of play. What he cannot do, or in fact, must not do, is to do those things himself. Because he is not proprietor of tokens and/or cards, and no game rule should allow him to do that. He can disqualify a player who is not obedient to his commands, and take further punitive actions, but he cannot enforce rules - simply because his powers are judicial, not executive. In that spirit, you can order player in question not to transfer himself out, and if he does not obey your decision, you can disqualify him. Either way, that player gets no VPs. Since it is his untap phase, and every other situation has "what if" option, my rule would be that player can self oust. Just my two eurocents... Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > James, > judge can advise, or order, to be precise, to adjust life, blood, pool, he can advise player to untap/tap a card, or to move card out of play. What he cannot do, or in fact, must not do, is to do those things himself. Because he is not proprietor of tokens and/or cards, and no game rule should allow him to do that. > Everything you have just said is incorrect. Only the judge can make these corrections, and they are not advice. They are corrections made by the judge. From the Judges' Guide: > Judges wrote: > 200. Correction of Game State > > This section generally deals with returning the game to a fair and playable state after certain types of infractions. Only the judge may make corrections to the game state. Correction of the game state is done in addition to and not instead of the application of the appropriate penalty for the infraction. > If you are, for some reason, trying to distinguish between the judge touching the glass bead and the player touching the glass bead, then are you going to crap yourself when another player taps the card for me because I have a drink in my hand? It's a card game where - more or less - every card may be handled by another player at some point. Either they steal it, or they ask to read it. If people touching your cards is a problem for you, you may be playing the wrong game.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > acbishop wrote: > > my first statement is that playing bad is not illegal, we can't be all of us Erik's clons and playing perfectly all the time. > > So, for me the thing to check is if for the player is reasonably to think that he's not able to get more VP's. If it is reasonable on that player situation to think that he can't make more VP's then that player is not violating the play to win, he's simply playing bad. That's all. > > > No, that's not all. > > If you decide the player is violating play-to-win, you must also intervene. If - per your previous statements - you refuse to intervene, you're doing it wrong. > For deciding if player is violating play-to-win or not I check if player reasonably thinks he can't get more VP's, and not If I were the player I'd thougth I'd have a chance for getting more VP's cause it's not me the player, in that case player is making a bad decision in the game but not an ilegal play, cause playing bad is not illegal(i'm sur you can find also LSJ saying that playing bad is not illegal). I think that the difference of reasoning is that you're stablishing the situation from the judge's point of view thinking if the judge were the player and not from the player's point of view, after a conversation with the player and checking the information of the table you can stablish if player is violating the play_to_win or if he's playing bad cause he doesn't realize how to interact with other players to get another VP, and all of this without telling the player the possibilities he has to get more VPs (asking wall deck to block the rescue from torpor action, etc...), cause is up to the player of realize about he can make another VPs even without vampires ready.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Dorrinal wrote: > > We're off usenet now. A new judge has no way of finding the rulings > > > Using Google Groups to search for posts works just like it has for a number of years (and Deja News did before that). > > This was often done by people using other forums - White Wolf's own, Presence, the Path of Blood, regional forums, the Yahoo rulings mailing list. They were off Usenet, but still managed it. > > Have people's fingers suddenly fallen off? > Now that VEKN seemingly has its shit together, and has created a centralized repository of official rules and rulings, we should not expect the old ways to suffice.

> acbishop wrote: > I think that the difference of reasoning is that you're stablishing the situation from the judge's point of view thinking if the judge were the player > This is nonsense. There is nothing about the judge exercising their judgment that requires them to impose how they'd play the situation on the other player. For example, the judge may see an inexperienced player making silly tactical errors (legal play, but probably the wrong play) and not correct it. Even though they'd play differently. You are approaching this whole situation fundamentally incorrectly. It is simply a judgment about what is reasonable, in the circumstances. The circumstances include the judge's assessment of player skill etc., and this can help determine whether the judge believes the player is making a mistake or is intentionally violating play-to-win. > acbishop wrote: > and not from the player's point of view, after a conversation with the player and checking the information of the table you can stablish if player is violating the play_to_win or if he's playing bad cause he doesn't realize how to interact with other players to get another VP, and all of this without telling the player the possibilities he has to get more VPs (asking wall deck to block the rescue from torpor action, etc...), cause is up to the player of realize about he can make another VPs even without vampires ready. > No, you are continually asserting 'bad play', and not addressing a violation of play-to-win. Bad play is bad play is bad play. A player makes a mistake. A player misses an opportunity. A player miscounts the number of counters on an opponent's vampire. This is all bad play. This is not intended to be corrected. (Of course, mistakes may be made.) Does the player's behaviour seem reasonable in the circumstances? Sure. The fact that a not-at-all-obvious play might allow a VP? Not a violation of play-to-win if the judge's judgment is that it was reasonably missed. Intentionally violating play-to-win is not the same as bad play. In its essentials, it is very different from bad play (although it might involve some bad play). For example: - if I oust myself now, I screw my predator's game up, and I hate my predator and want to spite him. However, I can still reasonably get more VPs (and maybe the Game Win). This self-oust would be a violation of play-to-win. It would not be 'bad play'. It is me intentionally trying to oust myself. - I can reasonably achieve the Game Win, but if I give the Game Win to my friend, we both get into the finals, so I do that instead. This is a violation of play-to-win. - I am already in the finals, because I have 2 Game Wins from the previous 2 rounds and it's mathematically impossible for me not to be in the final. (Due to the particular size or arrangement of the tournament, this is easily possible.) Instead of attempting to get VPs here, I instead attempt to oust my grand-predator, and prevent her from getting any VPs. I figure her deck is the most dangerous to me in the finals, so I don't want it there. This is a violation of play-to-win. These are not about bad play. These are violations of play-to-win, and require corrective action from the judge. The judge - without the psychic probe - will need to assess whether they think borderline behaviour is bad play or violating play-to-win. They may make mistakes, but it's their job to assess this - and correct the infraction, as they perceive it.

none of those situations are the same that the situation asked on this post, on this post there is no finals consideration, friend consideration, etc... all my posts on this thread are only refered for this specific situation and no others, so please, don't add any other situation that could arrange your reasoning. If player reasonably thinks he can't get more VP's he's making a bad choice in the game, but I can't see play-to-win violating, but if after the conversation with the player judges thinks that the player is telling him bullshit about his reasons about doing that, so judge will stablish that player is aware of all the situation on the table and won't allow to spend last pool on the transfert. is it legal to do what player did? If player reasonably thinks he can't make more VP's YES. If player does not reasonable think he can't make more VP's not. the judge will determine after conversation with the player if it is reasonably or not. But the answer is not as simple as you say it is. You're stablishing for sure that it is not legal. But it could be depending on player reasoning, cause once again, making bad decissions is not ilegal.

> acbishop wrote: > none of those situations are the same that the situation asked on this post, on this post there is no finals consideration, friend consideration, etc... > all my posts on this thread are only refered for this specific situation > You wrote: > acbishop wrote: > But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards. > When you write that judges should ALWAYS refrain from altering a player's play, then people will think that you mean what you wrote. There are many circumstances in which a judge must correct a player's play, so what you wrote was wrong, which is why I disagreed with it. > acbishop wrote: > is it legal to do what player did? > > If player reasonably thinks he can't make more VP's YES. > If player does not reasonable think he can't make more VP's not. > Which is all a pointless sideshow, because you still haven't issued judges with psychic probes. Hence, it depends on the judge's judgment. > acbishop wrote: > You're stablishing for sure that it is not legal. > I pointed out that since the (apparent) judge had a judgment on the situation, it was apparently not legal. And since it wasn't legal, the judge was empowered to intervene, as a violation of play-to-win. That is, the judge thought the player had a reasonable chance at getting VPs - and it was pretty obvious to the player that it might happen. (Or it might not.) This is the sort of situation where the possibility of getting VPs is sufficiently obvious that a judge might well believe that the player is doing something nefarious, and not just being dumb. Either way, the judge's judgment might be wrong. But it's up to the judge's judgment. Until you hand out the psychic probes.

> Everything you have just said is incorrect. > > Only the judge can make these corrections, and they are not advice. They are corrections made by the judge. > Everything is a bit harsh word, don't you think? I don't agree with you. I really don't see where rules state that these corrections include handling property that is not your own. And there are common laws that forbid that. And law is above game rule. What I'm trying to say is - Judge cannot force someone to do anything in game of VtES. My point is that judge should try and solve problems verbally, not physically. Hence the famed "advice/order" term. > If you are, for some reason, trying to distinguish between the judge touching the glass bead and the player touching the glass bead, then are you going to crap yourself when another player taps the card for me because I have a drink in my hand? > Of course I don't mind other people touching my cards. I only say that this is a matter of politeness. In that polite manner, player or judge, asks owner of a card to handle it, and one is usually given permission. EDIT: Judge's judgement should be derived from both: current situation on the table, and participating players' statements. If a player explains his actions, there is no reason to thwart his play, even if it is essentially bad... Even in the situation Amenophobis described, judge should ask a selfousting player politely to explain his decision. Then, after explanation, judge should make a ruling if selfousting was a violation of a game rules. There is plenty of reasons for player D to exit the game. Some of them are bad play or misplay, and some of them are violation of play-to-win. If D failed to notice Dragonbound in play, it is his mistake, and judge should not rewind this bad play... Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

i completely agree with Megabaja. Any attempt from the judges side to "play the game" instead of a player I would consider extremely bad. Judge has to be impartial, he has to listen to all sides (in private, if need be), and he alone can make a ruling,. What he , i feel, must not do, is play the game instead of a player, in no way, shape or form...

So how does a judge enforce "play to win"? If a judge says a game decision is not "play to win", at the least he is forbidding that decision. Forbidding a decision is a lot like playing for a player. If there is only one decision that the judge considers "play to win", then that is exactly like playing for the player. I'm not sure where this issue of judges handling players' card came up. Players handle each others' cards all the time; it's basic cooperation. If someone is so touchy that they don't want anyone ever touching any of their cards, they probably will have a lot of problem with the stress of a tournament.

> Pendargon wrote: > Any attempt from the judges side to "play the game" instead of a player I would consider extremely bad. Judge has to be impartial, he has to listen to all sides (in private, if need be), and he alone can make a ruling,. > The judge does not attempt to play the game for players. The play to win rule is not about the judge playing the game for players. Nor is it about making the player play perfectly. If the judge's judgment is that the player is violating the play-to-win rule, the judge has to prevent or correct the illegal play. That is all. If there are literally only two things a player can do, this will mean the player must do the other thing. Please stop confusing "play to win" with "OH NOES TEH JUDGE IS GOING TO MAEK MEEEEE PLAEY TEH GAEMSZ HIZ WAAIIII!" It serves only to obfuscate the issue, because it is completely not what the play-to-win rule is about.

> Megabaja wrote: > What I'm trying to say is - Judge cannot force someone to do anything in game of VtES. My point is that judge should try and solve problems verbally, not physically. Hence the famed "advice/order" term. > Either the player follows it, or the player gets removed from the game / disqualified for repeatedly failing to follow the judge's ruling. This is, how you say, forcing the player to do something.

> Either the player follows it, or the player gets removed from the game / disqualified for repeatedly failing to follow the judge's ruling. This is, how you say, forcing the player to do something. > Judge is not forcing him, he gives him choice - to follow the ruling, or to be disqualified. I am saying, and stand by that fact, that judge cannot force anybody to do anything. In your example - someone can end up being disqualified by doing nothing at all. I am getting a feeling that you think that judge has some kind of power to enforce his rulings, while, in fact, his only power is a power of persuasion. A judge can persuade a player that he is correct. If he fails to do so, he can take further measures to ensure that tournament continues. Those further measures include that judge persuades rest of the participants that he is correct. If he fails to persuade other participants that he is correct, he should start thinking about quitting his career as arbiter. Judges ONLY tools are rules and tongue. Being an aggressive judge does not do any good to attendants of the tournament that judge is ruling over. Think of judge as a mediator, not as executioner. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > Think of judge as a mediator, not as executioner. > I think of the judge as the judge, and not some made-up crap you're trying to pull. The judge makes a judgment. The players follow it. It is not the judge's place to make the ruling that people will like most. It is not the judge's place to make the ruling that will annoy fewest people. It is not the judge's place to facilitate illegal play because the players like it that way. This is not about mediation. This is not about execution. This is about following the damn rules. If you want a game with a mediator, a counsellor and a talk-show host to interview players about how finding out their play was outlawed makes them feel, petition V:EKN for a rules change.

> Megabaja wrote: > I am getting a feeling that you think that judge has some kind of power to enforce his rulings, while, in fact, his only power is a power of persuasion. A judge can persuade a player that he is correct. If he fails to do so, he can take further measures to ensure that tournament continues. Those further measures include that judge persuades rest of the participants that he is correct. If he fails to persuade other participants that he is correct, he should start thinking about quitting his career as arbiter. Judges ONLY tools are rules and tongue. > ??? In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings? I think you're arguing just to argue, since what you are saying doesn't make any sense in the real world, because it doesn't happen like that at all. The judge makes a ruling, the ruling is followed. Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying? 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

This discussion seems moot. The judge may not be able to order a player to take action X - but the judge can reset the game state at any point. This includes the state as though action X was taken! Eg: J: i recommend you play strike card A. P: I refuse! And you can't make me! Nyah! J: You get a warning, and game state is reset. Strike card A has been played by P's minion. Current phase is: P2's turn to choose strikes. So, while a player may claim the "moral victory" of not having played the way the judge said, it makes no concrete difference. I'm not saying that the judge SHOULD act this way, but as I understand it, he/she has this capability.

> finbury wrote: > This discussion seems moot. The judge may not be able to order a player to take action X - but the judge can reset the game state at any point. This includes the state as though action X was taken! > > Eg: > J: i recommend you play strike card A. > P: I refuse! And you can't make me! Nyah! > J: You get a warning, and game state is reset. Strike card A has been played by P's minion. Current phase is: P2's turn to choose strikes. > > So, while a player may claim the "moral victory" of not having played the way the judge said, it makes no concrete difference. > > I'm not saying that the judge SHOULD act this way, but as I understand it, he/she has this capability. > Huh? Judges don't order people to play any cards, they simply oversee things to make see people follow the rules. Playing or not playing a specific strike (assuming the minion in question fills the requirements) is the players decision, whether it may be a bad play or not.

Like I said, I'm not saying the judge SHOULD do this.... The strike card thing is a pretty extreme example, and I can't honestly think of a scenario where preventing a play-to-win breach would require this level of interference, but the rules would appear to allow it. And, given that, any thought that a player might be able to self-oust even if a judge wanted them not to... just seems silly. "Reset game state" is the ultimate "oh no you didn't!"

> Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying? > Yes. I do. I've seen games ended by a bad judicial decision. I've seen players leaving the tournament after a bad judicial decision. I don't have to explain that these situations are bad for game and community... > In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings? > First of all, this game is not a sport. Second, in most sports, when judge makes questionable decision, it is argued with participants. In this argument, he persuades participants that his decision is correct, stating facts and his view of the situation. And sometimes decision is overruled by the very same judge after argument, if he is persuaded that he made a wrong decision or ruling. And third and most important, every sport is a game of gentlemen, hence the shaking of hands with opponent and judge. If you played any, you would have known. > The judge makes a judgment. The players follow it....This is about following the damn rules. > Or what? You are funny. I'd like to see how you (intend to) enforce game rules. Especially if two or more players from the table do not agree with your decision. Do you disqualify whole table, reset whole game, emo rage? What if they just leave, and ruin the game for others? You obviously did not have any interference with any form of authority in real life. Do you play with your mates or with some unknown people? Do you boss them around or you talk to them politely? You might be excellent rules lawyer, but you act like a poor judge. Most of all, you fail to understand that this game is not played with cards - it is played with people. Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer. And rules are not precise what exactly they are - rules only give judges rough guidelines how to recognise and handle them. Looks like some of you are abusing those guidelines... For example, where exactly did you read that a judge can play anything or take forward action whatsoever? > > This includes the state as though action X was taken! > Correction of Game State defines when a judge can rewind play, not when to forward it. Read the judges' guide section 200. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying? > > > Yes. I do. I've seen games ended by a bad judicial decision. I've seen players leaving the tournament after a bad judicial decision. I don't have to explain that these situations are bad for game and community... > In how many games does this happen? 1 in 100? 1 in 200? Someone is always going to believe that the decision is "bad", and I'm willing to have that "bad" decision in an overwhelmingly tiny percentage of games. No, that isn't bad for the game or community. > Megabaja wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings? > > > ...in most sports, when judge makes questionable decision, it is argued with participants. > In most sports? No, actually, it isn't. In baseball, football, basketball, hockey, auto racing, and every Olympic event that I can think of, when a judge raises an arm, a flag, or blows a whistle and makes a decision, it is made. There is no discussion between that judge and the players with the intent of the judge allowing a player's discussion to reverse the judgement. Aside from instant replay of some kind, the judge makes a decision, using the authority given to him by the rulebook, and the judgement is made, done, and applied. > Megabaja wrote: > In this argument, he persuades participants that his decision is correct, stating facts and his view of the situation. > Again, no. The judge doesn't persuade the players of anything. The judge makes a decision, using the authority given to him by the rulebook, and the judgement is made, done, and applied, with whatever explanation required by the rules, usually in the form of a short phrase and a number. > Megabaja wrote: > And sometimes decision is overruled by the very same judge after argument, if he is persuaded that he made a wrong decision or ruling. > No, judges don't overrule themselves (aside from instant replay) after they make a ruling. > Megabaja wrote: > And third and most important, every sport is a game of gentlemen, hence the shaking of hands with opponent and judge. If you played any, you would have known. > Ahhhh the ol' ad-hominem attack. The sign of a weak argument. > Megabaja wrote: > I'd like to see how you (intend to) enforce game rules. > I've never had a player begin a tournament, with me as the judge, who wasn't prepared to submit to my rulings. If this is a problem that you encounter then I'd suggest that you as a judge -- and those that you ask to stand as your judges -- examine your rulings or stand aside for judges whose decisions are appropriate and abided by. > Megabaja wrote: > Especially if two or more players from the table do not agree with your decision. Do you disqualify whole table, reset whole game, emo rage? What if they just leave, and ruin the game for others? You obviously did not have any interference with any form of authority in real life. Do you play with your mates or with some unknown people? Do you boss them around or you talk to them politely? > In 10+ years and over a hundred tournaments now, I've made exactly *two* decisions that two or more players didn't agree with, and in neither of those cases did anything so ridiculous as you describe take place. I made my decision, and the game continued in the fashion that I directed that it must. I'm beginning to think that either you and the players in your group have no respect for authority or the players that you put in the position of judge aren't the correct players to whom to give that authority. 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

> Megabaja wrote: > Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer. > Which is why we have judges if there is a disagreement regarding those Finnish Politics!

> Megabaja wrote: > > Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer. And rules are not precise what exactly they are - rules only give judges rough guidelines how to recognise and handle them. Looks like some of you are abusing those guidelines... For example, where exactly did you read that a judge can play anything or take forward action whatsoever? > > > > This includes the state as though action X was taken! > > > Correction of Game State defines when a judge can rewind play, not when to forward it. Read the judges' guide section 200. > Megabaja makes some good points here. EVen though there is a Judges' Guide on the VEKN site, it has not been updated since 2004. Robert Goudie, who wrote the Guide in 2004, has told me in personal conversation that judges now do some things differently than the way the Guide says to do them. Kevin Mergen, who has judged a lot of tournaments, has said that the Guide does not reflect the current way judges make rulings. My impression is that Pascal does not endorse the Judges' Guide. I have read posts, for instance, where he has solicited input from organizers about certain facets of judging as opposed to giving them a directive from the tournament rules or judges' guide. This all means that Megabaja is correct - there is no absolute way to handle any problem, and each person or judge handles a problem in their own way using the established guidelines as they see fit. (Please don't think I endorse this state of affairs - I'm just trying to describe it.)

I really don't understand why some people have difficulties understanding the basic concept of judges in VTES. In any VEKN sanctioned event, the appointed judge has the authority to make rulinges and issue warnings and diesqualifications if necessary. Players attend the events understanding that the judge has final authority. If a judge corrects illegal play, the players have to take that decision as it is. If players refuse to acknowledge decisions by the judge, they can either leave on their own or get a warning and even a disqualification for repeated infractions. The play to win rule is a tournament rule. If you attend a tournament you have to follow the rules. If you don't, the judge will correct misplay or wrong behaviour. A judge has to considcer all arguments and weigh them for his decision. But once he issued a judgement, only he himself can override it if necessary. I have judged 3 ECs and a lot of tournaments and leagues. I have never encountered problems with players refusing to accept a ruling. I guess that either some players have never attended a VEKN tournament, or are having dificulties understanding what a judge is supposed to do in a competitive game. Friendly games ususally don't need judges, but that is a completely different situation. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Amenophobis wrote: > I have a question regarding the play-to-win rule. > > Assume the following situation: > 5-player table. Tournament rules are in effect. > > Sequence is as follows: > A-B-C-D-F > We usually use "E", but OK for "F". > Amenophobis wrote: > F is already ousted by D (D has 1 VP). > There is still plenty of time on the clock. > A: intercept gun-combat > B: Matthias () intercept > C: Euro -combat/bleed > D: Osebo intercept combat > > A has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool > B has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool > C has 3 vampires ready, 12 pool > D has 3 vampires in torpor, 0 ready, 5 pool > > At the end of his turn, C plays Dragonbound. > > The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW. > A's only ready vampire has 0 blood, no gun. He controls Palatial Estate and Fetish Club Hunting Ground. If he manages to rescue 1 single vampire, he stays alive, otherwise he ousted (3 vampires in torpor and 3 pool left). > B has shown consistant ability to block actions regardless of stealth and has Miriam Benyona ready, tapped. > > The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn? > Does D have reasonable chances of getting an extra VP? It looks like. Is D aware of this? He probably is. Therefore, self-ousting would be against the PTW rule, since D can evaluate his reasonable chances of getting more than his current result. > Amenophobis wrote: > I would say no, as he has a reasonable chance to at least get another VP, and if Miriam blocks the rescue action of player A and gets torporized, D would get a 3rd VP and the GW. > > One could argue that player D would have to ask player B if he is going to block the rescue action. > However, during the whole game, C has taken a alot of -actions against B, which resulted in B having no chance at any VP. So it would be reasonable to assume that B would try to stop giving the GW to C > Ok. > > Amenophobis wrote: > (B is known to the other players as being a bit spiteful). > This is clearly in the "out of game considerations". > Amenophobis wrote: > Knowing no other details and not talking to player B, D would have a 50% chance of another VP - B's Miriam Benyona either blocks the rescue action of A or not. > Interesting "50%". Doesn't seem to take into account the fact that Miriam is tapped. Nor that B, unwilling to give the GW to C, and unable of getting more than 0 VP, might let A rescue / diablerize, and self-oust. > Amenophobis wrote: > If D self-ousts he seems to be clearly in violation of the play-to-win rule. Player C claims that judges could not force D to not self-oust. Is this true? > > Thank you for helping clearing up the situation. >

> No, that isn't bad for the game or community. > This is a selfish opinion. Try to make people learn to play vtes in non english speaking country where every player is a valuable asset, and I might take you serious. > ...I can think of, when a judge raises an arm, a flag, or blows a whistle and makes a decision, it is made... > As I previously explained - this game is not a sport. Sports do not recognise terms of "deal", "dealbreaking" and "play-to-win". I can elaborate further if needed. Also, I did not mean to be offensive when I said that you would have known of decision changes made by referee if you played sport. I meant - if you had experience in some sport you would have thought otherwise. Again, not that vtes is a sport, to beginb with. > I've never had a player begin a tournament, with me as the judge, who wasn't prepared to submit to my rulings. > ...and this is a root of your problem. You obviously never played with Italians. Or tournaments with many foreigners and people from different communities. Kevin, I will try to explain myself. I started discussion from a point that one cannot enforce "play-to-win" rule without a talk with the player that is suspected of rule breaking, to determine if his actions were bad play or malicious. Furthermore, as I stated, no rules give a judge right to touch in-game stuff. His interference is verbal. Above all, some of my remarks were personally pointed at jamesatzephyr. His tone on this forum is a bit offensive. He often posts comments that are his personal opinions wrapped up in rulings, and does not care to elaborate them much. Discussion went a bit astray when I tried to prove him that he cannot disregard other pepole's opinions is some subjects, specifically with "play-to-win". This rule can be applied very personal and can be bent as judge sees it fit. And many judges misunderstand the abovementioned rule, as I posted before. > Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment. > > It's simply about judging what is reasonable in the circumstances. > This is pure example of one-sided decision. > Sometimes, the judge will have to force a player to do something, > This is clearly not true, as judge cannot force anyone to do anything. He can eventually disqualify a player, and that is all. He can restore game to previous conditions, tho. > > I have the rules and multiple rulings to support my position. > Mixed with the above, this last sentence seals the casket. Guy's general behavior toward people is offensive at least, and when I read his answers to acbishop and Dorrinal, I begun discussion. I introduced situation with disobedient players just to prove that his arrogant behavior is not applicable in real events. When faced with fact that he cannot actually force someone to do anything in this hobby, he stopped posting. At last, I fundamentally do not agree with "play-to-win" rule since a player with enough verbal qualities can place enough arguments to unable judge interfering. Example in amenophobises game: D starts untap with two transfers, then asks if B would pull him out of torpor. B answers that by his turn D would be ousted from Dragonbound. D answers - darn! what an oversight, I'm ousted. And all a judge can do is to stand by in grief, cursing his not so clearly defined "play-to-win" rule. Or he can order player D, that "misplayed", to put his pool back, giving D two VP's. Keep in mind that a VtES judge does not have a right do decide if a player is lying or not. Ignorance is bliss. Cypher, Matrix

> Megabaja wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > No, that isn't bad for the game or community. > > > This is a selfish opinion. Try to make people learn to play vtes in non english speaking country where every player is a valuable asset, and I might take you serious. > The USA is experiencing *huge* problems with retaining the VTES player base right now. In my experience, Americans are much more fickle with their entertainment dollar than Europeans are. Continuing MMORPG development along with a malaise regarding the destruction of White Wolf has caused a drop in the player base over here. Language has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, why have the greatest concentrations of VTES players in the world for the modern era have been in Spain? > Megabaja wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > I've never had a player begin a tournament, with me as the judge, who wasn't prepared to submit to my rulings. > > > ...and this is a root of your problem. You obviously never played with Italians. Or tournaments with many foreigners and people from different communities. > It may be that there are socio-historical problems with Europeans from various countries trying to get along with one another, but I fail to see how that is a problem with 20 or 30 or 100 guys playing a CCG. The problem is that the players are acting like jerks. Every so often I hear these stories about a faraway land where players are allowed to act like jerks and get away with it. If player's aren't willing to submit to your authority as judge, DQ and eject them. Allowing bad behavior not only encourages more bad behavior, but makes them as human beings more willing to bully other human beings. > Megabaja wrote: > Kevin, I will try to explain myself. I started discussion from a point that one cannot enforce "play-to-win" rule without a talk with the player that is suspected of rule breaking, to determine if his actions were bad play or malicious. > This is what I do. I do not disagree with this. I believe this to be the best style in which to judge. But a judge doesn't *have* to do this. Different judges have different styles. (I will not comment on your disagreements about another poster. That's between you and him.) > Megabaja wrote: > At last, I fundamentally do not agree with "play-to-win" rule since a player with enough verbal qualities can place enough arguments to unable judge interfering. > A player's verbal discussion should not confuse a judge, otherwise that isn't a good judge. A judge in VTES shouldn't make a ruling until stepping over to the table, hearing the problem, and allowing everyone to say what THE JUDGE (not the players) needs to hear in order to make a ruling. When the ruling is made, players that are not jerks should accept the ruling and continue to play on. For players that are unwilling to do this, see my "DQ and ejected" comment, above. 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: > > > Megabaja wrote: > > > > > KevinM wrote: > > > No, that isn't bad for the game or community. > > > > > This is a selfish opinion. Try to make people learn to play vtes in non english speaking country where every player is a valuable asset, and I might take you serious. > > > The USA is experiencing *huge* problems with retaining the VTES player base right now. In my experience, Americans are much more fickle with their entertainment dollar than Europeans are. Continuing MMORPG development along with a malaise regarding the destruction of White Wolf has caused a drop in the player base over here. > > Language has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, why have the greatest concentrations of VTES players in the world for the modern era have been in Spain? > Don't forget Hungary and particularly Finland Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> KevinM wrote: > Language has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, why have the greatest concentrations of VTES players in the world for the modern era have been in Spain? > > > Megabaja wrote: > > > > > KevinM wrote: > > > I've never had a player begin a tournament, with me as the judge, who wasn't prepared to submit to my rulings. > > > > > ...and this is a root of your problem. You obviously never played with Italians. Or tournaments with many foreigners and people from different communities. > > > It may be that there are socio-historical problems with Europeans from various countries trying to get along with one another, but I fail to see how that is a problem with 20 or 30 or 100 guys playing a CCG. The problem is that the players are acting like jerks. Every so often I hear these stories about a faraway land where players are allowed to act like jerks and get away with it. > . > I think Megabaja was referring to Italians being quite passionate when they talk about the game with other Italians and the comment about multi-nationals is a comment on language as a barrier to verbal reasoning when judging rather than any "socio-historical " issue with them disliking each other based on culture/ethnicity/language. It can be difficult to judge events where you have to think in multiple languages and explain rulings/decisions to people whose first language isn't your own - that's why i'm glad that people like Pascal and Gines get tha job. I've never had any issues in the UK (where 50% of our regular players have English as a second language) but obviously our polayers use English everyday rather than jsut once a year at a big tournament in a faraway land.

> Squidalot wrote: > I think Megabaja was referring to Italians being quite passionate when they talk about the game with other Italians and the comment about multi-nationals is a comment on language as a barrier to verbal reasoning when judging rather than any "socio-historical " issue with them disliking each other based on culture/ethnicity/language. > Exactly

> Pendargon wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > I think Megabaja was referring to Italians being quite passionate when they talk about the game with other Italians and the comment about multi-nationals is a comment on language as a barrier to verbal reasoning when judging rather than any "socio-historical " issue with them disliking each other based on culture/ethnicity/language. > > > Exactly > I still fail to understand what makes Italian players different to any non-Italian player regarding following the rules of the tournament? I have judged enough games with Italian players participating, and everything went very smoothly: no needless arguing, accepting the ruling, etc. pckvtes.wordpress.com