spin-off topic: Is deal making inherent to mutiplayer games?

-- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to share this with everyone.) --- Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what I mean. First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the game, but it's not disallowed either. To me, this in turn means that it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down. I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which is the way I always play it) to name but a few. All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block my trade route" (Catan), "I'll counter that Terror if you promise to play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt, this is the way some people play those games. But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not in the game. When I want to play VTES, I want to use the *cards*. I want to use the strategies made possible by the *cards* and win because I am good with the *cards*. I like how lots of aspects of this particular game invlove dealing with multiple other players, I especially like how referendums work and the "eligible-to-block"-rules. However, I want the interaction-factor to be limited by what the *cards* can do. Meaning: I could spare a player by not damaging him with my KRC, but I'd have no idea if he'd return the favor. I would never discuss it, only give out a signal by doing something benevolent and hope for help later, which might prove to be a mistake. I could rescue my grandpredator's vampire from torpor hoping that that vampire will be used to block and kill my predator's vampire. But I won't offer to do it in return for a promise for help later on. I think the workings of a card like Bribes is in-game deal making (made possible by a card) which is fine. So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the "normal" way to play a game. If I wanted to do something in my spare time that involved lots of debate, I'd become a board member for some union. Instead, I spend my money on cards and my time on making decks, so I want to *play those cards*, not play only a few of them and let the rest of the game depend on how well I can talk. I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins? To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong position in the inevitable verbal power struggle. Having said all this, I want to point out I fully understand that things have evolved the way they have and this is the way lots of people like it. I totally see all the arguments why deal making can be allowed and not saying they're wrong. I just differ in opinion on the whole assumption that it *has* to be part of VTES. -Teeka, who would certainly get a time-wasting warning beacuse he can never explain himself in just a few words. :-)

Teeka wrote: > First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in > the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the > game, but it's not disallowed either. That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the game. Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec4.8 > To me, this in turn means that > it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in > all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down. > > I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like > Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which > is the way I always play it) to name but a few. > All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal > making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block > my trade route" (Catan), "I'll counter that Terror if you promise to > play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt, > this is the way some people play those games. > But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need > to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something > additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we > want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really > occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not > in the game. Just because deal-making isn't mandatory doesn't mean it isn't a part. If you and your friends never feel the need to use bleed bounce, that doesn't mean bleed bounce isn't part of the game *as it is*. > I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and > strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else > that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of > cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as > important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins? Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed the cards under that framework. The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that. > Having said all this, I want to point out I fully understand that > things have evolved the way they have and this is the way lots of > people like it. I totally see all the arguments why deal making can be > allowed and not saying they're wrong. I just differ in opinion on the > whole assumption that it *has* to be part of VTES. It doesn't have to be, of course, as evidenced by the Silence of Death format. It just happens that V:TES was designed with it as a part. (And note that the evolution direction is the other way -- V:TES started with deal-making included and the Silence of Death format was created later).

On Jun 21, 11:57 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." Clearly, I pretty much agree with you. As a multi player game, a certain level of negotiation is unavoidable, really. But how much of that happens is dependant on the whim and desire of the players. When it becomes a problem is when the whim of some players to negotiate starts to infringe on the whim of other players to play the part of the game that is not involiving negotiating. As noted, the rules for VTES in no way recognize dealmaking and negotiating. The tournament rules do, but primarily in reference to *limiting* dealmaking and negotiating, rather than mandating or encouraging them. Some folks *really* like deal making/bargaining/negotiating in their games of VTES. Which is fine. Until it makes it hard for other people who do not have the same wishes to play the game that they want to play. Granted, there are a lot of situations where what player A thinks is fun is going to infringe on what player B thinks is fun, for example: - Player B likes 4CL and player A does not. - Player A likes rush combat and Player B hates having his vampires beat up. - Player A likes arbitrarily back ousting and ignoring his own victory conditions, and Player B thinks this is stupid. But because this is a game, in instances where players like different things, what is actually supported by the rules wins out. At least in my mind. In the first example, yeah, player B like 4CL, but the rules support Player A, so player B has to suck it up or do something else. In the second example, getting yor vampires beat up is a large part of the game by design, so player B has to suck it up, adapt, or do something else. In the third example, Player B is supported by the tournament rules that arbitrarily back ousting is stupid, as it is not playing to win, and if you are playing in competition, you are required to try and win. Dealmaking and negotiation are *not* however, supported by the rules of the game--the rule book does not even mention dealmaking and negotiation, as far as I can tell. So while due to this being a multi player game, yeah, a certain level of negotiation is a likely result, it needs to be contained within reason, lest folks not involved in the negotiation session get shortchanged, in terms of their ability to play the game they want to play. If everyone at the table is having a good time negotiating and dealmaking, great. They are having fun. More power to them. But if three people are spending a significant portion of time wheeling and dealing, leaving the other two to sit and do nothing as the clock ticks away, and those two object to this expenditure of time, they are in their rights (at least in my head) to have a judge put an end to it. > I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and > strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else > that's designed (parts of) VTES. As far as I recall from reading Garfield's design note on the game, he seemed to specifically *want* to design a multi player game where the impact of negotiation was limited (see: predator/prey dynamic; inherrent political rules). The current tournament rules also seem specifically designed to attempt to limit the impact of negotiation (see: PTW; Game Win rule; deals are void in end game). -Peter

Teeka wrote: > > When I want to play VTES, I want to use the *cards*. I want to use the > strategies made possible by the *cards* and win because I am good with > the *cards*. I like how lots of aspects of this particular game > invlove dealing with multiple other players, I especially like how > referendums work and the "eligible-to-block"-rules. > However, I want the interaction-factor to be limited by what the > *cards* can do. Meaning: I could spare a player by not damaging him > with my KRC, but I'd have no idea if he'd return the favor. I would > never discuss it, only give out a signal by doing something benevolent > and hope for help later, which might prove to be a mistake. I could > rescue my grandpredator's vampire from torpor hoping that that vampire > will be used to block and kill my predator's vampire. But I won't > offer to do it in return for a promise for help later on. I think the > workings of a card like Bribes is in-game deal making (made possible > by a card) which is fine. > > I like that playstyle - Too bad your playgroup is in Europe... best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Teeka wrote: > -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding > to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to > share this with everyone.) --- > > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." > > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, > of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what > I mean. > > I forgot to add a point - From what I understand, multi-player poker has no deal making. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 21, 1:00 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Teeka wrote: > > -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding > > to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to > > share this with everyone.) --- > > > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion > > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." > > > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would > > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, > > of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what > > I mean. > > I forgot to add a point - > > From what I understand, multi-player poker has no deal making. As I understand it, that is not usually true in tournaments. It is fairly common for poker tournaments to end with a few finalists agreeing to divide up the remaining prize pool among them. This is at least true in online tournaments and some live tournaments; I think it may *not* be allowed in most televised tournaments, though. (Since tournaments sponsored by a televising network have a stake in being able to televise the final action...) For what it's worth. I'm not sure if it has much relevance to VTES deal making or not. :-) Josh not a poker shark

On Jun 21, 11:57 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding > to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to > share this with everyone.) --- > > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." > > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, > of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what > I mean. Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to all multiplayer games. But table talk is. It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. Dealmaking is also profitable in many multiplayer games, though the rules structure of some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others. Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done." Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth- bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES. > So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without > seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the > "normal" way to play a game. Yeah... but for this to be "really" the case, you would have to get the tournament rules (if not the rulebook itself) to prohibit table- talk and dealmaking. > I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and > strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else > that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of > cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as > important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins? > To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a > second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong > position in the inevitable verbal power struggle. Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able to participate in the negotiation part of the game. Josh talking about vtes as it is, but not in this case as we might wish it to be

[ quoted text not captured ] A number of the big tournaments disallow it. Several more disallow talk of deals at the table - one fairly notable tournament this year ended with the last two players literally walking away from the table to make their deal arrangement, then back to playing things out per their agreement. And even with that limitation, yeah, a lot of poker tournaments have deals, both in terms of how (many) pros swap 'pieces' of each other before the tournament starts (i.e. 'we'll give each other 5% of our earnings when we're done' or 'I'll pay half your entry fee and you give me a quarter of your winnings') and in terms of deals made when it's down to the last few players. There's been a little mini-controversy at the WSOP this year, as one prominent player offered a deal to another player, asked a tourney director if doing so was okay and got approval, only to later find out the director was ignorant of the actual rules - the player's response has basically been that many, many people had such deals, and always did, but that he was getting scolded for actually asking permission and making his arrangement public. > For what it's worth. I'm not sure if it has much relevance to VTES > deal making or not. :-) > > Josh -John Flournoy

Deal is a part of VTES. And after playing VTES I have to admit that I have intruduce deal into all the other game I'm playing... and it's fun.

In article <1182461959.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Deal is a part of VTES. The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1182461959.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Deal is a part of VTES. > > The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea. True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not part of VTES. Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals).

On 21 jun, 23:47, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182461959.523265.201...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Olivier_PEREZ <olivier.eni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Deal is a part of VTES. > > The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea. Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything. By the way, why are you channeling Andrew S. Davidson ;-) He made this exact argument years ago. I hope I haven't summoned him now....

On 21 jun, 18:44, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Teeka wrote: > > First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in > > the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the > > game, but it's not disallowed either. > > That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that > still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the > game. > Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do with them, or add to them later. The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game* as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of people*, which is something different. If the majority of players decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself. > Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules. I know. But just the tournament rules. Not the actual rulebook (still two different things, right?). And lots of those VEKN rules exist because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained. Not the other way around. If people would stick to doing things that are made possible by the rules and card texts and nothing else, many of the VEKN rules would not be necessary but the game could still be played perfectly fine. > Just because deal-making isn't mandatory doesn't mean it isn't a part. > > If you and your friends never feel the need to use bleed bounce, that doesn't > mean bleed bounce isn't part of the game *as it is*. > Dare I say it?.... ....yes I do. That analogy is flawed. ;-) Bleed bounce IS an inherent part of the game, because it is made possible by the text on certain cards. Deal-making through table talk is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is added by people. It's not a matter of what I personally would like, or feel the need to use, at all, that's my whole point. > Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed > the cards under that framework. > > The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that. > I'd say the text of SC indicates that he intended for *certain* deals to be possible only through use of a specific card, which I say is fine. Golden rule, cards overrule the rulebook. Plus, designing a card that makes something possible would, I think, prove that he intended that something to not be possible otherwise. Why else design SC? I mean, if he intended or expected all VTES players to speak in rhyme, there'd be no Madness Ot Bard either. He didn't, so he made a card that made it mandatory. Dumb card, I know, but you get the point.

On 21 jun, 17:57, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding > to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to > share this with everyone.) --- > > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." > > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, > of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what > I mean. > > First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in > the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the > game, but it's not disallowed either. To me, this in turn means that > it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in > all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down. > > I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like > Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which > is the way I always play it) to name but a few. What? No deals in Risk? huh? That was the original dealmaking multiplayer game for me when I was 12. > All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal > making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block > my trade route" (Catan), *insert "wood for sheep" joke here* >"I'll counter that Terror if you promise to > play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt, > this is the way some people play those games. > But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need > to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something > additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we > want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really > occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not > in the game. Strange: I'd say: 'if it isn't forbidden, its legal'

[ quoted text not captured ] Oooooooooooh, does this mean Succubus club is gonna be needed to make deals? SWEEEEEEEEET!!! Joke. Really.

Teeka wrote: > Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to > say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do > with them, or add to them later. That would make it unusable for its primary purpose: as a tool to learn how to play the game. > The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game* > as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table > talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to > or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but > an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of > people*, which is something different. If the majority of players > decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that > would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless > there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself. Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut" and "deal-making" as those terms apply to games. >> Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules. > > I know. But just the tournament rules. Not the actual rulebook (still > two different things, right?). And lots of those VEKN rules exist > because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't > covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained. What things? Time limits, perhaps. And multi-round structure. Modified construction rules (banned list, 60-90 library limit). Most of the stuff that isn't part of "how to run a tournament" part is just a formalization of things that are otherwise assumed, like sportsmanship. > Deal-making through table talk > is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is > added by people. It isn't added. It's already there. It's part of the assumed environment. As it is for most multi-player games. >> Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed >> the cards under that framework. >> >> The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that. > > I'd say the text of SC indicates that he intended for *certain* deals > to be possible only through use of a specific card, which I say is > fine. Golden rule, cards overrule the rulebook. Plus, designing a card > that makes something possible would, I think, prove that he intended > that something to not be possible otherwise. Why else design SC? I > mean, if he intended or expected all VTES players to speak in rhyme, > there'd be no Madness Ot Bard either. He didn't, so he made a card > that made it mandatory. Dumb card, I know, but you get the point. SC doesn't add deals. It adds trade ability. And, because it had added some game-enforced deals, it had to, a a reminder, indicate that the other deals (which existed even without SC) are not now enforced by SC's existence.

On 21 jun, 22:38, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to > all multiplayer games. ok. please excuse me for misquoting you. > > It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer > game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in many sessions of many different games with many different people through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because there's no rule allowing it? ...Phew. 0:30 am, a few beers down my throat and I'm getting philosofical... anyway... Dealmaking is also > profitable in many multiplayer games, of course (it's the whole point of doing it). But so is keeping your opponents awake the night before the game. Nothing in the rules about that either. though the rules structure of > some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others. > Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which > is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer > or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done." > I'd say anything that adds something to the game should be done by agreement. There's should have to be an agreement to not play the game as is. "How it is done" is, by my standards, defined by the rulebook. But I think I'm starting to talk in circles now. > Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than > the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth- > bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES. > Which is totally different. 4CL breaks the rules, because the rulebook specifically says there's no card limit. Not being allowed to play stealth-bleed breaks the rules, because the sulebook says you can use any combination of cards you want (barring the grouping rule). Deal making does not relate to the rules at all, neither following nor breaking them. People willfully add it to the game *as played*. > > To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a > > second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong > > position in the inevitable verbal power struggle. > > Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to > succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able > to participate in the negotiation part of the game. > I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence the ref. Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily for how some/many others decide to play it.

On Jun 22, 10:14 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 jun, 18:44, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that > > still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the > > game. > > Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to > say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do > with them, or add to them later. Sorry but that's crazy talk. The rulebook would be thousands of pages long to cover all there is to say about the game... Like I don't like people starting on VP deals on turn 1 or anything, or excessive whining to try and get out of a hole, but helping out cross table allies with a rescue or whatever in return for something surely occurs in every play group everywhere. Which is pretty much a deal right, and you know, not like a big issue or anything. Simon

On 22 jun, 00:28, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Teeka wrote: > > Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to > > say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do > > with them, or add to them later. > > That would make it unusable for its primary purpose: as a tool to learn how to > play the game. > I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain. > Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut" and > "deal-making" as those terms apply to games. > Hand and Cut are game terms. So of course it's assumed we know what they are. And of course I know what deal making is. I just don't think it needs to go without saying that it's there as part of a game. > And lots of those VEKN rules exist > > because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't > > covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained. > > What things? Table talk, cheating, time wasting, use of proxies.. > > Deal-making through table talk > > is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is > > added by people. > > It isn't added. It's already there. It's part of the assumed environment. As it > is for most multi-player games. > There we are, back at the start. I say it's wrong to assume this to be true. That's why I started this thread apart from the other discussion, see my first post.

LSJ wrote: > Teeka wrote: > >> The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game* >> as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table >> talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to >> or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but >> an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of >> people*, which is something different. If the majority of players >> decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that >> would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless >> there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself. > > Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut" > and "deal-making" as those terms apply to games. > "Hand", "Cut", and "Deal-making" are rules that apply in many games, but not all games. In games that require or allow them, they are specified. Simple example: You don't have a Hand in Rat-a-Tat Cat, but you do play with cards. The rules don't mention a "Hand", why would you assume to play with one? You don't make that assumption, since it's not in the rules. I say same with deal-making in VTES. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] In VTES, if all players but one agree to concede, the game ends, with the last player being the winner. In addition, if ALL players agree to end the game, the game ends. And in the finals of a tournament, it is legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and end this game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win." And everyone can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is split. best- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that > this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly > prohibit deals). AHA! When can we see it on the Web site? best - [ quoted text not captured ]

Teeka wrote: > On 22 jun, 00:24, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal >>> making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block >>> my trade route" (Catan), >> *insert "wood for sheep" joke here* >> > > heh. boy I love Catan, it's brilliant. Man, everyone in the world makes those jokes, I agree - brilliant. We used to simply call Catan "Sheep and Wood". Still do I guess, just don't play it with the frequency we used. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1182463985.1...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything. They also don't explicitly say that you can't attempt to gain advantage over your opponent by making high pitched squealing noises whenever they are trying to take an action. > By the way, why are you channeling Andrew S. Davidson ;-) He made this > exact argument years ago. Indeed he did. And he was right. > I hope I haven't summoned him now.... Now that is just asking for trouble. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the > lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not > part of VTES. Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES indication that it is part of the game where the lack of explicit text disallowing countless other things (such as playing only in semiphore or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that they are part of the game? > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is > assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals). So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run. That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is "in earnest", to be troubling. If it is ok for two players to spend as much time as they want, provided that they are dealing in earnest, regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the table, why isn't it ok for a single player to spend as much time as he wants working out all the possibilities of all of his possiblt moves in his head, regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the table? If my opponents can spend half an hour talking up a deal, I want to spend half an hour figuring out what I want to do with my turn. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the >> lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not >> part of VTES. > > Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES > indication that it is part of the game Because deal making is the default. >> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is >> assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals). > > So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making > and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save > everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run. Save a few people some trouble, perhaps. Most people seem to get it right already (understanding the default). > That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend > an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is > "in earnest", to be troubling. Then stop taking it to absurdity. Reflect on it as "allowing players to play the game". Then it shouldn't trouble you.

On Jun 21, 3:39 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer > game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. > why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in > many sessions of many different games with many different people > through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you > look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule > saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because > there's no rule allowing it? > You have never rescued a vampire from torpor cross table? You have never played a vote deck? You have never played a rush combat deck? You have never played an eagles sight to block a crosstable action? Vegas gNat

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:17:40 -0000, tigernat1 <tige...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Cross table player has his star reaction untap vampire in torpor, and is going to die on his pred's next turn? Vote deck on a table with no intrinsic votes, or so much transient vote that they'll always pass? Rush combat decks going cross table to reduce imminent/future threats? Crosstable Eagle's Sight to stop a player being ousted and changing the dynamics too much? None of these REQUIRE table talk. Most are helped by it, and can be used to get favours, but I've done a lot of crosstable interactions in the past, solely because of how it'll influence MY game, and my chance for the Game Win. Sometimes you need to kill a cross-table player, or keep alive your predator or prey, to do it. But as often as not, it's done without lengthy negotiation, or the requirement of a specific favour. Morgan Vening

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote > (such as playing only in semiphore > or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that > they are part of the game? I like that playstyle - Too bad your playgroup is in Europe...

In message <1182465816.0...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: >On 22 jun, 00:24, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Strange: I'd say: 'if it isn't forbidden, its legal' > >so throwing chairs is legal? In your own games, do what you want. In any game using sanctioned tournament rules, however, you'll have trouble, as it would clearly fall under Unsportsmanlike Conduct, and way beyond the level of Severe. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On 22 jun, 02:08, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182463985.145592.298...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything. > > They also don't explicitly say that you can't attempt to gain advantage > over your opponent by making high pitched squealing noises whenever they > are trying to take an action. If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead. You can't do it at a tournement, though. Another example: except when playing for ante, the rules don't say anything about playing for a stake of some kind. Does that mean you can't play V:TES for money? Or to determine who goes to the local night shop to get drinks and snacks?

librarian wrote: <snip> > And in the finals of a tournament, > it is legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and > end this game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win." > And everyone can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is > split. Not to my understand - unless you're in a total losing position (and it's unlikely that ALL the table but one will be in a total losing position at a given point, early or mid-game) you have still to win the round or to try maximize your points - what you say it's against the play to win rule, IMHO. Emiliano

Joshua Duffin wrote: > On Jun 21, 11:57 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really >> adding to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did >> want to share this with everyone.) --- >> >> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion >> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to >> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." >> >> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would >> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, >> of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what >> I mean. > > Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to > all multiplayer games. But table talk is. > It depends at which level of "talk"you're referring to, however. A it stands, the SoD format (table talk reduced to the essential of annoucing the play of cards/effects) is perfeclty playable and, indeed, has been played as side event several time within major events, such as continental championships. You don't really need all that table talk to play vtes - it's just lot of players that simply got used to the ways of continous table talk with deals around, after years and years of stratified defininitions here about what is doable trough a deal, when it has to be considered legal or not, and so on. All of this can give an unique level of game play, sure, but sure to play the multi-players-ccg-game maybe this has gone a bit far Given the big power of deals on the game, you can consider to put table-talk (deals-oriented) instead of 20-30 cards in the deck, at this point. > It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer > game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. Dealmaking is also > profitable in many multiplayer games, though the rules structure of > some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others. > Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which > is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer > or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done." > > Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than > the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth- > bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES. > >> So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without >> seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the >> "normal" way to play a game. This is not the real state of things with the tournament game, however. Lot of people *deals* a lot, and that's normal too, because it's allowed by the official rules. best Emiliano

LSJ wrote: <snip> > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that > this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly > prohibit deals). That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would like to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ? You can't sell deal abilty to customers - unless do you want to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in which everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental effect, because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ? Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the game should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of the existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game. just my 2 cents Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Players are free to deal, sure - but the game in itself does not necessarily involve deals, however. By your argument, then it seems me that we should change tournament rules accordingly, making deals as *significant part of the game* to be considered by a judge in telling which are the reasonable chanches to "win" of a given player in a given situation. Emiliano

On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > <snip> > > > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that > > this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly > > prohibit deals). > > That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would > like > to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ? > You can't sell deal abilty to customers Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ- leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it. Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going on in the game. - unless do you want > to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in > which > everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal > would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. > This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making > it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental > effect, > because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ? Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG. > Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the > game > should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of > the > existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game. They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there. And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance of dealing. - Game Win rule - Play to win rule - .5 VP for withdrawing - voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game. What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it. It they weren't they would have been no need for the rule that says that you always get a VP when your prey is ousted, no matter who does it. *well; I once suggested a split of the 1 VP for being left standing. Meaning a time-out would net you .20VP; .25VP; .33VP or .5VP depending on how many players are left at the end.

In message <1182441454....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: >I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like >Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which >is the way I always play it) to name but a few. >All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal >making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block >my trade route" (Catan), "I'll counter that Terror if you promise to >play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt, >this is the way some people play those games. >But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need >to make deals. Lots of people do, in all sorts of such games. It very much depends on who you play with. Some people have a culture, spoken or unspoken, of "fight the good fight" and will only try to win under their own steam. Others will co-operate to get wins. Others will wheel and deal and scheme and plot in order to pull a win out of their ass when everything looked awful. Those in different categories will regard other people in other categories in different ways - someone who uses whatever legal tactics they can to win will often regard someone who refuses to backstab or deal extensively as honourable but easy to manipulate or predict, or whatever. What can make a significant difference, however, is the structure of the game. 1) Is there any prize of any worth, or are we playing for pride/fun/something fairly trivial? 2) Is there a defined, or easily derived, second place? As others have pointed out, poker can get many, many deals - because you have a huge pot of money to split. If you're only ever playing for fun, or the prize is that you get the extra slice of pizza, it's going to be much harder to split things with people. OF course, if you play sometimes for fun but sometimes for a huge prize, the fun games may become more competitive as people practise. However, you can also find games pan out quite differently if someone can take a second place - particularly if that means something, like qualifying for a spot on the final table. If the *only* thing that mattered in V:TES was getting Table Wins, you'd see a hell of a lot less VP dealing. (This would also cause many problems in smaller tournaments, where you wouldn't get enough players for the final, and have a number of other unpleasant side effects.) It doesn't matter to me if you get a 3-2 split or a 5-0 split, if I'm the one on the losing end. The 2VP don't count for anything, except possibly pride. Whereas if I'm in a position where those 2VP are valuable to me (higher rank, final table seat, qualifying for a continental championship), I will want them. Were you to want to minimize deal-making in V:TES, you would probably need to find some method of: - incentivising TW over VP, even more than now - making a sweep significantly better than a 3-2 split (say, a sweep counted for 2 table wins, so I'm less likely to make rollover deals or withdraw deals) - maintaining a way of tie-breaking, so that the small 10 player tournament with two tables where only 2 different players get Game Wins, but try to minimize the reward (this is very, very, very hard - some players just will play for that tie-breaker, almost no matter what you do, unless there's a random choice of tie-breakers, and that would suck a bit) - potentially, making timeouts a problem for all players on the table, so that speedy play is encouraged (say, all players get -0.5VP, not +0.5VP) and lengthy table talk discouraged, without actually preventing it where necessary - tying this all together so that players can't game the system ("hey, if we timeout, Billy Bob will lose the 0.5VP that would keep him on the final table..."), at least in any egregiously distasteful fashion - possibly, trying to prevent "spoilers" or sort of king-making - players whose only incentive is to disrupt the table in such a way as to prevent the winner getting the extra benefits (e.g. in my sweep = 2TW example, you might prevent a sweep by letting yourself be ousted, because it makes no difference to you who ousts you, and you're feeling mean). Note that none of this is easy. Also the example tweaks, such as making a sweep worth 2TW, are just random examples off the top of my head (having seen similar-ish things suggested in the past, though), rather than serious, considered suggestions. Note that even then, you could easily see table splits on the final table at a tournament with a decent prize, where I offer you half of the box of boosters for your help. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <SJLei.18293$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would >like >to play not necessarily with deals What's your point? No game attracts everyone. All games make choices. >- is vtes still a CCG or not ? Duh. >You can't sell deal abilty to customers Nor can you sell deck construction skills to customers. Nor can you sell ability to read a table to customers. Nor can you sell strategical thinking to customers. Nor can you sell weighing up the odds of success to customers. Nor can you sell reading a poker face to customers. All of these are part of V:TES. None can be sold to customers. Excuse me while I weep. >- unless do you want >to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in >which >everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal >would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. This is a strawman. First, hello, it's a CCG. The business model doesn't work like that. Second, no two players playing the same deck ever play it in the same way - some players are better than others, some players are better with specific decks than others (some aren't good at combat, say, whereas others are just great with it). Skill at playing the non-deal-making part of the game is no small part of actually winning. Note also that in an environment where you find that deals are causing you too much trouble, you may find that learning to spoil deals effectively is in your interests, and will work in your favour. This does not have to be dealing with other people. It can be removing a player from the table who, otherwise, you would have left alone. Judge comes over and examines playing to win: "Well, if I leave him on the table, the two of them are going to oust me. That can be playing to win. In the situation I'm in, I'm choosing to remove him, because I can choose how I die, so I chose this way. And if it stops me dying, that's good for me too." This isn't very hard, but is overlooked too often. Players do not make deals out of diamond. They can be affected. Their deals can be affected, nullified, or simply quashed. Maybe you wouldn't normally cross-table rush and dunk Anneke in a situation like this, but now that Anneke has offered her support to help your predator oust you (passing his KRCs, burning you in bloodhunts, blocking you now and then, whatever), you cross-table rush her and dunk her. Or you Kindred Spirits bleed her. Or she gets Pentex Subversion, not your prey. Disrupt the deals. Threaten to disrupt them when they're being made. "Look, all I'm saying is that if you make that deal, I need to get you off the table, so I will. I'm not going to make any deals with your predator. I'm not going to make any deals with you. I'm just going to pile in on you to stop myself dying, because if I let the two of you co- operate, I'm dead anyway." That takes approximately 15 seconds of time, and you don't have to enter into any further negotiation. >This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making >it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental >effect, No, it's not a mandatory part of the game. Players that don't want to make deals don't have to. Play groups with large numbers of players who don't want to make deals won't make many deals. White Wolf will not send the deal police round and make you make more deals. Because you don't have to. Nor do you have to play bleed bounce, but it might be advantageous to you. Or not. >Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the >game >should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of >the >existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game. They're not being imposed. They're allowed. If players want to use them, they can, but they are no more imposed than players choosing to play decks that bleed for 13 is being imposed. It's a choice. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: > On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that >>> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly >>> prohibit deals). >> >> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that >> would like >> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ? >> You can't sell deal abilty to customers > > Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ- > leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it. > Nope - you get it independlty by the fact that you want to do it or not - you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want to deal, a third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that deal, you witness the scene waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario. > Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going > on in the game. Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind of existing deal. > - unless do you want >> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, >> in which >> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal >> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. >> This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, >> making >> it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental >> effect, >> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ? > > Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG. > Sure. >> Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her >> product, the game >> should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the >> number of the >> existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game. > > They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there. > And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance > of dealing. > - Game Win rule > - Play to win rule > - .5 VP for withdrawing > - voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game. > Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in impacting the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the best of each involved player necessarily usually takes lot of time. This can lead to problem, above all with new players. > What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes > it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it. Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the deal system as a fundamental part of the game will result with further people going away from the game, and few new players coming in. A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should take now in consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled, beginnes players. Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals seems me the best option available. Emiliano

On 22 jun, 11:11, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen wrote: > > On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that > >>> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly > >>> prohibit deals). > > >> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that > >> would like > >> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ? > >> You can't sell deal abilty to customers > > > Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ- > > leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it. > > Nope - you get it independlty by the fact that you want to do it or not - > you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want to deal, a > third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that deal, you witness the > scene > waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario. So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal, you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa. Honestly, though, if you don't like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game. > > > Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going > > on in the game. > > Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind > of existing deal. True, but so what? A table split deal still needs to be played out. With the cards. Meaning succes is not guaranteed. IME, deals are only a problem is people never break 'm. > > > - unless do you want > >> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, > >> in which > >> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal > >> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. > >> This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, > >> making > >> it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental > >> effect, > >> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ? > > > Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG. > > Sure. Meaning, just like in other multiplayer games were you can affect each other's positions: deals will and can be made. > > >> Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her > >> product, the game > >> should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the > >> number of the > >> existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game. > > > They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there. > > And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance > > of dealing. > > - Game Win rule > > - Play to win rule > > - .5 VP for withdrawing > > - voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game. > > Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in impacting > the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the best of each > involved > player necessarily usually takes lot of time. > This can lead to problem, above all with new players. Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I won't attack you. Or something like that. > > > What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes > > it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it. > > Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the deal system > as a > fundamental part of the game will result with further people going away > from > the game, and few new players coming in. No. you can't expect people to play a game that is not the right game for them. If they leave because of that, they are not really V:TES material. (Not tournement material anyway. I don't remember making VP deals in non-tournement games) Unless VP dealing is overly rampant in Italy. I have seen it reduced over the last couple of years. Not table talking, but Table-deals. > A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should take now > in > consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled, beginnes > players. > Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals seems > me the > best option available. Learning people to play a game, by learning them not to play that game? strange.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <SJLei.18293$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that >> would like >> to play not necessarily with deals > > What's your point? > > No game attracts everyone. All games make choices. > > >> - is vtes still a CCG or not ? > > Duh. > > >> You can't sell deal abilty to customers > > Nor can you sell deck construction skills to customers. Nor can you > sell ability to read a table to customers. Nor can you sell > strategical thinking to customers. Nor can you sell weighing up the > odds of success to customers. Nor can you sell reading a poker face > to customers. Poker isnt' ccg, sorry. Deck construction, reading the table of a multiplayer ccg, strategical thinking are all things implied, i think, when you buy the cards for a multiplayer ccg - Social abilty for deal-making isn't implied, however, because, as you say, it's (or should be) a choiche. Abilty at social interaction depends too much on the mood and disposition of the single player, to be counsidered as a fundamental part of the game. So, as peter bakjia points out, if these are the premises then it would be better to see the deal system officialized in the rulebook and clearly evident in the game description. This would cut all of the discussion here, i think. > > All of these are part of V:TES. None can be sold to customers. > Excuse me while I weep. No need, really. > >> - unless do you want >> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, >> in which >> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal >> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory. > > This is a strawman. > > First, hello, it's a CCG. The business model doesn't work like that. > Second, no two players playing the same deck ever play it in the same > way - As per magic, or pokemon and the like, sure >some players are better than others, some players are better > with specific decks than others (some aren't good at combat, say, > whereas others are just great with it). Skill at playing the > non-deal-making part of the game is no small part of actually winning. > Indeed - there's a reason, in fact, why the discussion is also about the time taken by a skilled player for playing the cards versus the time taken by a skilled player for table talk in the dealing process. > > > Note also that in an environment where you find that deals are causing > you too much trouble, you may find that learning to spoil deals > effectively is in your interests, and will work in your favour. This > does not have to be dealing with other people. It can be removing a > player from the table who, otherwise, you would have left alone. Yes , but in fact i'm not saying that cross table actions are possible only trough the deals or table talk. That's another matter. > Judge comes over and examines playing to win: > "Well, if I leave him > on the table, the two of them are going to oust me. That can be > playing to win. In the situation I'm in, I'm choosing to remove him, > because I can choose how I die, so I chose this way. And if it stops > me dying, that's good for me too." > > This isn't very hard, but is overlooked too often. Players do not > make deals out of diamond. They can be affected. Their deals can be > affected, nullified, or simply quashed. Maybe you wouldn't normally > cross-table rush and dunk Anneke in a situation like this, but now > that Anneke has offered her support to help your predator oust you > (passing his KRCs, burning you in bloodhunts, blocking you now and > then, whatever), you cross-table rush her and dunk her. Or you > Kindred Spirits bleed her. Or she gets Pentex Subversion, not your > prey. > > Disrupt the deals. Threaten to disrupt them when they're being made. > "Look, all I'm saying is that if you make that deal, I need to get you > off the table, so I will. I'm not going to make any deals with your > predator. I'm not going to make any deals with you. I'm just going > to pile in on you to stop myself dying, because if I let the two of > you co- operate, I'm dead anyway." That takes approximately 15 > seconds of time, and you don't have to enter into any further > negotiation. Honeslty, i never seen such kind of "threatening" to end up in 15 seconds of table talk, in 14 years that i play the game. <snip> > They're not being imposed. They're allowed. If players want to use > them, they can, but they are no more imposed than players choosing to > play decks that bleed for 13 is being imposed. > > It's a choice. Yes it is - But you're forced to counter-deal or counter-argue in front of a deal, usually. Even if you don't want to do that.

Jeroen wrote: > On 22 jun, 11:11, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >> Jeroen wrote: >>> On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >> >>>> <snip> >> >>>>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact >>>>> that this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't >>>>> explicitly prohibit deals). >> >>>> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players >>>> that would like >>>> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ? >>>> You can't sell deal abilty to customers >> >>> Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ- >>> leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it. >> >> Nope - you get it independlty by the fact that you want to do it or >> not - you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want >> to deal, a third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that >> deal, you witness the scene >> waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario. > > So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal, > you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not > dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa. Honestly, though, if you don't > like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game. > We're not speaking, clearly, of a "minimum" oif table talk. The predominancy and importance of table talk for setting up a good deal between 2/3 players usually consumes a notable amount of time, and pisses off all those that don't want to deal and that, eventually, find themselves in the condition of *having to* (counter) deal to keep their chanche of winning/maimizing the game. >> >>> Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's >>> going on in the game. >> >> Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind >> of existing deal. > > True, but so what? A table split deal still needs to be played out. > With the cards. Meaning succes is not guaranteed. IME, deals are only > a problem is people never break 'm. Don't know - but i think you know that you can perfeclty keep your word on the deal even if you will be in a losing position later. . >> Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in >> impacting the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the >> best of each involved >> player necessarily usually takes lot of time. >> This can lead to problem, above all with new players. > > Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't > tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I > won't attack you. Or something like that. >> Risk isn't ccg and does not involve such many rules to learn. Your example is just about a short term deal too, not about what can be considered a vp split deal, sorry. >>> What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes >>> it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it. >> >> Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the >> deal system as a >> fundamental part of the game will result with further people going >> away from >> the game, and few new players coming in. > > No. you can't expect people to play a game that is not the right game > for them. It depends - players usually buy the cards expecting to play with them most of the time at the game's table - and not to witness time consuming arguments about vp split deals by some others at the same table. That's my point. Either this aspect is made blatantly evndent in game's description / rulebook , or this "deal system is a fundamental part of the game" to sound like an arbitrary assumption by a part of the community about "what" the game of vtes is. > If they leave because of that, they are not really V:TES > material. (Not tournement material anyway. I don't remember making VP > deals in non-tournement games) > Unless VP dealing is overly rampant in Italy. I have seen it reduced > over the last couple of years. Not table talking, but Table-deals. > >> A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should >> take now in >> consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled, >> beginnes players. >> Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals >> seems me the >> best option available. > > Learning people to play a game, by learning them not to play that > game? strange. See above

On 22 jun, 11:25, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 22 jun, 11:11, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal, > you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not > dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa. Heh. See professional cycling. If you don't want to use EPO, don't use it. If you want to use it, use it. If you feel you lose too much by not using, start using. But then it turns out, you can't possibly win for over 90% of the time because of the advantage it gives others that "use". So you're forced to do it for sake of competition, even though you think no one should in the first place. Some of us have stated that deals are inherent part of the game, which I (still) disagree with. Meaning I will "lose too much" from it on a frequent basis. And get forced into a kind of behaviour I think should not be there in the first place. Honestly, though, if you don't > like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game. > > No, that means playing VTES *with many people who currently play* is not my game. I like the game as is by means of the rulebook, card texts and all the combinations, strategies and styles made possible by the rulebook and texts, a whole lot. I'll decide if VTES is my game or not, thank you very much. > > >> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ? > > > > Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG. > > > Sure. > > Meaning, just like in other multiplayer games were you can affect each > other's positions: deals will and can be made. > > Can, but not necessarily will. I didn't pull the examples in my first post out of a hat, you know. > Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't > tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I > won't attack you. Or something like that. > > Sorry, but I'm telling you now: Nobody did.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>> That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend >>> an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is >>> "in earnest", to be troubling. >> Then stop taking it to absurdity. >> >> Reflect on it as "allowing players to play the game". Then it >> shouldn't trouble you. > > Players are free to deal, sure - but the game in itself > does not necessarily involve deals, however. That's what I said, yes. The game inherently allows deals -- the ability to deals/table talk is assumed. (i.e., players are free to deal). And players are not forced to make deals. > By your argument, then it seems me that we should change tournament rules > accordingly, > making deals as *significant part of the game* to be considered by a judge > in telling which are > the reasonable chanches to "win" of a given player in a given situation. Non sequitur. Why would the fact that deals are permitted but not required mean that the tournament rules should be changed to make some deals mandatory?

On Jun 22, 3:59 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead. > You can't do it at a tournement, though. This is kind of the crux of the issue--why can't I do this at a tournament? Because it is disruptive to other people playing the game? So is spending an inordinate amount of time making a deal. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I dind't say to make some deals mandatory - I say however that if the deals are officially part of the game (as you wrote elsewhere on this 3d) then a judge should take also them in consideration as another element of the game, to tell if a players has reasonable chanche to win or to maximize or not. That's my point.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Why would the fact that deals are permitted but not required mean >> that the tournament rules should be changed to make some deals >> mandatory? > > I dind't say to make some deals mandatory - > I say however that if the deals are officially part of the game (as you > wrote elsewhere > on this 3d) then a judge should take also them in consideration as another > element of the game, to tell if a players has reasonable chanche to win or > to > maximize or not. > That's my point. Yes. And the direct result of that (and the only change effected by that rule) would be that sometimes deals become mandatory. Using deals for that means that the judge could determine that the player has a reasonable chance if hu makes the deal and no chance otherwise. In which case, the play to win rule would make the dealing mandatory. As it is, players are not forced to trust each other to uphold deals.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, i'm not meaning that - i mean that, given your definition, the judge should consider an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches to win - The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes. But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point - otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition. Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > No, i'm not meaning that - i mean that, given your definition, the judge > should consider > an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches > to win - > The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain > the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped > prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes. > But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point - > otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition. Of course. Then we're set. The judge can already consider existing deals, since the game recognizes existing deals. Sorry I didn't get your meaning before. I thought you were suggesting a change.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> No, i'm not meaning that - i mean that, given your definition, the >> judge should consider >> an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches >> to win - >> The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain >> the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped >> prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes. >> But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point - >> otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition. > > Of course. Then we're set. The judge can already consider existing > deals, since the game recognizes existing deals. > Please clarify - the judge should consider an existing deal in the reasonable chanches for a player to win/maximize or not ? thanks

[ quoted text not captured ] That question is exactly what is answered above. Could you clarify what you're looking for?

[ quoted text not captured ] Nothing special - i just didn't know that before. When such thing was assumed for the first time ? thanks

Tetragrammaton schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] It is an inherent assumption as the judge has to judge the situation on the state of the game. Existing deals are obviously a part of the game state. Johannes

[ quoted text not captured ] Isn't that obvious, imho. Afaik a deal can be broken in any moment, or fulfilled even when the game state has changed so much since the initial deal agreement. How i can consider a thing that can be erased in any moment as "reasonable" chanche to count on, to win or maximize ? > Johannes

Tetragrammaton schrieb: > Indeed - there's a reason, in fact, why the discussion is also about > the time taken by a skilled player for playing the cards > versus > the time taken by a skilled player for table talk in the dealing process. I have seen a lot of time-wasting by people playing cards as I have seen the same with people making deals. I think it depends on the players. Some people tend to be slow others don´t. Just an example: Kamel is very well known for making a lot of deals and for his love to discuss them during the game. Sometimes the discussion can take up a considerable amount of time which is considered "bad" by some people, the complain about it. On the other hand I have never seen anybody applauding him on his extremely quick playstyle. Perhaps the time needed for discussion can be saved by playing quickly when you don´t do deals. Of course there have been games where a discussion that was going forth-and-back has dragged the game to a timeout. But likewise I have seen games where the players played a lot of cards to no real state of the game change just until the time out. My point is, dealmaking is certainly not the most prominent cause for games timing out. The time-outs happen in stalemate situations and as often as they can be caused by deals they can also be caused by the cards (and deals could help in solving them). Johannes

[ quoted text not captured ] At the first DCI tournament, I suppose, since it is part of the game. Or at the first VEKN tournament after PTW was formalized, if the modern interpretation of the sportsmanship is fundamental to your query. It was touched on (by me) back in 2001, FWIW. >> It is an inherent assumption as the judge has to judge the situation >> on the state of the game. Existing deals are obviously a part of the >> game state. >> > Isn't that obvious, imho. > Afaik a deal can be broken in any moment, or fulfilled even when the > game state has changed so much since the initial deal agreement. > How i can consider a thing that can be erased in any moment > as "reasonable" chanche to count on, to win or maximize ? You seem to be switching from "aware of the deal" to "reasonably expect the partner in the deal to honor the deal". Any deal is entered with the expectation that the partner will honor it, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor it. Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is also possible that the deal will be broken. But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking for?

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, then that was not written anywhere. Period. <snip> > You seem to be switching from "aware of the deal" to "reasonably > expect the partner in the deal to honor the deal". The partner can be reasonably expected *both* to honor or to not honor the deal, because the deal can be legally be broken in any moment. Awareness it's another matter. > > Any deal is entered with the expectation that the partner will honor > it, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor > it. > Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is > also possible that the deal will be broken. > > But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking > for? For you, maybe. But that isn't obvious by any means. To me, is not obvious that the judge should base his interpretation assuming that the deal will be honored, because, on the other side, the deal in itself may be legally not honored and broken in any moment. That's not reasonable, sorry.

On Jun 22, 8:33 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Any deal is entered with the expectation that the partner will honor > > it, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor > > it. > > Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is > > also possible that the deal will be broken. > > > But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking > > for? > > For you, maybe. But that isn't obvious by any means. > To me, is not obvious that the judge should base his interpretation > assuming that the deal will be honored, because, on the other side, > the deal in itself may be legally not honored and broken in any moment. > That's not reasonable, sorry. Base your interpretation on the reasonableness of the player's decisions. It's reasonable for her to assume the deal will be honored and play accordingly; it's also reasonable for her to assume the deal will be broken and play accordingly. You're forbidding fewer choices than if you assume only one or the other. Through that lens, a greater range of decisions fit within the rules. That's a good thing, isn't it? To keep people from doing what's wrong rather than forcing them to do what's "best"?

On Jun 22, 7:41 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 3:59 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [high pitched squeaking noises all the time] > > > If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead. > > You can't do it at a tournement, though. > > This is kind of the crux of the issue--why can't I do this at a > tournament? Because it is disruptive to other people playing the > game? Because it's unsportsmanlike in disrupting the game for all players besides yourself. (Maybe for yourself too...) > So is spending an inordinate amount of time making a deal. That doesn't disrupt the game for the person you're dealing with. If at least two people are interacting in the game to some good purpose, I don't know if you can reasonably argue that they shouldn't be allowed to play the game like that. An inordinate amount of time, sure, they shouldn't take an inordinate amount of time. But can they take time at all? Sure. VTES is a multiplayer game in which there are many and sundry ways to affect the other players. The natural result of that is that players *do* affect the other players (not just their prey) and negotiations then often occur about the effect players are going to have on each other. Josh not a big fan of deals but can't argue against the existence of table talk in vtes

On Jun 21, 8:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the > > lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not > > part of VTES. > > Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES > indication that it is part of the game where the lack of explicit text > disallowing countless other things (such as playing only in semiphore > or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that > they are part of the game? Those things are allowed during a game of VTES unless they are unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, etc. Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc. It is common for games to have the rules define what is not allowed, and anything not prohibited is allowed. I think the rules of sports are usually written that way: in basketball, you must dribble if you are in possession of the ball and moving your feet; you cannot spend more than three seconds in the painted area; you cannot wear jewelry or hard articles of clothing on the court. But you can do pretty much anything that is not prohibited by the rules. > > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is > > assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals). > > So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making > and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save > everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run. Yeah, I don't know if it would... :-) > That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend > an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is > "in earnest", to be troubling. If it is ok for two players to spend as > much time as they want, provided that they are dealing in earnest, > regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the table, > why isn't it ok for a single player to spend as much time as he wants > working out all the possibilities of all of his possiblt moves in his > head, regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the > table? If my opponents can spend half an hour talking up a deal, I > want to spend half an hour figuring out what I want to do with my > turn. I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than half an hour to do that. Josh an it harm none

Tetragrammaton wrote: > librarian wrote: > > <snip> > >> And in the finals of a tournament, >> it is legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and >> end this game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win." >> And everyone can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is >> split. > Not to my understand - unless you're in a total losing > position (and it's unlikely that ALL the table but one > will be in a total losing position at a given point, early or mid-game) > you have still to win the round or to try maximize your points - > what you say it's against the play to win rule, IMHO. > > Emiliano > > Here are the rules I was misremembering. It's an "Intentional Draw", not a concession. By the way LSJ, there is an end-paragraph mark missing from the end of 3.6... best - chris 3.5. Conceding Games Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to win rule, with the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. 3.6. Intentional Draw Players may mutually agree to accept an intentional draw at any time before the game results are submitted. If an offer to intentionally draw is declined, the game must continue as normal without any further coercion to accept the offer. Declaring an intentional draw has the same results for competitors as playing to the time limit (see sec 3.7.2. [sic] -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

librarian wrote: > By the way LSJ, there is an end-paragraph mark missing from the end of > 3.6... End parenthesis, you mean? Not missing now. Thanks.

On Jun 21, 6:39 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 jun, 22:38, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to > > all multiplayer games. > > ok. please excuse me for misquoting you. Oh certainly. No worries. :-) > > It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer > > game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. > > why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in > many sessions of many different games with many different people > through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you > look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule > saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because > there's no rule allowing it? You say it's fine because there's no rule prohibiting it. Rulebooks are commonly written to spell out what is *not* allowed; they don't usually mention if you can or can't drink beer while playing the game, or talk to the other players, if the game-rule-writers don't care about those things. They do mention them if they *do* care if you do those things: for example, in poker tournaments, the rules often include prohibitions on table talk that tries to induce your opponents to take one course of action or another. > > Dealmaking is also > > profitable in many multiplayer games, > > of course (it's the whole point of doing it). But so is keeping your > opponents awake the night before the game. Nothing in the rules about > that either. That's one of those not-so-good analogies though, I think. The night before is not game-related-activity time. Talking during the game is game-related-activity time. > > Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to > > succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able > > to participate in the negotiation part of the game. > > I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in > professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence > the ref. Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily > for how some/many others decide to play it. I think you're seeing the point pretty clearly there. "diving" in soccer is (or can be) illegal by the rules, and if it becomes a problem in game-play, it can only really be addressed by adding something to the rules trying to make it harder to get away with. (Assuming that people believe that "diving" should be kept out of the game.) Josh one by one i'll knock you out

On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, Teeka wrote: > On 21 jun, 22:38, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to >> succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able >> to participate in the negotiation part of the game. > I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in > professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence > the ref. First of all, it's not true that you must be able to fake injuries and influence the ref to make it in professional soccer. Many players do those things and get away with it. But it's not required to succeed, by any means. Second, faking injuries is clearly cheating. Cheating is not part of the game. If people get away with cheating (any kind of cheating), then the powers that be need to figure out some way to properly enforce the rules (which could very hard to do sometimes). More importantly, make deals in VTES is not cheating. Even if you consider that table talk and dealing is not part of the game, how can it be compared to cheating, really? > Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily > for how some/many others decide to play it. Fair enough, but then again, who gets to decide what the game is, and what it's not? Mind you, I'm totally in favor of the "stop talking, play the game" approach. Because yeah, I agree that some players talk too much, and feel like they need to get a favour from every time they threaten to block you, or that they need to ask permission for every single action their minions take. And I also hate that some players will try to secure a table-split without even trying to actually play the game. On the other hand, politics, manipulation and interaction are a legitimate, interesting part of the game. It's an important part of playing the game. Sometimes people use table talk to avoid playing the game, which is obviously bad. It doesn't mean that table talk is bad in itself. I like the game for what it is, which includes table talk. Abraço, Luiz Mello

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out their deal. On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you cannot win. In this case, it is reasonable to ask a judge to intervene. Of course the judge will have to use judgment to determine whether or not excessive chatter is actually going to cause the table to time out and cost everyone the opportunity to win. Matt Morgan

On Jun 22, 3:49 pm, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is > unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc. I'm totally ok with dealmaking going on to an extent, but what I am concerned about is, as noted, dealmaking taking an excessive amount of time, which amounts to slow play, which there are rules to prevent. Yet apparently, dealmaking can take an infinite amount of time, as long as it is done "in earnest". Which strikes me as problematic. At a certain point, dealmaking, even if done in earnest, can take too long and waste too much time of a given round. > I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a > deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than > half an hour to do that. Apparently not. As as long as they are doing it in earnest, they can take all the time in the world. As apparently, playing the game does not hinder playing the game. -Peter

In article <2007062310...@eris.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two > players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge > force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out > their deal. No, no. I think I have the right impression, in that what you state here seems to be the case. Which strikes me as very bad for the game as a whole. Granted, in this instance, where you use the word "boredom" (which certainly is an issue, but less of an issue than the rest of the issue) referring to my argument, really, it isn't so much boredom as "an inability to play the game while I wait for other people, who are inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time". Again, I have no actual problem with people striking deals, as long as they do so in a timely fashion. If they don't, it seems like you *should* be able to call a judge and have them stop. But that doesn't seem to be the case. As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit around and do nothing. > On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is > likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times > out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you > cannot win. If someone already has 2 VPs, and they then spend the next hour debating a table split deal with someone who is in a "lost" position, even if the are talking so much that the game is going to time out, they are still playing to win--the guy with 2.5VPs wins the game when it times out, and the guy in the "lost" position is better off with the game having timed out. And as long as they are dealing in earnest, it apparently doesn't matter that they deal so long that time runs out. See, again, I have no absolute problem with dealing and negotiation--this is a multiplayer game, and that sort of thing is inevitable. But it strikes me that there should be, at least a theoretical, limit to the amount of time people can spend on this particular activity, lest it sideline the actual "card game" part of the game. But apparently, this is not the case. And as long as folks are dealing "in earnest", they can spend all the time in the world, and the want of the rest of the table to, ya know, actually play the game is irrelevant. Which strikes me as a problem. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 22, 3:49 pm, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is >> unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc. > > I'm totally ok with dealmaking going on to an extent, but what I am > concerned about is, as noted, dealmaking taking an excessive amount of > time, which amounts to slow play, which there are rules to prevent. The deal making that amounts to slow play is illegal by the rules restricting slow play. > Yet apparently, dealmaking can take an infinite amount of time, as > long as it is done "in earnest". Which strikes me as problematic. If your time limit is infinite yes. But that would not be a sanctioned tournament. > At a certain point, dealmaking, even if done in earnest, can take too > long and waste too much time of a given round. Not really. Not in the way you're thinking of it as "wasting" anyhow. Playing the game isn't wasting the game's time. The game's time is designed to be spent playing the game. As Matt notes, though, deal-making time can take you closer to the time limit and, if you get too close, it may eliminate the possibility of you getting a game win (not enough time remaining), so the transition for the deal maker whou could get a GW from able to get a GW to not able to get a GW would violate PTW. Likewise for reduced VP prospects for deal-making players who are already out of game win range. >> I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a >> deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than >> half an hour to do that. > > Apparently not. As as long as they are doing it in earnest, they can > take all the time in the world. As apparently, playing the game does > not hinder playing the game. You're talking at cross-purposes. Duffin's example was one in which the deal could have been made in less time, not one in which the whole time was spent in earnest.

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <2007062310...@eris.io.com>, > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: >> Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two >> players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge >> force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out >> their deal. > > No, no. I think I have the right impression, in that what you state here > seems to be the case. Which strikes me as very bad for the game as a > whole. Okay, but it seems to me that if you're looking at it from a PTW perspective, talking the table into a timeout shouldn't occur very often. > Granted, in this instance, where you use the word "boredom" (which > certainly is an issue, but less of an issue than the rest of the issue) > referring to my argument, really, it isn't so much boredom as "an > inability to play the game while I wait for other people, who are > inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time". Again, I have > no actual problem with people striking deals, as long as they do so in a > timely fashion. If they don't, it seems like you *should* be able to > call a judge and have them stop. But that doesn't seem to be the case. > As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as > long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit > around and do nothing. Well, it's very subjective as to what is timely and what isn't. I mean, either the deal gets made and the game gets completed in two hours (legal and, IMO, timely) or discussion drags on forever and the table times out (not as legal - not necessarily illegal, but at least an instance in which a judge could ask players to speed things up). So with that in mind, any time you think players are taking too long, you can call a judge to rule as to whether or not the players are risking violating PTW by talking so much. The judge will exercise judgement and play will continue one way or the other. That seems like the solution you're looking for. >> On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is >> likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times >> out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you >> cannot win. > > If someone already has 2 VPs, and they then spend the next hour debating > a table split deal with someone who is in a "lost" position, even if the > are talking so much that the game is going to time out, they are still > playing to win--the guy with 2.5VPs wins the game when it times out, and > the guy in the "lost" position is better off with the game having timed > out. And as long as they are dealing in earnest, it apparently doesn't > matter that they deal so long that time runs out. What you're describing here is slow play to take advantage of the time limit. That's illegal. As always, you'd need the judge to see things as you do, but such illegal behavior should be corrected. I mean, you've got to look at the motivation behind the deal. Is the guy with 2 VPs getting something from it other than timing the table out for the win? If not, then it can't be anything other than stalling. And the guy who only wants half a VP? He's not even trying. Call a judge. > See, again, I have no absolute problem with dealing and > negotiation--this is a multiplayer game, and that sort of thing is > inevitable. But it strikes me that there should be, at least a > theoretical, limit to the amount of time people can spend on this > particular activity, lest it sideline the actual "card game" part of the > game. But apparently, this is not the case. And as long as folks are > dealing "in earnest", they can spend all the time in the world, and the > want of the rest of the table to, ya know, actually play the game is > irrelevant. But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's not playing to win. You can't win if nobody takes any turns. I understand LSJ's reluctance to put a time limit on deal making. I have played games in which there was a lot of dealing but the game still ended on time and one player won. That's perfectly legal, even if more than an hour was spent talking. There's no clear line to draw here other than whether people trying to win the game. If they are, then there's no problem. > Which strikes me as a problem. I think the problem comes up when players sort of forget about the time limit and talk too much without really meaning to. Or when they probably can't win and aren't going to get anywhere and spend too long grasping at straws. Of course you've got the types who will try to cut a deal every time any card is played. I think your best bet there is to encourage other players to ignore that guy and remind them of the time limit and of the fact that nobody wins if the table times out. If players have come to the table to win, then they should consider this seriously. If they haven't, then there's your real problem. It's just masked by all the yaking. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] But those players ("out of game win range"), eventually should be supposed to do the best to maximize their position (whereas isn't a totally losing position). So the factor of a time-consuming table talks by others, due a deal, is important for them too (even non-winning, they also would have time enough to get their 1 vp or whatever). Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> As Matt notes, though, deal-making time can take you closer to the >> time limit and, if you get too close, it may eliminate the >> possibility of you getting a game win (not enough time remaining), so the >> transition for the deal >> maker whou could get a GW from able to get a GW to not able to get a >> GW would violate PTW. >> Likewise for reduced VP prospects for deal-making players who are >> already out of game win range. > > But those players ("out of game win range"), eventually should be supposed > to do the > best to maximize their position (whereas isn't a totally losing position). > So the factor of a time-consuming table talks by others, due a deal, > is important for them too (even non-winning, they also would have time > enough to get their 1 vp or whatever). Yes, that's what I said.

[ quoted text not captured ] OK, so it's not what I said above: "by others" changes it. But the "by others" has already been covered (by me) -- it doesn't matter if a player is getting shorted on time -- the rules do not guarantee any particular number or percentage of time to the player. So long as the other players are using the game time to play the game, it's fine.

[ quoted text not captured ] So, for example - taking 20 mins to do your turn in the normal fashion (eg, no table talk, just doing your phases without any particualr chat) would likely be considered as stalling for time - taking 20 mins of your turn trying to deal with someone else would, likely, not be considered like that - Is this right ?

Tetragrammaton wrote: > So, for example - taking 20 mins to do your turn in the normal > fashion (eg, no table talk, just doing your phases without any particualr > chat) would likely be considered as stalling for time - taking 20 mins > of your turn trying to deal with someone else would, likely, not be > considered > like that - > Is this right ? Taking 20 minutes to play the game, with all 20 spent (by you and the other players, since your turn is not solely your own unless there are no effect applied or that can be applied during your turn) playing the game, is not stalling. If conducting your turn really takes 20 minutes, fine.

> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's > not playing to win. Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: >> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because >> that's not playing to win. > > Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament > and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people > politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have > won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way. > Tournament, yes - but, AFAIK, you have still to win the final round, that is, playing it to score the gw for that round. What you say seems pretty against the 4.8. - Play to Win. regards Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] The point is: if the judge has to consider an existing table split deal as a "part" of the game that gives players a reasonable chanche to "win" / "maximize" (for the ones that have set up it) or to "lose" (say, for the not-dealing playes(s) that clearly is going to get the major disavantage from it), then it should be reasonable enough for the player(s) not involved in the deal to give up the game instantlty ("ehy, now there's the table split deal between A and B; i don't want to counter-deal to balance that, so i've already lost the game and i give up"). Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] See the best way to stall a table is to politic, but you don't have to be the one to do all the talking. You just have to make the deal so good that other players are forced to "counter or lose". Once you have triggered that you can easily burn up 25% of the tables time just "bouncing" ideas around. It is not that hard, really, and it is in earnest because being frozen out of a deal, especially a "juicy" deal, means that you are at such a disadvantage that you can't really win. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The way you get the table into politics is another matter - what i was remarking is that you can't consider the tournament scoring/standing, because you have still to play the final *round* with the PTW rule, that is playing to win the round. The fact that a player is the top seed (or the second, or the fifth...whatever) shouldn't matter. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

In message <pdb6-9E7675.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as >long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit >around and do nothing. I think you're missing something. In a situation where a player is playing egregiously badly, they may still actually be playing to win. They're new. They're stupid. They're stubborn. They've completely misread some card text. They're easily manipulated. They're playing someone else's deck and don't really understand it. At some point, it doesn't matter that they're earnestly playing to win, because the judge won't believe them. The judge will make a judgement call. So it is with deal making. At some point, it will simply stop mattering that the players are deal making in earnest because the judge will feel forced to make a choice re: slow play, stalling etc. Or, as has been pointed out, talking the game out will violate play-to-win. Where that point will come will, of course, depend on the judge's judgement. Just like in other situations, like judging play-to-win or a lost situation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <467e3ce4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too >useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is >considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496 is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or whatever.) However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this sort-of-exception to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: >> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's >> not playing to win. > > Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament > and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people > politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have > won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way. That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. Politicking for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is allowed.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <467e3ce4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem > <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >> from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too >> useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is >> considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496 > is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be > playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or > whatever.) > > However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the > Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this > sort-of-exception to it. Why to raise exeption ? I don't see that as necessary - the PTW applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament). And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8. I really hope this will be adressed. Emiliano

In message <g2tfi.20755$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2 >>828bdbb74496 >> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be >> playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or >> whatever.) >> >> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the >> Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this >> sort-of-exception to it. > >Why to raise exeption ? It's not raising one. This exception already exists. >I don't see that as necessary - the PTW >applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the >round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will >lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament). You misunderstand the situation, and would do well to read the rest of the tournament rules, including the Judges' Guidelines. 160 - Bribery Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria: * No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be acceptable.) * All players involved in all affected games agree on the outcome. Note also that a number of tournaments have specific prizes for ranks 1 through 5. (In particular, especially large tournaments can do this - such as offering artwork or justicar trophies, or whatever.) I have, in the past, pointed out that this can cause problems if a player really wants the second place prize, and it is preferable for the player in first place to have first choice - but this isn't always feasible. >And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final >round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8. However, LSJ has repeatedly said that this is the case, and has not overturned it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game." > > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily, I would propose the assumption that deal-making is inherent to any multiplayer game that is prolonged and where all players compete simultaneously. (Just so we don't compare with figure skating, for example.) Let me expand. A sprint-style game, multiplayer or not, doesn't lend itself well to dealmaking. Whenever the task of making a deal obviously lowers your average result it becomes more profitable to just utilize the game-mechanics as efficiently as possible. Compare running 110 metres hurdles. Now let us compare with running 3000 metres. Taking turns at point position would on average be profitable to those "players" who are able to sustain a high average speed but are less skilled at sprinting those last 200 metres to goal. For the same reason "players" with less overall stamina would benefit from acting together (making deals) towards a temporary goal of sabotaging any attempts at keeping a high average sustained speed. For this reason I find the comparision with poker somewhat halting. I would argue that one hand of poker (in a tournament) resembles one round of VTES. A sprint style multi player game. I(magine if you had to switch tables between hands in poker, or, conversely, imagine that the normal VTES tournament was played best of seven rounds before reseating, kicking out a few players, and just repeat in absurdum until you have five players left.) Anyway, a round of VTES is comparable with a long distance running competition. Deal making is inherent to that kind of multiplayer competition as different styles of "playing" can be used to achieve a goal to a much greater extent than when you need to finish best and have all of ten seconds or so to reach that goal. When you add teams to the concept of multiplayer games (compare bicycling) deal making becomes even more obvious. VTES has added an explicit banning of this style of deal making to the rules (collusion), probably because of the overly obvious benefits from this kind of deal making. The very need to regulate deal making does in itself become an argument in favour of the view that deal making is indeed inherent to any game where such rules are implemented. My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does indeed have deal making as an inherent part. You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in the long run. Sten Düring

James Coupe wrote: > In message <g2tfi.20755$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2 >>> 828bdbb74496 >>> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be >>> playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or >>> whatever.) >>> >>> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the >>> Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this >>> sort-of-exception to it. >> >> Why to raise exeption ? > > It's not raising one. This exception already exists. > >> I don't see that as necessary - the PTW >> applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the >> round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will >> lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament). > > You misunderstand the situation, and would do well to read the rest of > the tournament rules, including the Judges' Guidelines. > Which situation ? The fact that the judge's guidelines (3 years old) let players to split final prizes (agreeing on the outcome) should not override the ptw / 4.8. As a note, i always didn't like at all that clause, anyway (splitting of prizes during the final). > 160 - Bribery > > Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered > in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following > criteria: > > * No player introduces incentives outside the current game > such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting > the prizes would be acceptable.) > * All players involved in all affected games agree on the > outcome. > > > Note also that a number of tournaments have specific prizes for ranks > 1 through 5. (In particular, especially large tournaments can do > this - such as offering artwork or justicar trophies, or whatever.) > I have, in the past, pointed out that this can cause problems if a > player really wants the second place prize, and it is preferable for > the player in first place to have first choice - but this isn't > always feasible. > > Prizes splitting should not have direct influence on the playing to win clause. >> And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final >> round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8. > > However, LSJ has repeatedly said that this is the case, and has not > overturned it. I hope it will be overtuned, then. Emiliano

StenD...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance > is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does > indeed > have deal making as an inherent part. If it would be an inherent part (much like the cards, the counters etc), then all the players should be supposed to use it in every game - a number of players don't want to use it, however - nor they are forced to use it (by the rules), or even (under ptw) to accept a deal that will make them to win the game. So i'd say that isn't inherent - it's just an optional component of the game - otherwise formats like silence of death simply would not exist, and, on the other side, winning deals (or granting-vp-maximization deal if you can't win) should be made mandatory to accept. > You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in > the long run. Only if others will start to deal at the table. Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine. And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure. best regards Emiliano

On Jun 24, 3:38 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > StenDur...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance > > is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does > > indeed > > have deal making as an inherent part. > > If it would be an inherent part (much like the cards, the counters etc), > then all the players should be supposed to use it in every game - a number > of players don't want to use it, however - nor they are forced to use it (by > the rules), > or even (under ptw) to accept a deal that will make them to win the game. > So i'd say that isn't inherent - it's just an optional component of the > game - > otherwise formats like silence of death simply would not exist, and, on the > other side, winning deals (or granting-vp-maximization deal if you can't > win) > should be made mandatory to accept. I believe you're mixing concepts and comparing apples with pears (if such an expression exists in English). I am supposed to transfer up at least one minion to play VTES. The rules does not force me to do that. I would still say that transferring up one minion is an inherent part of the game. I am supposed to make (or break or sabotage) deals to play VTES. The rules, etc, etc Mandatory and inherent are not comparable entities. In no way is it mandatory for long distance runners to benefit from a tactical way of running. Still most everyone would consider the runner who took point for almost all of the distance covered to be either an idiot or a very inexperienced runner. In reality the runners take turns at point position -- they make deals. > > > You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in > > the long run. > > Only if others will start to deal at the table. > Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine. > And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure. And this is an argument in favour of my position. Only as long as all players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) will you suffer no degradation to your game. I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way is in itself a deal made. Sten Düring

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two? DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:Kzjfi.6914$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] This suggests a whole new way to exploit the tournament system to one'sadvantage. In most cases, players build decks which necessitate a certain amount of time and a certain number of rounds be made availble to them, in order to accomplish their goals. If what Scott is saying holds true, then any deck which takes a long time per round (by dealing, or card actions, 'search library and shuffle' effects, or whatever), has a reasonable payload, and expects to win within the type of game it creates (fewer total turns, lots of time for itself, and little time for its opponents), would have a distinct advantage over all other decks. They just wouldn't have the time to get their desired objectives completed, no matter what they are... Now, to go build that deck (and make the world Hate me in brand new ways.) DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] No - you buy the "minion" with the cards - see above - cards and counters are inherent part of the game , so it's pretty normal that you're supposed to use them, yes, under whatever rules the game will tell you to do that. This is not with deal, however: afaik, deals weren't in the tournament rules until 2007, and are still not in the rulebook, on the other side. That makes me to think they're not (still) ineherent part of the game. > The rules, etc, etc > > Mandatory and inherent are not comparable entities. > If it's ineherent, then it makes you to to win or lose a given game - much as you're supposed to take away the last pool of your prey with your resources, playing to win, the the deal (as an "inherent" part). > In no way is it mandatory for long distance runners to benefit from > a tactical way of running. Still most everyone would consider the > runner who took point for almost all of the distance covered to be > either an idiot or a very inexperienced runner. In reality the runners > take turns at point position -- they make deals. > >> >>> You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it >>> in the long run. >> >> Only if others will start to deal at the table. >> Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine. >> And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure. > > And this is an argument in favour of my position. Only as long as all > players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) will you suffer > no degradation to your game. There's no evidence that the game under deals is somewhat to be considered "optimal". Deal can be an aspect of the game - you can play the game without and everything it's still just fine, no need to sub-class the game to a non-optimal state in absence of deals - maybe for some it can be even better since it spares a lot of arguing and counter-arguing with long table talk, actually. > I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way > is in itself a deal made. At all - it's just personal taste i think - some people are OK with lot of chatting, therefore they see the deal -making process inherent to the game; some people aren't fond of continous babbling for seeting up (without play of cards) a table split, and see that table talk as an optional for the game - that's all. Emiliano

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, XZealot wrote: > >> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's >> not playing to win. > > Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament > and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people > politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have > won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way. Yes, it is PTW for the top seed player. It is not PTW for the other players. If they are earnestly attempting to win the game, they should stop talking and start playing. Matt Morgan

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: > In message <467e3ce4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem > <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >> from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too >> useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is >> considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496 > is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be playing > to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or whatever.) > > However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the Tournament > Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this sort-of-exception to it. That's not necessary. Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. It counts as a game win under vekn rules. Due to tiebreakers, finals can be won with half a VP. Therefore, playing to time the table out (calling lots of Autarikis Persecutions or whatever) is PTW and legal for the top-seeded player, as long as there's no intentionally slow play. Matt Morgan

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, XZealot wrote: > See the best way to stall a table is to politic, but you don't have to > be the one to do all the talking. You just have to make the deal so > good that other players are forced to "counter or lose". Once you > have triggered that you can easily burn up 25% of the tables time just > "bouncing" ideas around. It is not that hard, really, and it is in > earnest because being frozen out of a deal, especially a "juicy" deal, > means that you are at such a disadvantage that you can't really win. I'm not sure if you mean that a player will be compelled to listen to the deal because of the PTW rule or just that it will be too irresistible to refuse. Players can never be forced to accept deals by the rules because deals aren't enforced by the rules. In the other case, I guess that can happen. Some people are easily misled. "I will put a point of KRC damage on your prey and make all your dreams come true!" Matt Morgan

In message <2007062409...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> writes: >Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. Winning, but not necessarily getting a Game Win. >It counts as a game win under vekn rules. 3.7.1, where Game Wins are defined, doesn't say that. A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.) And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical. >Due to tiebreakers, finals can be won with half a VP. Won, but not with a Game Win. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns99596881C4B49at...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: >> That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. Politicking >> for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is >> allowed. > >Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two? Is there any way to differentiate between a player playing badly and a player violating play to win? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1182692921.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, StenD...@gmail.com writes: >I believe you're mixing concepts and comparing apples with pears (if >such an expression exists in English). Conventional English idiom is usually "apples with oranges", but it makes sense with other nouns. (And people sometimes pick other objects to make a point anyway, so most people will understand what you mean anyhow.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 jun, 15:48, StenDur...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe you're mixing concepts and comparing apples with pears (if > such an expression exists in English). It does in Dutch, so I know what you mean. However, I think you are the one comparing the types of fruit. ;-) You see, you compare VTES to long distance running. I'd say long distance running is comparable to VTES *with deal making*, but not VTES *always*. Take your analogy and transfer it to long distance swimming. Does is still work? No. The reason "deal making" in long distance running exists, is because runners are not forced to stay in their lane, like they are in long distance swimming. Instead, they are forced to get the best out of being in a group and will do the things you say. Swimming doesn't have that. Here, the athlete who actually is the fastest (e.g. can cover the distance in the lowest time) wins. Not the one who is the smartest in blocking/slowing down/using his elbows/etc, but the one who actually is best at the physical action that is the essence of the sport. Let me put it like this. In VTES, you can build your own deck. You can also decide how to use your cards, abilities etc. as you choose. Meaning, in this analogy: VTES = Swimming deckbuiling = strength and stamina (= what you have) playing the cards = going as fast as you can while not overexhausting yourself, being able to "build up" your race, etc (= what you do with what you have) Let's say we could express the combination of deckbuilding quality and card-playing quality in a number, say X. I'd say that whoever has the highest X should win. Just like in swimming, the guy with the best combination of strength/stamina and ability to get an optimal performance out of himself (again X) wins. When "something" makes a person who does not have the highest X win (barring sheer luck and environmental factors), I think it's not inherent to the game. It's added by people, who at some point in time agreed (spoken or unspoken) to add this "something". Deal making does just that, so it's not inherent. > I am supposed to transfer up at least one minion to play VTES. The > rules does not force me to do that. I would still say that > transferring > up one minion is an inherent part of the game. Nope. The influence phase is inherent to the game, because the rules force you to have one. The *option* of using transfers is inherent to the game in the same way. The way you choose to use that option though, is up to you (just like the option to play bleed bounce is inherent to the game, wheter or not anyone uses it). In theory, it should be possible to win without ever influencing out a vampire, simply because cards that can do pool damage without requiring a vampire exist. Extremely unlikely to happen, of course, but the point is that a situation *could* occur where there's no need for the use of transfers at all while still playing to win, so, again, the option of using transfers in inherent to the game, but not the using itself. In the same line of thought, the *option of* deal making is provided by the rules (because there's no rule that disallows it). Using that option is a choice, however, and therefor not inherent. See again "having the option to play while hanging upside down, or dressing all in blue, because there's no rule against it". > I am supposed to make (or break or sabotage) deals to play VTES. Says who? Like I said already, it's perfectly doable to play VTES without deals. You're only "supposed" to follow the rules and card texts, and go through the phases of turns the way the rules say. Anything else is added by *you* and not supposed to be supposed (heh) by anyone. > Mandatory and inherent are not comparable entities. > Indeed. That's why I formulated the title of this thread as a question. :-) > In no way is it mandatory for long distance runners to benefit from > a tactical way of running. Still most everyone would consider the > runner who took point for almost all of the distance covered to be > either an idiot or a very inexperienced runner. Or who has an insane amount of stamina but no sprint. Or someone who is just that much stronger than all the others. You're not an idiot if you refuse "deals" because you know you can win all by yourself. Was Gebreselassi an idiot? In reality the runners > take turns at point position -- they make deals. > Sometimes. A lot. But not always. > Only as long as all > players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) That's dumb. What are you basing the assumption on that play without deals is sub-optimal? And what is sub-optimal anyway? Less fun? Not in my book. Less challenging? Not at all, because deckbuilding and actual in-game smarts become more valuable. You need to be real good with the cards, not with your mouth. > I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way > is in itself a deal made. > It's the other way around. If you play a game with all the equipment the game provides, using all the rules the game has, you're playing the game. Allowing some, or all, players to add things to the game, that is making a deal. Teeka

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: > In message <2007062409...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan > <far...@io.com> writes: >> Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. > > Winning, but not necessarily getting a Game Win. There is no distinction here. The full 8 rating points are awarded for final round victory regardless of whether or not 2 VPs were earned. Similarly, finalists are not required to play to earn at least 2 VPs and more VPs than anyone else. For example, in a case where an ousted player has 1 VP and the top-seed player has 2 VPs, that top-seed player could self-oust or simply concede the game to the remaining player, regardless of the game state. The game is already won. >> It counts as a game win under vekn rules. > > 3.7.1, where Game Wins are defined, doesn't say that. > > A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they > have received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more > Victory Points than any other player in the game. (No game win > is awarded in the case of ties.) > > And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament > rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical. I admit it's confusing, but this is simply not the case. Finalists are only required to play for final round victory. There is precedent to support this, even if it's not explicitly spelled out in the vekn rules. >> Due to tiebreakers, finals can be won with half a VP. > > Won, but not with a Game Win. If you like, but there's no distinction in the vekn rules. Matt Morgan

In message <2007062411...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> writes: >On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: > >> In message <2007062409...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan >> <far...@io.com> writes: >>> Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. >> >> Winning, but not necessarily getting a Game Win. > >There is no distinction here. The full 8 rating points are awarded for >final round victory regardless of whether or not 2 VPs were earned. In the tournament rules as they are currently written, there is a distinction - Game Win is defined in one way, and not in any other ways. The point is that clarifying things would help. I'm not saying it would change the status quo. I'm saying it would help make things easier for people to follow. >> And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament >> rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical. > >I admit it's confusing, but this is simply not the case. Finalists are >only required to play for final round victory. I can only assume that you have failed to read the whole thread. Including the post where you quoted me citing LSJ saying this. Quite how you think I don't already know this is unclear. I am talking about making things easier for people to follow, now that the specifics of play-to-win has been written into the tournament rules. I am not talking about changing the status quo. >There is precedent to support this, Really? Gosh. How is it possible that I didn't already know this when I've cited a ruling establishing precisely this precedent? >> Won, but not with a Game Win. > >If you like, but there's no distinction in the vekn rules. The current rules, as they are written, distinguish this. Hence, clarifying the rules to note the exception for the final round would help. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1182704179.9...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes: >In theory, it should be possible to win without ever influencing out a >vampire, simply because cards that can do pool damage without >requiring a vampire exist. This isn't as impossible as all that. (Leaving out the case of influencing allies/Imbued.) Jake Washington can, at least in theory, be used to kick-start some ally decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: > >> In message <2007062409...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan >> <far...@io.com> writes: >>> Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. >> > I admit it's confusing, but this is simply not the case. Finalists > are only required to play for final round victory. There is > precedent to support this, even if it's not explicitly spelled out in > the vekn rules. This is an oddity to me, anyway (much better would be the standard PTW rule applied to final round too)- At least, vekn tournament rules should be chamged to reflect it, as mr Coupe points out (i agree with him). Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: > In message <2007062411...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan > <far...@io.com> writes: >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, James Coupe wrote: >> >>> In message <2007062409...@eris.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan >>> <far...@io.com> writes: >>>> Winning the tournament is the same as winning the final table. >>> >>> Winning, but not necessarily getting a Game Win. >> >> There is no distinction here. The full 8 rating points are awarded for >> final round victory regardless of whether or not 2 VPs were earned. > > In the tournament rules as they are currently written, there is a > distinction - Game Win is defined in one way, and not in any other ways. > > The point is that clarifying things would help. I'm not saying it would > change the status quo. I'm saying it would help make things easier for > people to follow. Yes, you're right. I mean it's correct that a game win is defined in a certain way. And also players are required to play to win. But in a final, you can win with .5 VPs. There's a bit of a disconnect there. So it's not a game win when someone wins a final with fewer than 2 VPs? For all intents and purposes it is. >>> And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament >>> rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical. >> >> I admit it's confusing, but this is simply not the case. Finalists are >> only required to play for final round victory. > > I can only assume that you have failed to read the whole thread. > Including the post where you quoted me citing LSJ saying this. Quite > how you think I don't already know this is unclear. I don't see any citation in the post I quoted. "Finalists are only required to play for final round victory" seems like something other than what you wrote: "And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical." Is that a quote from LSJ? > I am talking about making things easier for people to follow, now that > the specifics of play-to-win has been written into the tournament rules. > I am not talking about changing the status quo. Well, I didn't think you were talking about changing the status quo. It just seemed like you were saying that finalists have to play for the preliminary round definition of a game win. Yeah, making things easier to understand sounds like a good idea. >> There is precedent to support this, > > Really? Gosh. How is it possible that I didn't already know this when > I've cited a ruling establishing precisely this precedent? I guess I didn't see that post. In fact, I can't find it in this thread. But don't worry, I'll take your word for it. >>> Won, but not with a Game Win. >> >> If you like, but there's no distinction in the vekn rules. > > The current rules, as they are written, distinguish this. Not to any appreciable effect. > Hence, clarifying the rules to note the exception for the final round > would help. Agreed. I have gotten the impression that it is intended to be sort of obvious. Winning the tournament = winning the game = the goal of the game or something like that. Still some additional clarity would be useful here because it's easy enough to misinterpret. Matt Morgan

On Jun 23, 2:40 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Okay, but it seems to me that if you're looking at it from a PTW > perspective, talking the table into a timeout shouldn't occur very > often. I agree that it shouldn't take the table into a timout in and of itself very often, but the discussion that precipitated all of this was about playing in an environment where dealmaking/negotiation is so prevelant that it has the effect of scaring off/shutting out newer players. Which is a problem in and of itself. And while it might not end in game timeouts specifically due to people talking non stop for 45 minutes about a deal, it certainly helps to timeout tables that would have otherwise been concluded normally. There are a lot of ways in which one can justify curtailing excessive dealmaking (PTW, delay of game if one detects a lack of "earnestness", etc.), but the problem I seem to have here is that, according to this discussion, negotiation is apparently viewed as as much a part of the game as drawing, playing, and tapping cards. But the significant difference between the two is that while you can justifyably say "dude, it shouldn't take 2 minutes to pick your strike card." without question, you can't, apparently, say "dude, it shouldn't take 10 minutes to strike this deal", as striking that deal, as long as it is done in earnest is playing the game. I'd really just much rather live in a world where it was recognized that negotiation was certainly part of VTES, and that as long as it is kept in the realm of reason, is ok, but it was understood that it needs to be kept within reason and not lead to the pace of the game slowing to the point of regular timeouts. And the default understanding was "dealmaking needs to be quick and timely to keep the game flowing" rather than "dealmaking can go on as long as necessary, as long as it isn't obviously a delaying tactic". -Peter

On Jun 24, 5:37 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I think you're missing something. Nah. I don't think I'm really missing anything. I just don't like the default assumption. > So it is with deal making. At some point, it will simply stop mattering > that the players are deal making in earnest because the judge will feel > forced to make a choice re: slow play, stalling etc. Sure. But way before the judge gets called in, the game can still be stalled/slowed unecessarily due to arguably unecessary discussion as negotiation is playing the game, and telling folks to hurry up is unlikely to accomplish anything. Where telling the guy who spends 5 minutes deciding if he wants to tap his KRCG on a given action to hurry up is totally within reason due to that being obviously slow play. -Peter

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > I'd really just much rather live in a world where it was recognized > that negotiation was certainly part of VTES, and that as long as it is > kept in the realm of reason, is ok, but it was understood that it > needs to be kept within reason and not lead to the pace of the game > slowing to the point of regular timeouts. And the default > understanding was "dealmaking needs to be quick and timely to keep the > game flowing" rather than "dealmaking can go on as long as necessary, > as long as it isn't obviously a delaying tactic". How would you enforce a rule like that? More importantly, how would you enforce it with some degree of uniformity? Matt Morgan

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: > >> XZealot wrote: >>>> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because >>>> that's not playing to win. >>> Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament >>> and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people >>> politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have >>> won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way. >> That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. Politicking >> for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is >> allowed. > > Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two? Judgment, of course. Like every other case of playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit is differentiated from legal play.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:j $KHFCDcD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns99596881C4B49at...@207.115.17.102>, > atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes: >>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: >>> That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. Politicking >>> for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is >>> allowed. >> >>Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two? > > Is there any way to differentiate between a player playing badly and a > player violating play to win? > Yes. DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:BxDfi.3451$vi5....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Guidelines and/or examples in excess of the single word "judgment" would be useful. We have them for judging Play to Win and Deal Legitimacy. Not so for this case, IMO. DZ AW

atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote in news:Xns99596A08EFE73at...@207.115.17.102: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> Taking 20 minutes to play the game, with all 20 spent (by you and the >> other players, since your turn is not solely your own unless there >> are no effect applied or that can be applied during your turn) >> playing the game, is not stalling. If conducting your turn really >> takes 20 minutes, fine. >> > > This suggests a whole new way to exploit the tournament system to > one'sadvantage. In most cases, players build decks which necessitate > a certain amount of time and a certain number of rounds be made > availble to them, in order to accomplish their goals. If what Scott > is saying holds true, then any deck which takes a long time per round > (by dealing, or card actions, 'search library and shuffle' effects, or > whatever), has a reasonable payload, and expects to win within the > type of game it creates (fewer total turns, lots of time for itself, > and little time for its opponents), would have a distinct advantage > over all other decks. They just wouldn't have the time to get their > desired objectives completed, no matter what they are... Now, to go > build that deck (and make the world Hate me in brand new ways.) > Some deck ideas and strategies that take a significant mechanical amount of legitimate game time to establish themselves; "Shuffle" strategies look pretty time consuming. Vast Wealth Magic of the Smith Spirit Summoning Chamber Weenie breed strategies (specifically actions which search for a skill card and shuffle afterwards) Brujah Al's Army/Arms Dealer equip Moise Kasavubu and Imbued (actually, in general, biased time consumption could be a large part of what makes Imbued as good as they are!! Worth exploring later) Repo Man Scrounging Summon Soul (superior) The Summoning Waters of Duat Zoning Board From that list, an action-intensive !Tre Breed/MotS Equip looks to be good 'n slow, as does a classic Black Cat Brujah equip deck with plenty of Arms Dealers etc. Maybe some Waters of Duat/Setite deck, perhaps with something funky, like sending them Into the Fire, so that they can have access to Heart of Darkness/Sunrise Service combo? A bit many cogs, but that's part of the point of this angle. Naah. I like the bleed defense of dominate more. I think that tooled-up !Tre will ahve a bit more staying power. Out of curiosity, LSJ, what is considered a reasonable number of riffle shuffles to sufficiently mix a library post-search in the mid-game? Malkavian guessing game masters are fairly time consuming, but they also can affect pool totals unpredictably. I guess I won't pursue that angle. Sibyl's Tongue comes to mind... Maybe !Malks paired with Summon Souls to get the Sibyls affordable, by pushing them back into the library? You've gotta shuffle with the cards coming and going, that way!! Oh, the possibilities are endless. Someone help by offering their opinions on what strategies are both time-consuming, and effective. I've got too much in my brain at this point... DZ AW

In article <2007062416...@eris.io.com>, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote: > How would you enforce a rule like that? More importantly, how would you > enforce it with some degree of uniformity? Yeah, see, that is the problem. But at least I think if the reaction to the question "can dealmaking theoretically go on forever?" was "no, dealmaking needs to not slow the game down to an appreciable level" rather than "as long as it is in earnest, it can go on indefinitely" (both of which are pretty subjective, mind you), the world (well at least the VTES world) would be a better place. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'd really just much rather live in a world where it was recognized > that negotiation was certainly part of VTES, and that as long as it is > kept in the realm of reason, is ok, but it was understood that it > needs to be kept within reason and not lead to the pace of the game > slowing to the point of regular timeouts. And the default > understanding was "dealmaking needs to be quick and timely to keep the > game flowing" rather than "dealmaking can go on as long as necessary, > as long as it isn't obviously a delaying tactic". Peter, everything you just said *is* recognized as a part of VTES, and the default understanding *is* what you say it is, and *is* kept in the realm of reason, given appropriate judges and judging. If you can give us some real-world examples of people not playing the game, fine, but you are really beating a dead, hypothetical horse, here. :( 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

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:97Hfi.434746$g24.3...@newsfe12.phx: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> I'd really just much rather live in a world where it was recognized >> that negotiation was certainly part of VTES, and that as long as it >> is kept in the realm of reason, is ok, but it was understood that it >> needs to be kept within reason and not lead to the pace of the game >> slowing to the point of regular timeouts. And the default >> understanding was "dealmaking needs to be quick and timely to keep >> the game flowing" rather than "dealmaking can go on as long as >> necessary, as long as it isn't obviously a delaying tactic". > > Peter, everything you just said *is* recognized as a part of VTES, and > the default understanding *is* what you say it is, and *is* kept in > the realm of reason, given appropriate judges and judging. > > If you can give us some real-world examples of people not playing the > game, fine, but you are really beating a dead, hypothetical horse, > here. >:( > This is a non-sequitur. Pete is looking at what is legal, not what is "not playing the game"; whatever time consumed playing the game that is necessary, is by definition, legal. That is what LSJ has said would be an appropriate metric for judging, not the "quick and timely" that Peter mentioned above. What you should have asked for, were real-world examples of people playing the game, as LSJ has layed it out to us, with the knowledge that any legitimate consumption of game time (for deal- making, for time consuming card play, or for dealmaking _with_ time- consuming card play), is allowed, however disproportionate the time spent is. Me, I'm looking at it as a challenge and an opportunity. Maximize my time on the clock, and absolutely minimize everyone else's... with a strategy of lots of time consuming actions across relatively few rounds, and a large payload for an oust or two near the end of the round... I expect tha my opponents will have a simply miserable time, despite the fact that its all perfectly legal. Fun game, huh? See you at the NAC... DZ AW

In message <Xns9959CBC142FF5at...@207.115.17.102>, [ quoted text not captured ] Would you care to explain precisely how I should tell the difference in a way that does not rely on my own judgement? If it does rely on my judgement then, of course, I can just apply that to stalling vs playing the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1182718466....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >On Jun 24, 5:37 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> I think you're missing something. > >Nah. I don't think I'm really missing anything. I just don't like the >default assumption. Since deal making is an acknowledged part of the game, you pretty much have to assume that players are allowed to make deals. This, by default, means that players have to discuss them. Similarly, by default, the player staring at his hand and saying "Wait, this is a tough decision" is likely to be given the time to decide which of two actions he should take. Even though he could be stalling, just like the deal makers could, in reality, be stalling. >> So it is with deal making. At some point, it will simply stop mattering >> that the players are deal making in earnest because the judge will feel >> forced to make a choice re: slow play, stalling etc. > >Sure. But way before the judge gets called in, the game can still be >stalled/slowed unecessarily due to arguably unecessary discussion as >negotiation is playing the game, If it's not slow play and not stalling and the players were actually negotiating rather than, you know, doing illegal things, why was it unnecessary? You seem to be in a situation where you: a) support players having the opportunity for deal making, but b) don't want to give players the time they need to make deals. Say that you, me and a horrible Arika deck are on the table. You and I, to play to win, might need to get rid of that Arika deck as it will likely kill both of us next turn with unblockable actions. We're willing to fight it out at 2 players, but we need to discuss who should do what now, to make sure we can take her out. And we may need to stop and think when I draw into two master cards that I can't easily play or get rid of, instead of the cards we were hoping for. If the default assumption is that we're not allowed any significant discussion of a deal, how would you handle a situation where we're both dead unless we co-operate? Taking a more extreme example, what would you do in something like the Nergal tournament (unranked, but following the same rules), where essentially two or more players *have* to join up in order to defeat Nergal? And where a Nergal+1 player alliance can be unspeakably awful, so the other three players on the table might want to spend some time convincing the other player not to help Nergal? I'm not sure how we can square this circle. Players sometimes need to negotiate, but you seem want the default assumption to be that any significant negotiation is, in effect, cheating (slow play, stalling) unless the players can prove otherwise. >and telling folks to hurry up is >unlikely to accomplish anything. If the judge believes the deal making was legitimate and wasn't slow play/stalling, he doesn't need to get them to hurry up. If it was slow play/stalling, it would be perfectly reasonable for the judge to try to re-adjust the table so that it's not affected by the slow play. For example, he might give the table back five minutes. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] But in difference from swimming you are indeed allowed to cross lanes. Rushing cross-table, rescuing vampires from torpor, ie all small things more reminiscent of long distance running than swimming. The "simultaneous" multiplaying should obviously have been clarified as "simultaneous interacting" multiplaying. > Let's say we could express the combination of deckbuilding quality and > card-playing quality in a number, say X. I'd say that whoever has the > highest X should win. Just like in swimming, the guy with the best > combination of strength/stamina and ability to get an optimal > performance out of himself (again X) wins. And we know for a certain that this is not true. The scariest possible deck will have the rest of the table coming down on it like a hammer of god if the other players have the resources to do so. Again, deal making. > When "something" makes a person who does not have the highest X win > (barring sheer luck and environmental factors), I think it's not > inherent to the game. It's added by people, who at some point in time > agreed (spoken or unspoken) to add this "something". Deal making does > just that, so it's not inherent. No, simultaneous interactive multi gaming does indeed have deal making as an inherent part of the game. More on this later. > > > I am supposed to transfer up at least one minion to play VTES. The > > rules does not force me to do that. I would still say that > > transferring > > up one minion is an inherent part of the game. > > Nope. The influence phase is inherent to the game, because the rules > force you to have one. The *option* of using transfers is inherent to > the game in the same way. The way you choose to use that option > though, is up to you (just like the option to play bleed bounce is > inherent to the game, wheter or not anyone uses it). Wrong. Bleed bounce is an exception to rules inherent to the game which prevent you from bleeding anyone but your prey and preventing that from happening by means of blocking only. Influencing IS inherent to the game, same as deal making. > > > I am supposed to make (or break or sabotage) deals to play VTES. > > Says who? Like I said already, it's perfectly doable to play VTES > without deals. You're only "supposed" to follow the rules and card > texts, and go through the phases of turns the way the rules say. > Anything else is added by *you* and not supposed to be supposed (heh) > by anyone. Doable has nothing to do with using inherent components of a system or not. Abstaining from making use of inherent components is more likely than not going to result in a suboptimal use of said system. > > > Only as long as all > > players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) > > That's dumb. What are you basing the assumption on that play without > deals is sub-optimal? I am basing that assumption on ten years of documented tournament play all over the world. Deal makers perform better that players who never take part in deal making at all. Observe that taking part includes sabotaging other players' deals. > > And what is sub-optimal anyway? > Less fun? Not in my book. > Less challenging? Not at all, because deckbuilding and actual in-game > smarts become more valuable. You need to be real good with the cards, > not with your mouth. Suboptimal from a winning the game point of view. Fun isn't part of it. Challenging isn't part of it apart from the competitive game indeed being more challenging to play if a player refuses to take any part of deal making. > > > I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way > > is in itself a deal made. > > It's the other way around. If you play a game with all the equipment > the game provides, using all the rules the game has, you're playing > the game. Allowing some, or all, players to add things to the game, > that is making a deal. No, allowing some, or all, players to detract from the game is making a deal. What is possibly worse, the word "allowing" is too often replaced by "coercing", in which case we're in reality leaving the realm of "inherent to the game or not" and entering the one of "breaking the rules". The reason for this is simple: The only way to prevent players from making deals is by removing potential dealmakers to be from every table of VTES they participate in -- that action is already handled by the rules under the header: Collusion. Sten Düring

In article <bxBp2AGx...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You seem to be in a situation where you: > a) support players having the opportunity for deal making, > but > b) don't want to give players the time they need to make deals. Nah. I just want them to do it faster. I only support players having the opportunity for dealmaking as I realize that it is an inevitable result in a multiplayer game--like others in this discussion, I'd vastly prefer the world if dealmaking was much less of a factor. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <97Hfi.434746$g24.3...@newsfe12.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter, everything you just said *is* recognized as a part of VTES, and the > default understanding *is* what you say it is, and *is* kept in the realm > of reason, given appropriate judges and judging. According to recent discussion, 2 players monopolizing an inordinate amount of time to strike a deal is totally legitimate, and not something I can call a judge over to curtail, unless it is obviously a stalling tactic, rather than simply because they are inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time. Which isn't how I'd like the world to work. But that is me. > If you can give us some real-world examples of people not playing the > game, fine, but you are really beating a dead, hypothetical horse, here. What else is new--you've met me, right? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:MBwsqYE2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns9959CBC142FF5at...@207.115.17.102>, > atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes: >>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:j >>$KHFCDcD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >>> In message <Xns99596881C4B49at...@207.115.17.102>, >>> atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes: >>>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >>>>news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: >>>>> That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. >>>>> Politicking for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for >>>>> the game's sake is allowed. >>>> >>>>Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two? >>> >>> Is there any way to differentiate between a player playing badly and >>> a player violating play to win? >> >>Yes. > > Would you care to explain precisely how I should tell the difference > in a way that does not rely on my own judgement? If it does rely on > my judgement then, of course, I can just apply that to stalling vs > playing the game. > Both are judgement calls. In the case of differentiating between a player playing badly and a player violating PTW, you have game state, comments of the players, and the prior history of the player in question as contributing a basis upon which to judge. Indeed, playing badly vs. violating PTW is usually so obvious a judgment call, players do it themselves, and frequently refrain from invovling a judge in the first place. Deal-making, which includes discussions by the two parties about the game state, without altering the game state, has no precendent, very few extant examples, and no observable affect on the game state, other than consuming time. Since LSJ tells us that _any_ amount of time spent that is necessary for the mechanical functions of the game to occur, is allowed to be spent, and being that deal negotiations can be lengthy and involved in their analysis of the game state (which itself can be quite complicated), there is far less substantive matter from which to derive a basis for judgment. Again, where is the strike zone? DZ AW

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:bxBp2AGx...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: [ quoted text not captured ] Both examples assume deal-making where the structured deal is obviously in favor of both parties. This is not often the source of much lenthy use of time in constructing deals. Try considering, instead, and example where one player (A) wants to strike a deal, and another (B) is neutral on the idea, but open to discussion. (A) can raise all kinds of points about the game state, actions taken by players, contents of ash heaps, prior experiences/observations of play style, forecasts about how particular strategies or actions might impact the table, and (B) can participate in that dialogue etc. etc. all in an absolutely legal, 100% legitimate attempt to negotiate a deal. As long as there are two people open to dialogue, and open topics that haven't been considered, but are relevant to the process of trying to arrive at a deal, discussions can be considered "necessary", and may thus continue. > I'm not sure how we can square this circle. Players sometimes need to > negotiate, but you seem want the default assumption to be that any > significant negotiation is, in effect, cheating (slow play, stalling) > unless the players can prove otherwise. > Wow. Peter is so _not_ saying that. I don't want to say it, because I think it was unintentional and I like you a lot, but this attempt at reducto ad absurdum comes really close to a strawman... >>and telling folks to hurry up is >>unlikely to accomplish anything. > > If the judge believes the deal making was legitimate and wasn't slow > play/stalling, he doesn't need to get them to hurry up. > > If it was slow play/stalling, it would be perfectly reasonable for the > judge to try to re-adjust the table so that it's not affected by the > slow play. For example, he might give the table back five minutes. > The two problems are; 1) a player, or two, can _legally and legitmately_ consume a highly disproportionate amount of time in a game with time limits, to the point in some cases where insufficient time will be left for _any_ strategy has a chance to succeed at a table, nevermind strategies that are themselves slow to develop. If a legitimate deal (or a legitimate card-intensive strategy) takes three separate eight-minute negotiations, 20% of the total time of the round is consumed, and may _not_ be replaced by the Judge, because it is not violating any rules (but it is certainly enough time consumed to squelch a fair number of strategies). 2) A lack of quidelines for Judges as to what is appropriate and/or necessary in terms of time use in deal-making. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] You don't need a deal to go cross table, in the effort of getting rid of the scariest deck at the table, that's granted. > >> When "something" makes a person who does not have the highest X win >> (barring sheer luck and environmental factors), I think it's not >> inherent to the game. It's added by people, who at some point in time >> agreed (spoken or unspoken) to add this "something". Deal making does >> just that, so it's not inherent. > > No, simultaneous interactive multi gaming does indeed have deal making > as an inherent part of the game. > More on this later. > >> >>> I am supposed to transfer up at least one minion to play VTES. The >>> rules does not force me to do that. I would still say that >>> transferring >>> up one minion is an inherent part of the game. >> >> Nope. The influence phase is inherent to the game, because the rules >> force you to have one. The *option* of using transfers is inherent to >> the game in the same way. The way you choose to use that option >> though, is up to you (just like the option to play bleed bounce is >> inherent to the game, wheter or not anyone uses it). > > Wrong. Bleed bounce is an exception to rules inherent to the game > which prevent you from bleeding anyone but your prey and preventing > that from happening by means of blocking only. > Influencing IS inherent to the game, same as deal making. It's curious how you keep on that arbitrary degree of parallelism - bleed bounce, again , it's granted by cards (inherent part of the game). Deals are granted by a stratification of rulings over the years, that has ended up only with this year as the first in which they were mentioned in the tournament rules (they're not still in the rulebook). > Doable has nothing to do with using inherent components of a system > or not. Abstaining from making use of inherent components is more > likely > than not going to result in a suboptimal use of said system. > Inherent then becomes somewhat "mandatory" here for you - seems like you can't play with deals as much as you could not play without the cards and the rules. But this isn't the case - deals are not mandatory, (much like, on the other side, is inherently mandatory to play with the cards and the rules governing them) > I am basing that assumption on ten years of documented tournament > play all over the world. Me too i play the game since 14, and played (as well as judged) at official tournaments in the last seven - but deals are not an inherent part of the game to me, still. It's a choiche - you're not forced to use them in the game and, they don't even follow the ptw rule in the sense that you're never forced to accept a deal, even a *winning* one, and in the sense that you can keep a (legal) deal even if later that will make you to *lose* (still in a non-losing position) the game - they're not inherently part of the game. > Deal makers perform better that players who never take part in deal > making at all. Observe that taking part includes sabotaging other > players' deals. Sure - any chanche the player have to advantage themselves trying to win the round will make them perform better. As per examples above: wind isn't an inerent part of running races - it can, however, make you to perform better or worse, depending on the direction, and by the fact if there's some of it at all during the race. Same as deal in a round. <snip> Best Emiliano

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:CAbfi.3439$Rw1....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net: > As Matt notes, though, deal-making time can take you closer to the > time limit and, if you get too close, it may eliminate the possibility > of you getting a game win (not enough time remaining), so the > transition for the deal maker whou could get a GW from able to get a > GW to not able to get a GW would violate PTW. > I don't think it does. If I negotiate in earnest and within a timeframe that is necessary for negotiations, and the impending time limit means that I no longer have the time left to execute the plan (ie I can no longer, because of the state of the game, win the table), then negotiating as best I can for maximum VP's becomes the new metric for PTW. Its back to deal- making, only with the "lower" objective of maximizing VPs, instead of going for the game win (or a deal which brings the table down to two players). If the use of time was legal for deal making before and after you "pass the barrier" from having a reasonable shot at a GW, to an unreasonable shot, then there's no violation of PTW, that I see, just a minor shift in what is being legally negotiated for... DZ AW

atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote in news:Xns9959D11F16F0Aat...@207.115.17.102: > Oh, the possibilities are endless. Someone help by offering their > opinions on what strategies are both time-consuming, and effective. What, no takers? C'mon, this is a great new way to play VTES!! Where's everybody's enthusiasm for such a novel new tournament tactic? DZ AW

On Jun 25, 3:12 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I'm not sure how we can square this circle. Players sometimes need to > negotiate, but you seem want the default assumption to be that any > significant negotiation is, in effect, cheating (slow play, stalling) > unless the players can prove otherwise. Just 'cause I missed this the first time, uh--no. I want the default assumption to be "negotiations need to be timely and not otherwise excessively hinder play" rather than the current apparent default assumption, which seems to be "negotiations can take as long as they need to, even if they disproportionately monopolize time, as long as they are in earnest and not obviously a stalling tactic". As the first recognizes that negotiation is part of the game, yet encourages folks to, ya know, move it along. Where the second recognizes that negotiation is part of the game, yet encourages folks to gab endlessly, as no one can legitimately ask them to hurry it along as long as their negotiations are in earnest. -Peter

On 25 jun, 12:20, StenDur...@gmail.com wrote: > But in difference from swimming you are indeed allowed to cross lanes. > Rushing cross-table, rescuing vampires from torpor, ie all small > things > more reminiscent of long distance running than swimming. > The "simultaneous" multiplaying should obviously have been clarified > as "simultaneous interacting" multiplaying. > The fact that you can influence the position of another player by *playing the cards* (there I go again, will keep emphasising it) is part of a multiplayer game like VTES, yes. My point is, that in a game like VTES that interaction should always be "all for self". Meaning, if you rush cross-table, you should only do it because there's a gain in it for you, because you're trying to win. For example, you're rushing your grandpredator's weakend, but about to be re-filled, vampire. Your predator is close to being ousted, so next turn the vampire might kick your ass if you don't kill it now, while it's down. Deal making is *explicitly* trying to better the position of both yourself *and at least one other person*, at the expense of one or more others. The above example is not, because you're only trying to put the game into a state that's better for *you*, which might or might not help anyone else, or even work for that matter. the guy with the best > > combination of strength/stamina and ability to get an optimal > > performance out of himself (again X) wins. > > And we know for a certain that this is not true. The scariest possible > deck > will have the rest of the table coming down on it like a hammer of god > if > the other players have the resources to do so. > Again, deal making. > Nuh-uh. A deck that is so obviously powerful (in terms of firepower) that it generates all-out table hate is not a good deck at all (and won't have the highest value of my hypothetical number "X"). A good deck hides its power until it's too late, which is in turn a product of good deckbuilding and good playing skills. See LSJ's signature Sun Tzu quote. Bleed bounce is an exception to rules inherent to the game > which prevent you from bleeding anyone but your prey and preventing > that from happening by means of blocking only. Untrue. The rules state that card text takes precedence over any rule in the rulebook. What this means in essence, is that card texts are a sort of appendixes for the rulebook. The rulebook could just as easily have stated something like, "only the prey and predator can block an undirected action, unless they play Eagle's Sight or decide to block using Anneke". Which would have made no difference to how things work. I've already said this, what the rules say and the cards do, that is everything inherent to the game. The rest is added by people on their own account. Everything else I wanted to say in response to your post has already been said by Emiliano (so thanks, Emiliano!).

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Peter, everything you just said *is* recognized as a part of VTES, >> and the default understanding *is* what you say it is, and *is* kept >> in the realm of reason, given appropriate judges and judging. > > According to recent discussion, 2 players monopolizing an > inordinate amount of time to strike a deal is totally legitimate, > and not something I can call a judge over to curtail, unless it is > obviously a stalling tactic, rather than simply because they are > inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time. Which isn't > how I'd like the world to work. But that is me. See, now, there's your problem. You define playing-the-game under certain circumstances as "monopolizing an inordinate amount of time" so that you can legitimize your opinion. But that is a clear misdefinition. Choosing to play the game is choosing to play the game, whether we like it or not (and I do agree with you as to the irritation that I receive from inordinately long discussions during a timed game). And you don't really even need to *have* an argument for your "side", since it would seem that a judge can totally 100% address any stalling or time monopolization issue you may have. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:d_Ufi.218652$Fk2.1...@newsfe08.phx: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Peter, everything you just said *is* recognized as a part of VTES, >>> and the default understanding *is* what you say it is, and *is* kept >>> in the realm of reason, given appropriate judges and judging. >> >> According to recent discussion, 2 players monopolizing an >> inordinate amount of time to strike a deal is totally legitimate, >> and not something I can call a judge over to curtail, unless it is >> obviously a stalling tactic, rather than simply because they are >> inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time. Which isn't >> how I'd like the world to work. But that is me. > > See, now, there's your problem. You define playing-the-game under > certain circumstances as "monopolizing an inordinate amount of time" > so that you can legitimize your opinion. But that is a clear > misdefinition. Choosing to play the game is choosing to play the > game, whether we like it or not (and I do agree with you as to the > irritation that I receive from inordinately long discussions during a > timed game). > > And you don't really even need to *have* an argument for your "side", > since it would seem that a judge can totally 100% address any stalling > or time monopolization issue you may have. In fact, the Judge cannot. Thats the point, its not about stalling at all. Stalling isn't needed, because legal use of time is sufficient. There's two hours to the round, and any one player is free to use as much of it as they need to accomplish whatever actions or negotiations they need to accomplish. Even a moderate bias in time expenditure can leave a significant number of strategies in the metaphorical ash heap, and thats how I intend to play this ruling. The deck that wins, under the guidelines as described, is the one which takes four 15 minute turns to build, and one 15 minute turn to oust. That leaves the other four players with a total of 11.25 minutes a piece to do with what they will. How many strategies do you think can get a game win under those circumstances? DZ AW

In message <Xns995A64307E...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: > In the case of differentiating between a player playing badly and a >player violating PTW, you have game state, comments of the players, and >the prior history of the player in question as contributing a basis upon >which to judge. You have all this available when deciding if deal-making is honestly taking 20 minutes too. a) Am I in a strong enough position to actually make this deal? Are you in a strong enough position to twist my arm? If I only have a battered minion and 2 pool, I'm unlikely to be able to help you make a deal that will last for the next hour, if I'm not here next turn. b) Comments of the players. Sure, the players are going to comment on this. You think they won't? c) Prior history of players? Again, sure. Have I been doing this on every table in the tournament? Then use that in your judgement, and punish me if appropriate. Have I been doing this whenever I've got 2 VP on a table, to stall it so no-one else gets the other three? Was I making deals rapidly earlier in the game, and am not now? Have you seen me at other tournaments slowing tables down? You can use every single bit of this in a judgement on whether I'm stalling or not. Compare with *any* stalling situation. Ignore the deals. I'm sat staring at my hand for 30 seconds between every action. You're going to need to decide if I'm playing slowly, stalling, trying to take advantage of the time limit, or whatever. I'm just staring at cards trying to make a tough decision. Or not - I might be cheating. You've already had to decide that for years. If you can do it there, do it here. > Indeed, playing badly vs. violating PTW is usually so >obvious a judgment call, "Usually" means that sometimes it isn't. So sometimes you have to make this judgement call. If you can make it then, make it in a deal-making situation. >Deal-making, which includes discussions by the two parties about the game >state, without altering the game state, has no precendent, very few >extant examples, and no observable affect on the game state, other than >consuming time. Sitting staring a card trying to make a tough decision has no impact either. And I've been in games *and* judged games where a player has needed quite a large amount of time to decide: - which card to DI - whether to SR or not - whether they think their prey is bluffing or not. They don't make a deal, but they may ask for advice. Or talk their thoughts out loud. Should I Directly Intervene on that Return to Innocence? If I do, you can play another - if you have it. If I wait, I can DI the Day Operation you're about to play but... They then pick up the ash heap and start looking for Wakes, or action modifiers, or... 40 cards gone and no copies of <X>? Well, that means... Been there, done that. Players take time to make that decision. No alteration of game state. I've seen numerous examples of this. Seems like precedent to me. >Since LSJ tells us that _any_ amount of time spent that >is necessary for the mechanical functions of the game to occur, is >allowed to be spent, Just like a 100 round combat would need the time for 100 rounds, yes. >and being that deal negotiations can be lengthy and >involved in their analysis of the game state (which itself can be quite >complicated), there is far less substantive matter from which to derive a >basis for judgment. Again, where is the strike zone? The judge uses his judgement to judge this judging situation. Judgily. How do you cope when I ask for a little time to consider whether to DI this card or not? Where is the strike zone? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-9A2FF2.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >According to recent discussion, 2 players monopolizing an inordinate >amount of time to strike a deal is totally legitimate, and not something >I can call a judge over to curtail, unless it is obviously a stalling >tactic, rather than simply because they are inordinately monopolizing >the limited resource of time. Which isn't how I'd like the world to >work. But that is me. You don't have an innate right to get a chance to play your deck in the way you want to play it. See also: Madness Network and Reversal of Fortunes, where the player excludes some cross-table people from having many turns. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d_Ufi.218652$Fk2.1...@newsfe08.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > See, now, there's your problem. You define playing-the-game under certain > circumstances as "monopolizing an inordinate amount of time" so that you > can legitimize your opinion. Is spending 15 minutes doing nothing but "considering your options" monopolizing an inordinate amount of time? If it is, then two people spending the same amount of time having a discussion of the merits and terms of a given deal could just as much be monopolizing an inordinate amount of time. As both instances are "playing the game" (people playing Chess often spend *way* more than 15 minutes doing nothing but considering their options, and no one would ever accuse them of stalling in an untimed game--I'm not claiming that Chess and VTES are the same thing, but it seems perfectly likely that someone could, in all earnestness, spend 15 minutes considering their options in a game of VTES given the opportunity), yet one is easy to call delay of game where the other is not. > And you don't really even need to *have* an argument for your "side", > since it would seem that a judge can totally 100% address any stalling or > time monopolization issue you may have. I'd like to think so. Yet recent statements in this discussion indicate otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <hxpn2KVu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > You don't have an innate right to get a chance to play your deck in the > way you want to play it. I think you mistyped something here--otherwise, it doesn't make sense (you meant "you *do* have an innate...", right?) > See also: Madness Network and Reversal of Fortunes, where the player > excludes some cross-table people from having many turns. Hmm. Fair point. But this particular (arguably abusive/broken in and of itself) strategy does so at the speed of normal play, where dealmaking does so at the nebulous speed of "however long it takes to strike the deal I want to strike". As noted in the "20 combats" example, sometimes it takes a long time to play out a turn. And when warranted, that is fine--although if in the 20 combat situation, someone is spending too long to choose their strike each combat, everyone else at the table is in their right to say "dude. Just play a card already and speed it along...", and if the 20 combats are taking too long due to what is arguably slow play, the judge can come along and say "move it along boys". Where if two players are debating a deal, as long as they are continuing to debate in earnest, the players at the table and the judge apparently have no ability to say "move it along". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:00:43 GMT, atomweaver wrote: >> Oh, the possibilities are endless. Someone help by offering their >> opinions on what strategies are both time-consuming, and effective. >What, no takers? C'mon, this is a great new way to play VTES!! Where's >everybody's enthusiasm for such a novel new tournament tactic? Coupe provided one of the best in response to something else in this overly long thread. Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, then start the time bomb ticking again.

atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote in news:Xns9959D11F16F0Aat...@207.115.17.102: > Out of curiosity, LSJ, what is considered a reasonable number of riffle > shuffles to sufficiently mix a library post-search in the mid-game? > > Nevermind, I found some precedent; http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- cards.jyhad/msg/1d7d6d2ab6808242 W00t! The strategy is forming!!! Are you as excited for the NAC now as I am??? DZ AW

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:2xXiWdUW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns995A64307E...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >> In the case of differentiating between a player playing badly and a >>player violating PTW, you have game state, comments of the players, and >>the prior history of the player in question as contributing a basis upon >>which to judge. > > You have all this available when deciding if deal-making is honestly > taking 20 minutes too. > > a) Am I in a strong enough position to actually make this deal? Are you > in a strong enough position to twist my arm? If I only have a > battered minion and 2 pool, I'm unlikely to be able to help you > make a deal that will last for the next hour, if I'm not here > next turn. > Good point, deal-making from an obviously lost position shouldn't result in exorbitant returns. It is reasonable, though, to expect that a person in a losing position without the immediate threat of an oust must be provided the time to make his case for lesser deals (ie maximize VP), so your circumstance still can result in a legal, lengthy discussion. > b) Comments of the players. Sure, the players are going to comment on > this. You think they won't? > Other than possibly pointing out a habit of repeating deal-making negotiative points (I'll readily concede that as valid opponent input), they're not in a particularly unbiased position to comment on whether the quantity of discussion was "necessary". > c) Prior history of players? Again, sure. Have I been doing this on > every table in the tournament? Then use that in your judgement, > and punish me if appropriate. Have I been doing this whenever > I've got 2 VP on a table, to stall it so no-one else gets the > other three? Was I making deals rapidly earlier in the game, > and am not now? If the game state is more complex, it stands to reason the deal may take longer to negotiate. As you approach the end-game or an imminent oust, the impetus to have a deal in place before a dynamic table shift is reasonable... >> Indeed, playing badly vs. violating PTW is usually so >>obvious a judgment call, > > "Usually" means that sometimes it isn't. So sometimes you have to make > this judgement call. If you can make it then, make it in a deal- making > situation. > Oh, I'll make the call, believe me. Given the guidance I have thus far, only a few obvious things would make me cite a player for stalling whilst deal-making; Negotiating for unreasonable return when your "goose is cooked". Repetition of negotiating points ad nauseam. Returning to lengthy deal-making after only a minor change in the game state. I can whip up a few others.... >>Deal-making, which includes discussions by the two parties about the game >>state, without altering the game state, has no precendent, very few >>extant examples, and no observable affect on the game state, other than >>consuming time. > > Sitting staring a card trying to make a tough decision has no impact > either. And I've been in games *and* judged games where a player has > needed quite a large amount of time to decide: > > - which card to DI > - whether to SR or not > - whether they think their prey is bluffing or not. > > They don't make a deal, but they may ask for advice. Or talk their > thoughts out loud. Should I Directly Intervene on that Return to > Innocence? If I do, you can play another - if you have it. If I wait, > I can DI the Day Operation you're about to play but... They then pick > up the ash heap and start looking for Wakes, or action modifiers, or... > 40 cards gone and no copies of <X>? Well, that means... > > Been there, done that. Players take time to make that decision. No > alteration of game state. I've seen numerous examples of this. Seems > like precedent to me. > It isn't really precedent, because there hasn't been any game play IMO, where this policy of allowed biased time consumption has been within the awareness of the players. See my numerous attempts in the thread to legally exploit this rule, and envision a game wherein a reasonable fraction of the player base attempts similar tactics. Is what you envision to your liking? Sound like a big barrel of fun? The above is a reasonable use of time, but wait a bit until this policy gets pushed by a few players for an in-game advantage, and we'll end up seeing what people _really_ think is reasonable... and this is an even greater problem than any deal-making time usage will amount to... > >>Since LSJ tells us that _any_ amount of time spent that >>is necessary for the mechanical functions of the game to occur, is >>allowed to be spent, > > Just like a 100 round combat would need the time for 100 rounds, yes. > > >>and being that deal negotiations can be lengthy and >>involved in their analysis of the game state (which itself can be quite >>complicated), there is far less substantive matter from which to derive a >>basis for judgment. Again, where is the strike zone? > > The judge uses his judgement to judge this judging situation. Judgily. Hee :-) All clear now, thanks... > How do you cope when I ask for a little time to consider whether to DI > this card or not? Where is the strike zone? > He's got one minute. You keep serving up the easy ones for yourself,... Try this, instead; Mid-game with all five players in, 5-7 minions per, plus a few odd permanents, and thirty cards in each ash heap, at least 10 pool to a player, and an hour and a half left on the clock. Deck tactics are assorted and diverse. Player (A) wants to cut a short term deal with another player. He's open to whomever is interested in being his partner in breaking the table balance, and a discussion for a deal ensues. When do the table negotiations pass from necessary, to stalling? He's got four players to negotiate with, 30-45 permanents in play, a 150 ash heap cards to consider in deducing strategies, and each possible negotiation should consider the table impact. One player calls a judge when the discussion passes the ten minute mark. Where is the strike zone? DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] That post was such a non-sequitor that I have nothing further to say. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote: > Try this, instead; > > Mid-game with all five players in, 5-7 minions per, plus a few odd > permanents, and thirty cards in each ash heap, at least 10 pool to a > player, and an hour and a half left on the clock. Deck tactics are > assorted and diverse. Player (A) wants to cut a short term deal with > another player. He's open to whomever is interested in being his > partner in breaking the table balance, and a discussion for a deal > ensues. When do the table negotiations pass from necessary, to > stalling? Simple: when the game is no longer being played. Table negotiations = playing the game Long table negotiations = annoying, but playing the game Longer-than-someone-at-the-table-feels-is-necessary table negotiations = call a judge = judgement ensues = problem solved => back to playing the game > He's got four players to negotiate with, 30-45 permanents > in play, a 150 ash heap cards to consider in deducing strategies, and > each possible negotiation should consider the table impact. One > player calls a judge when the discussion passes the ten minute mark. > Where is the strike zone? I still don't see the issue (and I'd like to). [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> See, now, there's your problem. You define playing-the-game under >> certain circumstances as "monopolizing an inordinate amount of time" >> so that you can legitimize your opinion. > > Is spending 15 minutes doing nothing but "considering > your options" monopolizing an inordinate amount of time? Did LSJ say somewhere in this thread that [VEKN 5.3] http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec5.3 is no longer valid? If so, I may have missed it. Perhaps LSJ can clarify, as I sense some sort of response from Peter in regards to this issue. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:30:58 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Oh, the possibilities are endless. Someone help by offering their >>> opinions on what strategies are both time-consuming, and effective. >>>What, no takers? C'mon, this is a great new way to play VTES!! >>>Where's everybody's enthusiasm for such a novel new tournament tactic? >> Coupe provided one of the best in response >> to something else in this overly long thread. >> Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third >> Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again >> for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, >> then start the time bomb ticking again. >Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to >show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? The deck challenge isn't about right or wrong. It is about taking a lot of time on your actions. I certainly think that there are decks that can monopolize the time and that can win while its opponents are still setting up. I would probably start with something like this: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/amv.htm Updating to get down to the legal library limit, and using 4/5 Madness Networks, and Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter. Swap out the more questionable votes for Reversal of Fortunes to get more turns and to keep your cross table allies from taking inappropriate (any) actions. Alternately, if I wanted to pursue Zopf's challenge, I would tweak this one: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/madam_guil.htm to simply consider each action, of which there will always be quite a few. Even this one will slow the game to a crawl: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/ok_stop_dots.htm and it can take a game when properly prepared. If Zopf really desired to work towards his desired goal, he would simply play Imbued poorly. I have played against the best Imbued players, and they can take less time on a turn when placing half a dozen cards and taking 10 actions than players with only 2 minions. I have also played against the worst Imbued players, and it is excruciating. In any case, deck building cannot ever convince rational humans that table talk, deals, and twenty-thirty minute discussions are good or bad for the game. Only direct experience can do that. Since it simply can't be said enough in this thread: Play.The.Game.

[ quoted text not captured ] You have to play the deck in that case, however - there's no guarantee that trough the process of *playing* the cards you will end up with the madness network deck "consuming the time" of some other player, shifting table direction over and over - You have to call votes, to make them pass, to protect the madnees network - in a word, you have *just* to play your deck - not to time consume the game with arguing and counter arguing, as you can do with the deal process, since the starting turns of a game. So i think there's still some difference between the two ways of "consume" the round's time. Same case as with imbued deck : they can consume lot of time with their turn (shuffling for convictions and all the usual permanent stuff to deal with), but they do moslty trough the play of the cards (that is, somewhat to be considered usual for a ccg game). best

In message <hU_fi.455948$JN6....@newsfe17.phx>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third >> Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again >> for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, >> then start the time bomb ticking again. > >Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to >show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? In games where shuffling occurs a lot, or situations where a player is a particularly slow shuffler[0], I've been known to shuffle a deck for a player while they play. If they need to draw a card or three while I'm doing it, they can get given a card at random from the deck while I'm doing it. [0] I am far from the world's greatest shuffler, but it's usually quicker for a player to carry on with the rest of their turn while someone else is shuffling. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 jun, 23:17, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > As noted in the "20 combats" example, sometimes it takes a long time to > play out a turn. And when warranted, that is fine--although if in the 20 > combat situation, someone is spending too long to choose their strike > each combat, everyone else at the table is in their right to say "dude. > Just play a card already and speed it along...", In no way more or less than when 2 people are discussing a deal. As long as the player is earnestly thinking about his strike, at least. >and if the 20 combats > are taking too long due to what is arguably slow play, the judge can > come along and say "move it along boys". Where if two players are > debating a deal, as long as they are continuing to debate in earnest, > the players at the table and the judge apparently have no ability to say > "move it along". Not more or less as in the strike example above.

In message <pdb6-1C1209.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <hxpn2KVu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> You don't have an innate right to get a chance to play your deck in the >> way you want to play it. > >I think you mistyped something here--otherwise, it doesn't make sense >(you meant "you *do* have an innate...", right?) No, I mean you don't. As evidenced by the line below. Other people at the table are perfectly entitled to *completely* screw up the table for you. There is a separate line of thought, and a separate way of handling, the ability for players to screw up the table - that's why things like Anarch Revolt have been errata-ed/MRP-ed. Subject to the qualification that players who turn up solely to undermine the tournament can be ejected - http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64bbd830f82de0 - I can turn up with a deck that causes massive, massive table hate by screwing everything. (See also Gehenna decks and the Imbued early on.) If you never get a turn, you're not getting the chance to play it. If your predator/prey doesn't get a turn and you're a wall deck, you don't get a chance to block them. If you're a PTO/Parity vote deck and someone throws Fall of the Camarilla, you don't get a chance to call your votes. No innate right. The table is just batshit insane and you can't do anything you expected to do. >> See also: Madness Network and Reversal of Fortunes, where the player >> excludes some cross-table people from having many turns. > >Hmm. Fair point. But this particular (arguably abusive/broken in and of >itself) strategy does so at the speed of normal play, where dealmaking >does so at the nebulous speed of "however long it takes to strike the >deal I want to strike". Sure, it's normal play for that player. But you have 20 minutes where you don't get to play. (Assuming the stupid deck works as it's supposed to.) If the argument is that 20 minutes of deal making stops you playing the game, 20 minutes of Reversal of Fortunes can do the same. Note that this may be interspersed with deal-making and other shenanigans because at least one other player is getting a turn, so there are likely to be plenty of opportunities for those two players to fight it out a bit, cycle cards, argue over actions, whatever. For 20 minutes, however, you didn't get to play the game. Just like in 20 minutes of deal making. If the issue is that you didn't get to play the game, you *still* didn't get to play the game you wanted to play. >As noted in the "20 combats" example, sometimes it takes a long time to >play out a turn. And when warranted, that is fine In a very complicated deal, 20 minutes is possibly going to be fine. If the "deal making" is: "Oh, go on, rescue me" "No" "Oh go on" "No" "I'll be your best friend" "No" then it won't be warranted, and the judge can step in to control the slow play. You are the judge. Player A and Player B are discussing a long complicated deal. Are the players actually negotiating in earnest, or are they just going round in circles? Are the players making headway, or are they both just asserting their position and not budging? ("No, *you* take the 2VP end of this deal." "No, you do it.") Are they, in your opinion, just wasting time and playing to the time limit? If you think they're doing badness like that, spank them. If they're not, don't. That is, as a judge, exercise your judgement to determine if the 20 minute deal-making is in earnest, and isn't slow play. Come to a decision. If necessary, announce and enforce that decision and, if you feel it really is necessary, add time to the table in the same way you'd correct the game state on any table. >Where if two players are >debating a deal, as long as they are continuing to debate in earnest, >the players at the table and the judge apparently have no ability to say >"move it along". Sure you do. You, the judge, are in a position to determine if the negotiation is slow-play, stalling, or earnest negotiation. Use your judgement to determine into which one of those categories it falls. Or any other relevant category - am I trying to talk Bob into a deal so that the table times out so that Caroline can get the Table Win, because I'm colluding with her? You'd rule on that. Rule on this. There are many other situations where you can be deciding between Slow Play and earnest play. Is my decision *really* that hard? Am I *really* so screwed that I need to count through every card in my ash heap to determine how many copies of <X> I have left in my deck? But if I took five minutes to decide whether to SR a card, you'd be quite happy to rule it Slow Play or Stalling (if appropriate) right? Do the same here. Determine if the debate is in earnest and really could have/should have taken that long. If, in your judgement, we could have done all this in 2 minutes, and have just been going round in slow play circles for the following 10 minutes, slap us for Slow Play. If there's a language barrier (I'm a native Martian speaker, you're a native Plutonian speaker, we're both talking in Venetian because that's what the tournament is being held in), it might have taken a bit longer - and your judgement can handle that. Use your judgement to determine if the deal making really is in earnest. It's possible that it is. It's possible that it isn't. Rule appropriately based on your judgement. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 jun, 22:27, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The deck that wins, under the guidelines as described, is the one which > takes four 15 minute turns to build, and one 15 minute turn to oust. Good luck with that. 2 ousts by turn 5? I'd like to see that....Not to mention table hate. >That > leaves the other four players with a total of 11.25 minutes a piece to do > with what they will. How many strategies do you think can get a game win > under those circumstances? Weenies.

Kevin M. wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> See, now, there's your problem. You define playing-the-game under >>> certain circumstances as "monopolizing an inordinate amount of time" >>> so that you can legitimize your opinion. >> Is spending 15 minutes doing nothing but "considering >> your options" monopolizing an inordinate amount of time? > > Did LSJ say somewhere in this thread that [VEKN 5.3] > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec5.3 is no > longer valid? If so, I may have missed it. Perhaps LSJ can clarify, as I > sense some sort of response from Peter in regards to this issue. ;) It is still valid.

The Lasombra wrote: > Since it simply can't be said enough in this thread: > > Play.The.Game. Correct.

In article <5Nghp8fJ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > No innate right. The table is just batshit insane and you can't do > anything you expected to do. Oh, that makes sense. I guess I was misunderstanding which "you" was being referred to. Makes more sense now. > For 20 minutes, however, you didn't get to play the game. Just like in > 20 minutes of deal making. The difference I see here is that when you are actually (i.e. mechanically taking actions and playing cards), even if it is taking a long time, there isn't anything that could be called unecessarily slow play (unless, again, someone is taking 5 minutes to decide what strike card to play, and in that case, folks will call them on it). And in such a situation, when folks *are* being unecessarily slow, it is easy to call someone on it. When it comes to dealmaking, this isn't the case. Which strikes me as problematic. > Use your judgement to determine if the deal making really is in earnest. > It's possible that it is. It's possible that it isn't. Rule > appropriately based on your judgement. And if it is in earnest and has taken an hour? No way to punish it. Yet it has stalled the game for an hour. Not good. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <0hv083t9h2ebnuikt...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Play.The.Game. See, I'd like to. But some tools on the other side of the table are spending 45 minutes debating some deal... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:kF_fi.455946$JN6.66592 @newsfe17.phx: > atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> wrote: >> Try this, instead; >> >> Mid-game with all five players in, 5-7 minions per, plus a few odd >> permanents, and thirty cards in each ash heap, at least 10 pool to a >> player, and an hour and a half left on the clock. Deck tactics are >> assorted and diverse. Player (A) wants to cut a short term deal with >> another player. He's open to whomever is interested in being his >> partner in breaking the table balance, and a discussion for a deal >> ensues. When do the table negotiations pass from necessary, to >> stalling? > > Simple: when the game is no longer being played. > > Table negotiations = playing the game > Long table negotiations = annoying, but playing the game > Longer-than-someone-at-the-table-feels-is-necessary table negotiations = > call a judge = judgement ensues = Gimme a number, you big chicken ;-) Be the judge. > problem solved => back to playing the > game > Right. ON to the next deal negotiation... DZ AW

On 26 jun, 14:42, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <0hv083t9h2ebnuiktabc4bhpnvcqghn...@4ax.com>, > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Play.The.Game. > > See, I'd like to. But some tools on the other side of the table are > spending 45 minutes debating some deal... Hyperbole aside (45 minutes?), they are playing the game, as pointed out before.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > The difference I see here is that when you are actually (i.e. > mechanically taking actions and playing cards), even if it is taking a > long time, there isn't anything that could be called unecessarily slow > play (unless, again, someone is taking 5 minutes to decide what strike > card to play, and in that case, folks will call them on it). And in such > a situation, when folks *are* being unecessarily slow, it is easy to > call someone on it. Oh? It's easy for the judge to speak the words, yes. But it's not "easy" to actually make the judgment. > When it comes to dealmaking, this isn't the case. It is as easy to speak the words and as easy (as difficult) to make the judgment as it is in the other cases of slow play. In practice, that is. > Which strikes me as problematic. >> Use your judgement to determine if the deal making really is in earnest. >> It's possible that it is. It's possible that it isn't. Rule >> appropriately based on your judgement. > > And if it is in earnest and has taken an hour? No way to punish it. Yet > it has stalled the game for an hour. Not good. "No way to punish it?" Indeed, no *reason* to punish it. Just as there's not way to punish someone for playing Minion Tap. You don't punish people for playing VTES at a VTES tournament. It hasn't stalled the game; it is the game. You keep conflating stalling with playing, and it keeps troubling you; leading you to label "play" as "problematic", when in fact "play" is the whole point of the game.

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1182845841....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > On 25 jun, 22:27, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> The deck that wins, under the guidelines as described, is the one >> which >> takes four 15 minute turns to build, and one 15 minute turn to oust. > > Good luck with that. 2 ousts by turn 5? I'd like to see that....Not to > mention table hate. > Table Hate? Who gives a crap... They'll only have four or five rounds to act on it, anyways. Even if they do oust m, there very likely won't be enough time remaining to resolve the table. The most likely results will be; 2.5 VP and the game win for me, or 0.5 VP full table timeout, or focused table hate does oust me, but without enough time for the rest to resolve their strategies. And why would they hate me in the first place? What I'm doing is perfectly legal... Given that most of the time consumption will come from things like searching the library and shuffling, a multitude of actions, etc. its not like I'm looking to screw anyone else's strategy through interference... Or, do you think that table hate may be an tacit recognition of the fact that there really _is_ some unreasonable level of time consumption by a single player in a game..? Hmmm.... >>That >> leaves the other four players with a total of 11.25 minutes a piece >> to do with what they will. How many strategies do you think can get >> a game win under those circumstances? > > Weenies. Noted. But even weenies are blunted, if they have fewer turns in which to act (most everything is blunted, that's kinda my point). DZ AW

On Jun 25, 7:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: > atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote innews:Xns9959D11F16F0Aat...@207.115.17.102: > > > Out of curiosity, LSJ, what is considered a reasonable number of riffle > > shuffles to sufficiently mix a library post-search in the mid-game? > > Nevermind, I found some precedent; > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading- > cards.jyhad/msg/1d7d6d2ab6808242 > > W00t! The strategy is forming!!! Are you as excited for the NAC now as I > am??? Well, I would have to say that I am not excited about this "exciting new strategy" you have discovered, no. But if you really want to (try to) play the game that way, I can't use prior restraint to stop you any more than I could stop you from showing up with a bad rush deck, playing it badly, and making a shambles of every game you sit at. I am pretty doubtful that you will win many games doing it, but I can't really stop you from trying, as much as I may want to punch you in the nose if you're at my table. :-) Josh or a bad wall deck, which also is pretty good at frustrating the other players and making them curse the fact that you are a vtes player and have sat down at their table

On 26 jun, 14:55, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1182845841....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > > On 25 jun, 22:27, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> The deck that wins, under the guidelines as described, is the one > >> which > >> takes four 15 minute turns to build, and one 15 minute turn to oust. > > > Good luck with that. 2 ousts by turn 5? I'd like to see that....Not to > > mention table hate. > > Table Hate? Who gives a crap... They'll only have four or five rounds > to act on it, anyways. Even if they do oust m, there very likely won't > be enough time remaining to resolve the table. The most likely results > will be; 2.5 VP and the game win for me, or 0.5 VP full table timeout, or > focused table hate does oust me, but without enough time for the rest to > resolve their strategies. You haven't addressed how you will get 2 ousts in turn 5....Yet you seem sure it will work, because you assume it in the rest of your response. > > And why would they hate me in the first place? What I'm doing is > perfectly legal... Given that most of the time consumption will come > from things like searching the library and shuffling, a multitude of > actions, etc. its not like I'm looking to screw anyone else's strategy > through interference... Or, do you think that table hate may be an tacit > recognition of the fact that there really _is_ some unreasonable level of > time consumption by a single player in a game..? Hmmm.... Doesn't matter if it is legal or not. Arika decks, weenie decks, Imbued decks, gehenna decks,... are all perfectly legal and attract table hate. > > >>That > >> leaves the other four players with a total of 11.25 minutes a piece > >> to do with what they will. How many strategies do you think can get > >> a game win under those circumstances? > > > Weenies. > > Noted. But even weenies are blunted, if they have fewer turns in which > to act (most everything is blunted, that's kinda my point). So are you. you are only giving yourself 5 turns for 2 ousts. That's a BIG gambit.

In article <Xns995B5BDDCA...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Or, do you think that table hate may be an tacit > recognition of the fact that there really _is_ some unreasonable level of > time consumption by a single player in a game..? Hmmm.... That is *crazy* talk! [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:0hv083t9h2ebnuikt...@4ax.com: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:30:58 -0700, "Kevin M." > <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>>> Oh, the possibilities are endless. Someone help by offering their >>>> opinions on what strategies are both time-consuming, and effective. > >>>>What, no takers? C'mon, this is a great new way to play VTES!! >>>>Where's everybody's enthusiasm for such a novel new tournament tactic? > >>> Coupe provided one of the best in response >>> to something else in this overly long thread. > >>> Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third >>> Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again >>> for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, >>> then start the time bomb ticking again. > >>Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to >>show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? > > The deck challenge isn't about right or wrong. It is about taking a > lot of time on your actions. I certainly think that there are decks > that can monopolize the time and that can win while its opponents are > still setting up. > Thanks Jeff, some good ideas here, and you are exactly right. > > If Zopf really desired to work towards his desired goal, he would > simply play Imbued poorly. While its true I've got precious little experience playing Imbued, I agree with the precedent that player history can be a factor to consider in judging slow play. For some reason, people think I know how to play VTES, so this one is probably not an option ;-) > I have played against the best Imbued > players, and they can take less time on a turn when placing half a > dozen cards and taking 10 actions than players with only 2 minions. I > have also played against the worst Imbued players, and it is > excruciating. > > In any case, deck building cannot ever convince rational humans that > table talk, deals, and twenty-thirty minute discussions are good or > bad for the game. Only direct experience can do that. > Aye. That's what the NAC is for. > > Since it simply can't be said enough in this thread: > > Play.The.Game. After all this time, it seems I'm only just now learning what The.Game really is. DZ AW

In article <AZ7gi.8807$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It's easy for the judge to speak the words, yes. But it's not "easy" to > actually make the judgment. If someone is spending 5 minutes deciding to play a strike card? That strikes me as one of the easiest judgements to make. > "No way to punish it?" Hmm. I have no memory of writing "punish". I suspect I meant something else. I formally retract my use of the word "punish" as that was not what I meant to write. Although I can't figure out what it was I meant to write. But I have no need to "punish" anything. Likely a freudian slip :-) (So the other day, I was eating dinner, and I meant to say "dad, pass the salt" but I accidentally said "you dirty fucking bastard. you ruined my whole life.") > You keep conflating stalling with playing, and it > keeps troubling you; leading you to label "play" as "problematic", when in > fact "play" is the whole point of the game. It isn't the stalling that troubles me, as stalling is something that is handled by the rules. What I keep conflating is not stalling and playing. It is playing and playing. Someone honestly spending 15 minutes judging and considering their options on a given turn is not ok, as someone will call it "stalling" (even though it is someone earnestly playing the game) or "slow play", and a judge will likely consider it as such. On the other hand, two people honestly spending 15 minutes debating a deal that may very well go nowhere is ok as that is "playing the game". This is the conundrum that I am having trouble wrapping my mind around. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1182862278.6...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hyperbole aside (45 minutes?), they are playing the game, as pointed > out before. A) Comedy. B) You honestly have not seen folks spend a ridiculous amount of time debating the fine points of a deal? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 jun, 15:39, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182862278.614201.253...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hyperbole aside (45 minutes?), they are playing the game, as pointed > > out before. > > A) Comedy. > > B) You honestly have not seen folks spend a ridiculous amount of time > debating the fine points of a deal? Yes. But not 45 minutes, i think, but I'm one of those non watch wearing persons. And, just like you, I don't like it either, but there is no way of stopping them. Alltough I can't imagine earnestly talking for 45 minutes straight to hammer out a deal. Even then, it doesn't prevent you from playing either, because you can counter deal, or try to sabotage the deal by talking too.

In article <1182865745....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Yes. But not 45 minutes, i think, but I'm one of those non watch > wearing persons. And, just like you, I don't like it either, but there > is no way of stopping them. Alltough I can't imagine earnestly talking > for 45 minutes straight to hammer out a deal. Yeah, ok, 45 minutes is hyperbole. But in a 2 hour time limit game, even 10-15 minutes (which is not in any way out of the realm of reason for such a discussion) is a *huge* chunk of time to have the game state not progress. > Even then, it doesn't prevent you from playing either, because you can > counter deal, or try to sabotage the deal by talking too. Sure. But if I wanted to spend that much of my time and effort wheeling and dealing, I'd be playing Diplomacy. Or a VTM Larp (and at least then there would be hot goth women in leather to negotiate with...) [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1182863250.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> (most everything is blunted, that's kinda my point). > > So are you. you are only giving yourself 5 turns for 2 ousts. That's a > BIG gambit. > *shrug* of all the people at the table, only my deck will be built including the idea of legally monopolizing as much clock time as it can... Its a gambit, but not that big, since it creates an environment in which other decks, built under the foolish assumption that they'll have enough time to accomplish _something_, aren't typically effective in, while it is itself less hindered (if I build it correctly), because it will have all the time it needs. Its a definite challenge to build, but I think I'm up for it. DZ AW

On 26 jun, 16:08, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182865745.660160.83...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Yes. But not 45 minutes, i think, but I'm one of those non watch > > wearing persons. And, just like you, I don't like it either, but there > > is no way of stopping them. Alltough I can't imagine earnestly talking > > for 45 minutes straight to hammer out a deal. > > Yeah, ok, 45 minutes is hyperbole. But in a 2 hour time limit game, even > 10-15 minutes (which is not in any way out of the realm of reason for > such a discussion) is a *huge* chunk of time to have the game state not > progress. Game state doesn't progres, no. The game, however, does. > > > Even then, it doesn't prevent you from playing either, because you can > > counter deal, or try to sabotage the deal by talking too. > > Sure. But if I wanted to spend that much of my time and effort wheeling > and dealing, I'd be playing Diplomacy. Or a VTM Larp (and at least then > there would be hot goth women in leather to negotiate with...) I see. This is your disconnect, i believe. The one stopping you from playing the game are not those who are arguing, but it's you, because you don't want to play this part of the game. For reference: If I don't like the 'discarding my cards during the discard phase' part of the game[0], no-one can force me (barring some cards.) But can i complain that this game favors those who do like to use their discard phase because on average their turn will take longer? [0] also hyperbole, I know.

On 26 jun, 16:25, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1182863250.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> (most everything is blunted, that's kinda my point). > > > So are you. you are only giving yourself 5 turns for 2 ousts. That's a > > BIG gambit. > > *shrug* of all the people at the table, only my deck will be built > including the idea of legally monopolizing as much clock time as it can... Don't forget that you are only monopolizing 'card playing time' not. If you exclude people from taking turns, like in the MN example. They can still use time to talk with other about their options. Especialy once they catch on to what you are playing. > Its a gambit, but not that big, since it creates an environment in which > other decks, built under the foolish assumption that they'll have enough > time to accomplish _something_, aren't typically effective in, while it is > itself less hindered (if I build it correctly), because it will have all > the time it needs. Its a definite challenge to build, but I think I'm up > for it. I'd like to see that. Maybe you can pull it of 1 in 5 times or something like that, not enough to become a threat to tournements....

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1182868944.9...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On 26 jun, 16:25, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote >> innews:1182863250.5...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> (most everything is blunted, that's kinda my point). >> >> > So are you. you are only giving yourself 5 turns for 2 ousts. >> > That's a BIG gambit. >> >> *shrug* of all the people at the table, only my deck will be built >> including the idea of legally monopolizing as much clock time as it >> can... > > Don't forget that you are only monopolizing 'card playing time' not. > If you exclude people from taking turns, like in the MN example. They > can still use time to talk with other about their options. Especialy > once they catch on to what you are playing. > The more time they spend talking, the less time they'll have to git 'er done... Go ahead and gab all you want, its your 11.25 minutes. >> Its a gambit, but not that big, since it creates an environment in >> which other decks, built under the foolish assumption that they'll >> have enough time to accomplish _something_, aren't typically >> effective in, while it is itself less hindered (if I build it >> correctly), because it will have all the time it needs. Its a >> definite challenge to build, but I think I'm up for it. > > I'd like to see that. Maybe you can pull it of 1 in 5 times or > something like that, not enough to become a threat to tournements.... > *shrug* Mainly, the point is to get some acknowlegment that the rules for time use, as they stand, are inappropriate for timed games. Yes, empirical evidence of that is needed. My apologies in advance to those whose NAC rounds get ruined, in the process of that data collection. DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > *shrug* Mainly, the point is to get some acknowlegment that the rules > for time use, as they stand, are inappropriate for timed games. Yes, > empirical evidence of that is needed. My apologies in advance to those > whose NAC rounds get ruined, in the process of that data collection. And my apologies in advance for enforcing the sportsmanship rule. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64bbd830f82de0

Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1182862709.0...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 25, 7:10 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: >> W00t! The strategy is forming!!! Are you as excited for the NAC now >> as I am??? > > Well, I would have to say that I am not excited about this "exciting > new strategy" you have discovered, no. > Honesty! I think you recognize that the type of VTES this rule on time use infers is _not_ something to look forward to. The legal exploitation of this rule breaks the concept of a tournament with timed rounds... > But if you really want to (try to) play the game that way, I can't use > prior restraint to stop you any more than I could stop you from > showing up with a bad rush deck, playing it badly, and making a > shambles of every game you sit at. Wouldn't such behavior be penalizable under unsportsmanlike conduct? People know me, and the game, well enough to suss out such behavior. DZ AW

In article <1182868233.6...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I see. This is your disconnect, i believe. The one stopping you from > playing the game are not those who are arguing, but it's you, because > you don't want to play this part of the game. See, as noted many times before in this discussion, I accept that a certain level of negotiation is inevitable in this, as it is a multi player game. And within reason, it is fine. Where my disconnect is is here: If the part of the game I like is carefully considering my options, and seeing what is in everyone's ash heaps, and figuring out all my moves before I take them, and want to spend 15 minutes on my turn figuring out everything I want to do before I do it, I can't do this, as it will be deemed "slow play" or "stalling". Even though I am earnestly playing the game while the game state remains unchanged. However, if the part of the game you like is trying to negotiate a deal, even if that deal accomplishes nothing at all and goes nowhere, and you want to spend 15 minutes on your turn negotiating deals, you apparently can do so, as that is "playing the game" (where me carefully figuring out all of my moves ahead of time is "stalling"). Because you are earnestly playing the game while the game state remains unchanged. Which makes zero sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And my apologies in advance for enforcing the sportsmanship rule. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64bbd830f82 > de0 How is it unsportsmanlike to play a deck that attempts to maximize the apparent legal monopolization of time while playing to win? People will not be upset about their games being ruined by poor sportsmanship. They'll be upset about their games being ruined by someone legally monopolizing game time. Kind of like when people are upset when their games are ruined by excessive table talk and deal making... [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <hU_fi.455948$JN6....@newsfe17.phx>, Kevin M. > <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >> The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third >>> Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again >>> for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, >>> then start the time bomb ticking again. >> Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to >> show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? > > In games where shuffling occurs a lot, or situations where a player is a > particularly slow shuffler[0], I've been known to shuffle a deck for a > player while they play. If they need to draw a card or three while I'm > doing it, they can get given a card at random from the deck while I'm > doing it. > > > > [0] I am far from the world's greatest shuffler, but it's usually > quicker for a player to carry on with the rest of their turn while > someone else is shuffling. > Indeed, but one is allowed a full minute to shuffle. There is nothing in the rules to prevent one from using the entire allotted minute, nor is there anything to force one to have another to shuffle one's deck in the interests of "time". Yes, it would be really lame to sit with someone with a MoTS/Creation Rites deck, and they shuffle for the full minute after each one of those actions they take. But it would be legal, and I don't think it would violate "slow play" rules, since that aspect of the game is well defined. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> And my apologies in advance for enforcing the sportsmanship rule. >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64bbd830f82 >> de0 > > How is it unsportsmanlike to play a deck that attempts to maximize the > apparent legal monopolization of time while playing to win? > > People will not be upset about their games being ruined by poor > sportsmanship. They'll be upset about their games being ruined by > someone legally monopolizing game time. Kind of like when people are > upset when their games are ruined by excessive table talk and deal > making... > That is also the reason why i started with the idea, days ago, about officializing the SoD format as the one best fitted to avoid to see newbies runnning away after the first official tournaments, where such situations (people pissed by *lots* of legal table talk due deals) are just the normality, here. best Emiliano

librarian wrote: > Indeed, but one is allowed a full minute to shuffle. From the 2007 rules' list of changes from 2006: 3.4 Removed explicit time limit on initial shuffling. Judgment is to be used. 3.5 Removed explicit time limit on mid-game shuffling. Judgment is to be used.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] If i just showed up with a bad deck that wastes a lot of time, I've already recognized elsewhere that I'd be subject to unsportsmanlike conduct (see my response to Lasombra's suggestion that I just play Imbued badly). I will still play to win, and the deck will be good. But, I will seek a tactic which seeks the win by a process which consumes as much of the table's time as legally possible on a per-round basis. Sportsmanship, along with all other rules, will be observed. DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] That should be, mostly , "play" of cards - yes. That's what you buy at store, collecting and trading them also. We're not supposed to buy, collect and trade deals or table talks, are we ? This is all about the importance of deck and skill in playing it, against the importance in the game of the table talk originated by the deal system. The second should not become more important than the first, but it's a thing that is actually happening - and it's the reason why i introduced the idea of a sanctioned level of the game in which deals can't exist). best Emiliano

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Or, are you saying here that heavily biased use of the finite amount of game time is subject to unsportsmanlike conduct (i.e. not giving your opponents a sporting chance)? If this is equally applicable to any mechanical aspect of the game which is time consuming, then the problem of dealmaking taking more time than other instances of playing the game is more or less solved. Can I judge deal-making to be unsportsmanlike, when it consumes an excessive amount of table time, even if the time spent is necessary to the deal? DZ AW

atomweaver wrote: > Or, are you saying here that heavily biased use of the finite amount of > game time is subject to unsportsmanlike conduct (i.e. not giving your > opponents a sporting chance)? Of course not. See the messages posted on that topic.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:I64dkaeq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <hU_fi.455948$JN6....@newsfe17.phx>, Kevin M. > <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >>The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Madness Network / Reversal of Fortunes. I would combine it with Third >>> Traditions (to gain the shuffling time) and Magic of the Smith, again >>> for the shuffling time. Then when you can overwhelm your prey, do so, >>> then start the time bomb ticking again. >> >>Jeff, you are an excellent deckbuilder. Perhaps you can make a deck to >>show me (LSJ?) how I (LSJ?) am wrong on this issue? > > In games where shuffling occurs a lot, or situations where a player is a > particularly slow shuffler[0], I've been known to shuffle a deck for a > player while they play. If they need to draw a card or three while I'm > doing it, they can get given a card at random from the deck while I'm > doing it. > Impractical solution. My deck is likely to be a Reversal of Fortunes Malk prince deck with third trads and Thaumaturgy for MotS to retrieve equipment (most likely Laptops). Shuffling will be continuously required, and interspersed throughout my turn, alternating with D bleed actions and hunts. Remember, my goal is to lengthen each of my turns with legal card play, so as to minimize the total number of rounds, and their total time available. Do you propose that the head judge continuously act as my shuffler for the duration of my (intentionally long) turns in the tournament (which, if I do things right, will be at least half of each round)? What if a second player arrives with a similar deck? DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <Nmbgi.23837$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: That is also the reason why i started with the idea, days ago, about > officializing the SoD > format as the one best fitted to avoid to see newbies runnning away after > the first official tournaments, where such situations (people pissed by > *lots* of legal table talk due deals) are just the normality, here. Yes, it certainly is. And why I got myself into this morass in the first place--if dealmaking and negotiations, when done legally, *still* scare folks off from the game, there is probably something wrong. And again, just to be clear: A) I am ok with a reasonable amount[0] of negotiation in VTES games. B) I don't really want to spend 15 minutes staring at my cards deciding what my best move is any more than I want to be engaged in a 15 minute discussion as to how best to make a deal. Yet I am still totally confused as to how some kinds of "playing the game" (i.e. earnestly spending a chunk of time figuring out your best move, even if that takes 15 minutes of planning and checking while not actually changing the game state) *are not* ok while other kinds of "playing the game" (i.e. earnestly spending a chunk of time debating a deal, even if that takes 15 minutes of talking while not actually changing the game state) *are* ok. [0] "Reasonable amount" generally meaning the kind of negotiation that doesn't regularly cause games to time out, do not inordinately monopolize large chunks of time, and don't generally scare people away from the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: > On 26 jun, 15:39, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In article <1182862278.614201.253...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Hyperbole aside (45 minutes?), they are playing the game, as pointed >>> out before. >> >> A) Comedy. >> >> B) You honestly have not seen folks spend a ridiculous amount of time >> debating the fine points of a deal? > > Yes. But not 45 minutes, i think, but I'm one of those non watch At the final of italian qualifier in 2004 the finalist took around 40 minutes debating about the *chanche* of playing a dramatic upveal (not even the vamp taking the action) - the talks at final's table were necessary, no doubt on that. Because there are zillions of similar situations during a game: if players are skilled, they will try the best, trough table talks, to ensure themselves that a notable would-be change in the game (such a deal, a vote like reins of power, protect thine own, a society of leopold on a big-cap vampire at zero, etc) will not end up for bad against them. That's pretty normal, as long as there not limit to table talks, other than a feeble *not table talks x stalling* rule reference (by players having to play in timely fashion). > wearing persons. And, just like you, I don't like it either, but there > is no way of stopping them. Alltough I can't imagine earnestly talking > for 45 minutes straight to hammer out a deal. > For certain playing styles, it's just the norm. Rules support this, you can't even blame people for playing the game the way rules allow them to play, after all (point already taken). > Even then, it doesn't prevent you from playing either, because you can > counter deal, or try to sabotage the deal by talking too. Yes, you counter deal, and that's what makes the game to be reduced just with a table of 5 persons arguing forever, trying to figure out for themselves what will be the best option *after* deal X or Y will be set. At that point, a deck with 60 game of malkav or something like that will just fit better into the picture, since it seems that the lesser chanche you have to win by the play just of your own deck, the more you'll be in the best position to dealing continously. Emiliano

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1182865745....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes. But not 45 minutes, i think, but I'm one of those non watch >> wearing persons. And, just like you, I don't like it either, but >> there is no way of stopping them. Alltough I can't imagine earnestly >> talking for 45 minutes straight to hammer out a deal. > > Yeah, ok, 45 minutes is hyperbole. It is not, believe me. I judged and played such games at official tournaments, it happens. Even though, maybe, not in as a single table talk, as a *sum* of 2-3 talks, because a given situation (like a potence weenie) that makes some talks to arise towards a possible deal, it's likely to stay there until the interested players will get rid of the same situation, ending up, after some turns, in chatting again trying to set up the deal. In front of complicated table situations, *every* people want to get the best set up for them - since the best, often, can only be obtained trough a counter-deal, it's *obvious* that this table-talk process will go on for long - i repeat, it's normal, you can't blame people for "playing" the deals like that. >> Even then, it doesn't prevent you from playing either, because you >> can counter deal, or try to sabotage the deal by talking too. > > Sure. But if I wanted to spend that much of my time and effort > wheeling and dealing, I'd be playing Diplomacy. Or a VTM Larp (and at > least then there would be hot goth women in leather to negotiate > with...) I totally agree with you on this - no need to collect cards to play, if the "best" level of the game turn them somewhat unnecessary, after that a deal has been set up. Emiliano

In message <pdb6-BFCF7D.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> And my apologies in advance for enforcing the sportsmanship rule. >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64bbd830f82 >> de0 > >How is it unsportsmanlike to play a deck that attempts to maximize the >apparent legal monopolization of time while playing to win? Players who turn up with the express intention of undermining the tournament and the express intention of playing slowly as much as they possibly can... they're not very sporting now, are they? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <RAagi.472699$115.1...@newsfe10.phx>, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >Indeed, but one is allowed a full minute to shuffle. There is nothing >in the rules to prevent one from using the entire allotted minute, nor >is there anything to force one to have another to shuffle one's deck in >the interests of "time". Even if the rules hadn't been changed, as LSJ indicates, a player who uses up the maximum amount of time for every thing he or she does for no reason other than to use that amount of time is pretty much looking like someone playing slowly intentionally. (The judge can then decide between Slow Play and Stalling. Many judges would choose Slow Play, in my opinion.) Similarly, even with an explicit one minute time limit, a judge is going to be able to use their discretion if something stops the player from shuffling well in that time, such as having their deck knocked off the table by a passer-by[0] or something like that. Judges are not automatons. They are expected to actually adapt to the circumstances around them. [0] Can easily happen in a shop or pub, if you play in those. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns995B87B92C...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in >news:I64dkaeq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >> In games where shuffling occurs a lot, or situations where a player is >a >> particularly slow shuffler[0], I've been known to shuffle a deck for a >> player while they play. If they need to draw a card or three while I'm >> doing it, they can get given a card at random from the deck while I'm >> doing it. >> > >Impractical solution. Not really. The point of shuffling the deck is to prevent you from knowing the order of cards you're going to draw. Having a/the judge on hand to speed this up where possible isn't a huge problem. When it's not possible, it's not possible. People move on. >Do you propose that the head judge >continuously act as my shuffler for the duration of my (intentionally >long) turns in the tournament (which, if I do things right, will be at >least half of each round)? I'm not sure how you can equate "doing things right" with your intentions of constructing a deck just to annoy people. It seems like you've expressly set out to do things wrong for no reason other than some deluded sense of making a point. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-92BF38.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >However, if the part of the game you like is trying to negotiate a deal, >even if that deal accomplishes nothing at all and goes nowhere, and you >want to spend 15 minutes on your turn negotiating deals, you apparently >can do so I'm not sure how you can earnestly negotiate a deal for 15 minutes when the deal accomplishes nothing. Player suggests a silly deal that accomplishes nothing. Another player says "That's a crappy deal." Takes: 15 seconds, fine. Player suggests a crappy deal, and proceeds to attempt to negotiate it (or a variation on it) with everyone on the table, each of them turning him down because it's a really stupid deal that "accomplishes nothing at all". Time taken: 3-4 minutes. Probably a candidate for getting a judge to observe. If a judge does observe, it might affect later punishments (by affecting his judgement), or might be the straw that breaks the camel's back from previous behaviour. Or might raise to the level of a verbal warning, maybe. Who knows. Player suggests a crappy deal that "accomplishes nothing at all" and proceeds to attempt to negotiate it by going "nowhere" for 15 minutes? How on earth do you believe that that's earnest deal making? I believe some of the problem here is that you appear to have gone from a ruling about deal-making in earnest to believing that applies any time a player talks at all. Which it doesn't. A player must still play in a timely fashion. Taking 15 minutes to negotiate a deal that accomplishes nothing at all... how is that even close to earnest, timely play? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <%Zbgi.23897$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >That's pretty normal, as long as there not limit to table talks, other than >a feeble *not >table talks x stalling* rule reference (by players having to play in timely >fashion). What's feeble about it? Stalling is intentional cheating, and the recommended penalty for it is game loss. If the judge won't enforce the stalling rules and penalties, it doesn't matter what the rules are changed to. You're still relying on a judge who won't enforce the rules to enforce them. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:$HMArrR4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <pdb6-BFCF7D.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter > D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>In article <oS9gi.22363$C96....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> And my apologies in advance for enforcing the sportsmanship rule. >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/cc64 >>> bbd830f82 de0 >> >>How is it unsportsmanlike to play a deck that attempts to maximize the >>apparent legal monopolization of time while playing to win? > > Players who turn up with the express intention of undermining the > tournament So are you saying that a heavily biased , yet legal consumption of the limited time resource undermines a tournament? So am I. So is Peter. That's why we seek a better (more fair) guideline for time use. > and the express intention of playing slowly as much as they > possibly can... they're not very sporting now, are they? > I intend to design a deck which by its very function uses a tactic that is mechanically time consuming, but i have no intention of playing said deck faster or slowler than any other. That'd be illegal. DaveZ Atom Weaver

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:WMbgi.22388$C96.19881 @newssvr23.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] Phew. For a minute there, I though we could reach a resolution... ;-) DZ AW

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:TVFr $VUdGW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: [ quoted text not captured ] Again, if you consider only the softball situations that you're serving up for yourself, one can reach that conclusion safely. Sure, crappy deals are easy and fast to reject. Instead of a crappy deal, what if the deal is enticing enough to get more than one opponent engaged in the negotiations..? The originator then needs to consider each player's argument for why they are the best one to strike the deal with (good amount of time spent as two-three players make their respective cases) Over the course of negotiations, one player clearly has a lesser advantage to offer, yet can king-make to spoil any deal. After its all talked around, since that player will not benefit, and might be edged out of the game otherwise, that player offers up his last ultimatum; include me in the deal, or I'll scuttle anything you try to form with another player, and he can back it up. 15 minutes legally spent, nothing accomplished. Every few turns down the line, when the game state has changed... lather rinse repeat. DZ AW

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns995BA36996...@207.115.17.102... [ quoted text not captured ] Come on man, be reasonable. What you describe *never happens*. In real life, people either reach deals pretty promptly if they decide that working together is something they actually want to do, or they don't and stop trying. People almost never end up spending twenty minutes (let alone forty-five) talking about some stupid deal and not playing the game. And if they tried to, the other players would yell at them, the judge would come over, and he would make them move it along, because they are not seriously playing the game in their ridiculous time-wasting "supposedly deal-making" discussion. Deals in earnest just don't take that long to negotiate in real life. If by some miracle one did, maybe that would be okay, but in fact, they do not. Judges can see this too. Josh play. the damn. game.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:EX0OvhSZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >>Do you propose that the head judge >>continuously act as my shuffler for the duration of my (intentionally >>long) turns in the tournament (which, if I do things right, will be at >>least half of each round)? > > I'm not sure how you can equate "doing things right" with your > intentions of constructing a deck just to annoy people. It seems like > you've expressly set out to do things wrong for no reason other than > some deluded sense of making a point. > Not at all. I'm making the point that, in a game with time limits, time is a finite resource. Since VTES allows me to spend this resource to my hearts content, so long as the time is mechanically required by my game play, I'm simply going to leverage that for Game Wins in the same way deal-makers leverage their position for Game Wins through negotiation, or the same way any other finite resource is leveraged for an in-game advantage. I see it as an outstanding means of controlling the table, and a great way to stymie all manner of different deck tactics, which are all built assuming that they'll get some reasonable fraction of the game time, and that the game will be about 12-15 turns long. When I'm at the table, both of these assumptions will be wrong. Ideally, they'll see less than eight turns, and the ymay feel rushed to get things going, which will foster play errors. The better I do my job, the less time they'll have. Even if I don't do that great a job, since I'm building my deck to do more in each of my turns, even knocking just a few turns off the total available time will play to my advantage. The concept is scalable, in that sense. Having games at which a player is playing to this tactic, though, are going to be pretty tedious. In that sense, another point is that, in a tournament setting with timed rounds, a policy which lets one person spend time _this_ disproportionately is a broken policy, and I'd like to see it improved in some way, to make timed tournaments more fair. DZ AW

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-08ED8F.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <Nmbgi.23837$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > That is also the reason why i started with the idea, days ago, about >> officializing the SoD >> format as the one best fitted to avoid to see newbies runnning away >> after >> the first official tournaments, where such situations (people pissed >> by >> *lots* of legal table talk due deals) are just the normality, here. > > Yes, it certainly is. And why I got myself into this morass in the > first > place--if dealmaking and negotiations, when done legally, *still* > scare > folks off from the game, there is probably something wrong. In my experience, this doesn't happen that much. (The people to whom I have seen it happen don't like games like Diplomacy in the first place and I don't know if there's much that could be done about it, for them.) > And again, just to be clear: > > A) I am ok with a reasonable amount[0] of negotiation in VTES games. > > B) I don't really want to spend 15 minutes staring at my cards > deciding > what my best move is any more than I want to be engaged in a 15 minute > discussion as to how best to make a deal. > > Yet I am still totally confused as to how some kinds of "playing the > game" (i.e. earnestly spending a chunk of time figuring out your best > move, even if that takes 15 minutes of planning and checking while not > actually changing the game state) *are not* ok while other kinds of > "playing the game" (i.e. earnestly spending a chunk of time debating a > deal, even if that takes 15 minutes of talking while not actually > changing the game state) *are* ok. There is not so much difference. It shouldn't take you 15 minutes at a time to discuss stuff in a game of VTES. If it does, either you are an idiot or you are wasting time. If you are wasting time, the judge will be happy to make you hurry it up or get out of the tournament. If it takes you two minutes at a time, you're probably doing okay. (Though it shouldn't even take you two minutes at a time unless you *really* love to make intricate deals.) I can't think of an occasion where people have spent 15 minutes discussing nonsense other than maybe in some kind of high-stakes tournament finals. They shouldn't really do it there either, because it is only advantageous to the top-seeded player for them to do so, but people do get all uptight and talkative in finals sometimes. I think Scott just doesn't want to pin down a specific number of minutes in the tournament rules because that is not how the tournament rules work. Tournament rules rely on judges' judgment of what is and is not reasonable and appropriate. Josh in. appropriate.

On Jun 26, 10:13 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: [...] > Having games at which a player is playing to this tactic, though, are > going to be pretty tedious. That would be bad play. And, as you know, bad play is not illegal. > In that sense, another point is that, in a > tournament setting with timed rounds, a policy which lets one person > spend time _this_ disproportionately is a broken policy, and I'd like to > see it improved in some way, to make timed tournaments more fair. The policy is not broken. PLAY. THE. GAME. and PLAY. TO. WIN. Do not play badly. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

In message <Xns995BA040F4...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in >news:$HMArrR4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > >> In message <pdb6-BFCF7D.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter >> D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>>How is it unsportsmanlike to play a deck that attempts to maximize the >>>apparent legal monopolization of time while playing to win? >> >> Players who turn up with the express intention of undermining the >> tournament > >So are you saying that a heavily biased , yet legal consumption of the >limited time resource undermines a tournament? No. On the other hand, a player who, with the intention of being an idiot to prove a point, turns up to undermine a tournament - that undermines a tournament. A player who finds himself in a situation where he or she needs a large amount of time to play the game is entitled to use that time, however. > So am I. So you're agreeing that what you would be doing would undermine a tournament and you'd be doing it on purpose knowing that? Okay. Now just don't turn up and save yourself the cost of travelling that far to be DQ-ed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1182889210.173059.126630 @g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 26, 10:13 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [...] >> Having games at which a player is playing to this tactic, though, are >> going to be pretty tedious. > > That would be bad play. And, as you know, bad play is not illegal. > Is it still bad play if I win? >> In that sense, another point is that, in a >> tournament setting with timed rounds, a policy which lets one person >> spend time _this_ disproportionately is a broken policy, and I'd like to >> see it improved in some way, to make timed tournaments more fair. > > The policy is not broken. PLAY. THE. GAME. and PLAY. TO. WIN. > > Do not play badly. What I'm proposing IS playing.the.game, per LSJ. I _always_ PLAY.TO.WIN. Some of the ways to play to win take more time than others. I'm just picking one strategy over another, because the one that takes more time, gives my opponents less time... which can work to my advantage... which means more Game Wins. Yay! DZ AW

In message <Xns995BA36996...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:TVFr >$VUdGW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >> I believe some of the problem here is that you appear to have gone from >> a ruling about deal-making in earnest to believing that applies any >time >> a player talks at all. Which it doesn't. A player must still play in >a >> timely fashion. Taking 15 minutes to negotiate a deal that >accomplishes >> nothing at all... how is that even close to earnest, timely play? >> > >Again, if you consider only the softball situations that you're serving >up for yourself, one can reach that conclusion safely. I'm not serving up the situation. I'm using the exact situation that Peter provided! 15 minutes for a "deal accomplishes nothing at all and goes nowhere". That's what Peter said! Go back and read it. How in the name of God am I serving up softball situations when I'm dealing with the situation I was given? If you ignore the conversation that happens, it's easy for you to portray people with different views as dealing with "softball situations" when, in fact, they dealt with the situation that was described. > Instead of a crappy deal, what if the deal is enticing enough to get >more than one opponent engaged in the negotiations..? Then the judge would, of course, exercise his or her judgement. > The originator >then needs to consider each player's argument for why they are the best >one to strike the deal with (good amount of time spent as two-three >players make their respective cases) Over the course of negotiations, >one player clearly has a lesser advantage to offer, yet can king-make to >spoil any deal. Because the situation is, clearly, really quite complex, you'd need to provide quite a lot more detail before I could exercise judgement appropriately. >After its all talked around, since that player will not >benefit, and might be edged out of the game otherwise, that player offers >up his last ultimatum; include me in the deal, or I'll scuttle anything >you try to form with another player, and he can back it up. 15 minutes >legally spent, nothing accomplished. Every few turns down the line, when >the game state has changed... lather rinse repeat. It's far from clear that it would be "lather rinse repeat". Changing game states can simplify situations a lot, when a player has nothing to offer. To judge that level of complexity, you'd need to provide a realistic situation. After all, if I answer now, I'll just serve up a softball, won't I? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 26, 10:28 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1182889210.173059.126630 > @g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > On Jun 26, 10:13 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> Having games at which a player is playing to this tactic, though, > are > >> going to be pretty tedious. > > > That would be bad play. And, as you know, bad play is not illegal. > > Is it still bad play if I win? > > > > >> In that sense, another point is that, in a > >> tournament setting with timed rounds, a policy which lets one person > >> spend time _this_ disproportionately is a broken policy, and I'd like > to > >> see it improved in some way, to make timed tournaments more fair. > > > The policy is not broken. PLAY. THE. GAME. and PLAY. TO. WIN. > > > Do not play badly. > > What I'm proposing IS playing.the.game, per LSJ. I _always_ PLAY.TO.WIN. > Some of the ways to play to win take more time than others. Sure. Which is legitimate. > I'm just picking one strategy over another, because the one that takes more time, > gives my opponents less time... which can work to my advantage... which > means more Game Wins. Yay! No problem with that. But... Do you care to show us your deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 26, 3:57 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:TVFr > $VUdGWgGF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > > > > > > > > In message <pdb6-92BF38.11280226062...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter > D [ quoted text not captured ] If one player can spoil the deal, and you know they can back it up, why did you bother offering in the first place? If you didn't know the first time, but instead had to have it explained to you, how much has the game state changed that you now no longer know who has that power, and need it explained to you again a second time later? How about a third? Sounds decidedly non-earnest to continue down that dead-end path. Also sounds a lot like you're trying to put together a contrived example to show a flaw that's just not there. It never matters how much time you take to complete your turn (whether you're taking actions or dealing). It only matters whether you are "playing excessively slowly or stalling for time". This seems to be difficult for some people to grasp, because we can easily say that, for example, a single hunt action should never take 30 minutes to complete. But what if the hunt is blocked, several maneuvers are played, followed by Form of Mist, re-blocked, more combat cards played, Earth- Melded, the now-empty vampire has to re-hunt, player negotiates for cross-table KRCG intercept, re-blocked, Aura Reading reveals another 3 Earth Melds so the blocker plays a bunch of combat cards to dig for intercept and wakes because he really needs to kill this minion...? Giving each player a reasonable amount of time to think about their card plays could very well keep this situation going for a half-hour. Should the players be called for slow play? No, they were playing in earnest. We can contrive examples back and forth for days. There cannot be a hard and fast rule for when a given play is taking too long, because there are so many possible permutations to consider. If you have 30 actions to take, half of which are going to be blocked and have a more-complicated-than-hands-for-one combat involved, and it takes 30 minutes to finish your turn even though you have not played excessively slowly or stalled for time, that is fine and part of the game. If it takes you 30 minutes to negotiate a similarly complex deal on your turn, but you neither do so excessively slowly nor stall for time, that is also fine and part of the game. The amount of time taken is only relevant (and can only be relevant) in the context of whether it's an excessive amount of time for a given play. 5 minutes, 30 minutes, 1.5 hours, no amount of time is, in itself automatically excessive, as excessive is an inherently relative term, and one that requires the use of judgment. By a judge. (I prefer the Warden). Dealmaking "in earnest" cannot be excessive, because "in earnest" implies that one is thinking/speaking/acting quickly towards a valid goal. Yes, I find it highly annoying when two or more people spend a lot of game time dealing, and it can easily lead to timeouts. But timeouts are not against the rules, and neither is annoying me. But I'm okay if you want to pester Scott to remedy that second problem :P witness1 logic! it works, bitches!

In message <5eda11F...@mid.individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> writes: >People almost never end up spending twenty minutes (let alone forty-five) >talking about some stupid deal and not playing the game. A I have once, ever, seen a deal go on that long. It was in a (to all intents and purposes) untimed final. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5edafiF...@mid.individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> writes: <snip - substantial deal making> >It shouldn't take you 15 minutes at a >time to discuss stuff in a game of VTES. If it does, either you are an >idiot or you are wasting time. I In fact, the times I've seen deal making take quite a long time (leaving aside one inordinately long deal that didn't waste time, because the final was effectively untimed) have been because one of the players wasn't an experienced deal maker. On tables with experienced - but not necessarily habitual - deal-makers, the whole process can sometimes be vastly, vastly quicker. "If you do that, I'll have to table split with Bob." "Yep, Mary-Sue is right, we'll very likely need to split the table." So that doesn't happen. All done. Combat can take time with a player who is inexperienced at combat. Deal making can take time with a player who is inexperienced at deal making. A little practice, so you have a good understanding of what you can convince people of and what's just not worth trying, can really change the dynamics of a table. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 26, 4:28 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1182889210.173059.126630 > @g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > On Jun 26, 10:13 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> Having games at which a player is playing to this tactic, though, > are > >> going to be pretty tedious. > > > That would be bad play. And, as you know, bad play is not illegal. > > Is it still bad play if I win? No, but..... > > The policy is not broken. PLAY. THE. GAME. and PLAY. TO. WIN. > > > Do not play badly. > > What I'm proposing IS playing.the.game, per LSJ. I _always_ PLAY.TO.WIN. > Some of the ways to play to win take more time than others. I'm just > picking one strategy over another, because the one that takes more time, > gives my opponents less time... which can work to my advantage... which > means more Game Wins. Yay! It can give you an advantage, perhaps. But I think you will find the other players at the table to be clever enough to take advantage of the artificial time-shortage you're trying to manufacture and spoil your victory, particularly at a high-level event like a Continental Championship. witness1 -say no to velociraptors.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:48:29 -0700, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >If one player can spoil the deal, and you know they can back it up, >why did you bother offering in the first place? I saw this on Saturday. >If you didn't know the first time, but instead had to have it >explained to you, how much has the game state changed that you now no >longer know who has that power, and need it explained to you again a >second time later? How about a third? Yes, he is dumb. >Sounds decidedly non-earnest to continue down that dead-end path. Also >sounds a lot like you're trying to put together a contrived example to >show a flaw that's just not there. He was earnest in every attempt at negotiation. His prey and grand prey stomped on every word out of his mouth in the third round.

On Jun 26, 5:46 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:48:29 -0700, witness1 > > <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >If one player can spoil the deal, and you know they can back it up, > >why did you bother offering in the first place? > > I saw this on Saturday. > > >If you didn't know the first time, but instead had to have it > >explained to you, how much has the game state changed that you now no > >longer know who has that power, and need it explained to you again a > >second time later? How about a third? > > Yes, he is dumb. > > >Sounds decidedly non-earnest to continue down that dead-end path. Also > >sounds a lot like you're trying to put together a contrived example to > >show a flaw that's just not there. > > He was earnest in every attempt at negotiation. Heh. I think earnest might not be the word Scott (or I) should be using. > His prey and grand prey stomped on every word out of his mouth in the > third round. Hard to call him on Slow Play when that happens, ain't it? "Pick up your damn cards and play the game!" "No, but I really think -" "Shut up and play!" "Oh... okay..." witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Which shows a neophyte player I think. Which supports Tetragrammaton's original point: New Players get stomped on (and perhaps derided) if they can't do deals. Which means they probably won't come back. And repeated on a larger scale, might lead to decreasing numbers of purchasers of VTES cards. Which ain't good for WW. So, is there a place for a format, perhaps not SoD, that encourages newbies in a competetive environment, without stomping them? Aha, I have an idea, I will post it in the appropriate thread. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:30:08 -0700, librarian wrote: >Which shows a neophyte player I think. He has been playing for years. His most recent tournament prior to Saturday was on the far opposite side of the country. They play a little differently there than the game is played in Atlanta. >Which supports Tetragrammaton's >original point: New Players get stomped on (and perhaps derided) if they >can't do deals. No, this specific incident does not. No other player offered a deal or accepted a deal during that round. >Which means they probably won't come back. One can only hope..... I expect to see him again at evey event or regular get together for the forseeable future. >And repeated on a larger scale, might lead to decreasing numbers of >purchasers of VTES cards. Which ain't good for WW. Nothing which decreases player's enjoyment of the game is good for WW. Quite a few locals skipped the tournament, but I think it had very little to do with the amount of table talk, the presence or absence of proposed deals, or anything other than their own personal preferences on how to spend that particular Saturday. >So, is there a place for a format, perhaps not SoD, that encourages >newbies in a competetive environment, without stomping them? Yes. It is currently the storyline tournaments. Different players and different attitudes from the same players tend to be seen at many of the storyline events. Next VTESinLA.org web poll: When should the next storyline tournament series begin? A) Now. B) July 4, 2007 C) June 29, 2007 D) Now. http://www.vtesinla.org/index.asp

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:dnkIj5Za...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >> So am I. > > So you're agreeing that what you would be doing would undermine a > tournament and you'd be doing it on purpose knowing that? > > Okay. > Flirtin' with a strawman again, James? No. I intend to legally use the structure of the rules to my advantage, to show that the rules as laid out are unfair for timed games. If the game can be legallly undermined, the fault for it being that way lies in the rules, which is fixable. > Now just don't turn up and save yourself the cost of travelling that far > to be DQ-ed. > I won't. I'll play by all of the rules. DZ AW

In article <TVFr$VUdGW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I'm not sure how you can earnestly negotiate a deal for 15 minutes when > the deal accomplishes nothing. You propose something. I counter propose something. A third player makes a further proposal. I debate his proposal. You debate his proposal. You debate my proposal. You offer a counter counter proposal. I continue to bolster my argument. A 4th player chimes in with a new opinion. We go around like this for a while. Eventually I realize that your deal is going to end up hosing me in the long run, due to pursuasive arguments from the third player. I finally say "nah". 15 minutes have passed. > Player suggests a crappy deal that "accomplishes nothing at all" and > proceeds to attempt to negotiate it by going "nowhere" for 15 minutes? > How on earth do you believe that that's earnest deal making? It wasn't a crappy deal. It was a mutually beneficial deal that, after enough scrutiny, seemed to be more beneficial to you than it was to me. So I decided against making it. All of which was discovered through earnest, lengthy discussion. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <6XaBPGbh...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > I'm not serving up the situation. I'm using the exact situation that > Peter provided! 15 minutes for a "deal accomplishes nothing at all and > goes nowhere". That's what Peter said! Go back and read it. Yep. It could have seemed like a good deal at the start of the negotiation. And only after discussing it and having someone else point out the subtle flaws does it become a deal that accomplishes nothing and goes nowhere. 'Cause after 15 minutes of discussion, I realized it was a bad deal for me. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5edafiF...@mid.individual.net>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> wrote: > In my experience, this doesn't happen that much. (The people to whom I > have seen it happen don't like games like Diplomacy in the first place > and I don't know if there's much that could be done about it, for them.) Me neither, but what started all of this was discussion about playing in an environment where dealmaking is so common and all consuming that it scares people off. > There is not so much difference. It shouldn't take you 15 minutes at a > time to discuss stuff in a game of VTES. If it does, either you are an > idiot or you are wasting time. If you are wasting time, the judge will > be happy to make you hurry it up or get out of the tournament. If it > takes you two minutes at a time, you're probably doing okay. (Though it > shouldn't even take you two minutes at a time unless you *really* love > to make intricate deals.) If people were hurrying up and only taking 2 minutes at a time (which would be fine, for my money), it wouldn't probably be scaring away new players. > I can't think of an occasion where people have spent 15 minutes > discussing nonsense other than maybe in some kind of high-stakes > tournament finals. They shouldn't really do it there either, because it > is only advantageous to the top-seeded player for them to do so, but > people do get all uptight and talkative in finals sometimes. Apparently, it happens. > I think Scott just doesn't want to pin down a specific number of minutes > in the tournament rules because that is not how the tournament rules > work. Tournament rules rely on judges' judgment of what is and is not > reasonable and appropriate. I think you are right. But what I would like to see is that Judges can tell people to hurry it along with, ya know, judgement. But all discussion so far has indicated that discussing a deal is "playing the game" and judges can't tell folks to hurry along, as as long as they are earnestly playing the game, they are playing the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <$HMArrR4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Players who turn up with the express intention of undermining the > tournament and the express intention of playing slowly as much as they > possibly can... they're not very sporting now, are they? So if you go into a tournament with the express intention of using significant deal making and negotiation as often as it helps you, which can take up a considerable amount of time if done correctly and to your advantage, they are not being sporting? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> wrote in news:5eda11F...@mid.individual.net: > Come on man, be reasonable. What you describe *never happens*. NAC 06, Day 1 on rounds 2 and 3 (yours and my round 1 table had the more resonable sort of dealing; quick and to the point. I've got no problem with that, and want whatever time use policy is to make sure to keep that aspect of the game). I only got wise and jumped in on the last round's deals myself... too late to make Day 2. > In > real life, people either reach deals pretty promptly if they decide > that working together is something they actually want to do, or they > don't and stop trying. > > People almost never end up spending twenty minutes (let alone > forty-five) Yeah, 20 minutes spent at one time is a long, unusual deal...20 minutes in two-three chunks is typical, if wheeler-dealers are present, and I've got little problems with that. 35-45 minutes is uncommon, but possible, if its spread across a few different conversations, and begins to really encroach on total table time. > talking about some stupid deal and not playing the game. > And if they tried to, the other players would yell at them, the judge > would come over, and he would make them move it along, because they > are not seriously playing the game in their ridiculous time-wasting > "supposedly deal-making" discussion. > > Deals in earnest just don't take that long to negotiate in real life. > If by some miracle one did, maybe that would be okay, but in fact, > they do not. Judges can see this too. > If true, I fail to see why the policy on time expenditure is expressed the way LSJ says (infinite, as long as the time spent is necessary) vs. what Peter suggests (Dealmaking points should be poignant. A player who feels the negotiation has dragged on overmuch can ask that the discussions be wrapped up). If it doesn't impact deals in real life, then the requested change would only impact the worst of dealmaking scenarios, if at all. DZ AW

The Lasombra wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:30:08 -0700, librarian wrote: > >> Which shows a neophyte player I think. > > He has been playing for years. His most recent tournament prior to > Saturday was on the far opposite side of the country. They play a > little differently there than the game is played in Atlanta. > >> Which supports Tetragrammaton's >> original point: New Players get stomped on (and perhaps derided) if >> they can't do deals. > > No, this specific incident does not. No other player offered a deal > or accepted a deal during that round. > >> Which means they probably won't come back. > > One can only hope..... I expect to see him again at evey event or > regular get together for the forseeable future. > >> And repeated on a larger scale, might lead to decreasing numbers of >> purchasers of VTES cards. Which ain't good for WW. > > Nothing which decreases player's enjoyment of the game is good for WW. > Quite a few locals skipped the tournament, but I think it had very > little to do with the amount of table talk, the presence or absence of > proposed deals, or anything other than their own personal preferences > on how to spend that particular Saturday. > The presence of massive table talks (due the big impact the deals can have at every stage of a gven round) it's granted that puts our game at an unique social level, sure. However, that has been let too go too much far by the rulings, imho - that's the reason why i started the SoD discussion days ago. For experienced players, it's still doable to learn the new mechanics and cards at every set release (already cited e.g. like red list, infernal, event, trophy system etc) *and* to refine their abilities at table talk/deal making. For newbies, however, the all-social consuming level due deals of standard tournaments simply represent, usually, too much of a barrier for them right now, considering all the rest of the "normal" vtes game to get and learn, to lure them effectively in the regular weekly games / monthly tournaments enviroment. Players usually love the official aspect of the game (sanctioned tournaments), it's that what gives them the motivation to buy, learn and skill with the game - but the learning curve has become just *too* much long for newbies (barring notable exception) , imho. Apart the speculation about what is to be considered effective part of the game (deals or not), the official game tournaments IMHO should evolve at a level in which you can effectively tell experienced players from beginners. Keeping this the way are now, just will make more difficult at every set release the infusion of new players. best Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <TVFr$VUdGW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> I'm not sure how you can earnestly negotiate a deal for 15 minutes >> when the deal accomplishes nothing. > > You propose something. I counter propose something. A third player > makes a further proposal. I debate his proposal. You debate his > proposal. You debate my proposal. You offer a counter counter > proposal. I continue to bolster my argument. A 4th player chimes in > with a new opinion. We go around like this for a while. Eventually I > realize that your deal is going to end up hosing me in the long run, > due to pursuasive arguments from the third player. I finally say > "nah". 15 minutes have passed. > Exactly, you got perfectly the point - and this social level can be great for experienced players, indeed. Because they're confident with the cards, the mechanics and all the rest that involves the game. Beginners are not, however - they maybe have still little troubles in remebering some of the rules; so they won't understand, usually, why they have to wait 10-15-20 mins without playing their *cards" /taking their turn, just to witness all the proposals and counter-deals arguments at the table. Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-2199E4.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >But all >discussion so far has indicated that discussing a deal is "playing the >game" and judges can't tell folks to hurry along, as as long as they are >earnestly playing the game, they are playing the game. As LSJ has pointed out when Kevin asked, the Slow Play rules are still part of the game and still apply. - Deciding what action to take next is part of the game, and part of playing the game. But if you don't do it in a timely fashion, you'll get moved on by the judge. - Deciding whether to DI a power card is part of the game, and part of playing the game. But if you don't do it in a timely fashion... - Haggling - not proper huge deal-making - over the terms of who gets what from a KRC is part of the game. But it still has to be done in a timely fashion. And so is deal-making. If players are deal-making excessively slowly, then it will fall foul of the slow play rules. Deal making is not a protected activity, any more than the rest of the game is protected. It can take as long as it takes, but if the judge thinks you're playing slowly (either Slow Play or Stalling) he can act to have you hurry up. Nothing LSJ has said indicates otherwise. Lengthy deal-making is not inherently slow play, but when it is slow play, you can hurry people along. If a player really does need a bit of time to make a complex decision, and you believe that, you don't move them along. If the deal-making really needs 15 minutes, and you as a judge believe that, you don't move them along. If players are playing slowly, you move them along. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 jun, 02:26, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I think you are right. But what I would like to see is that Judges can > tell people to hurry it along with, ya know, judgement. They can. If they judge that people are guilty of Slow Play or Stalling. Just like in any part of the game. > But all > discussion so far has indicated that discussing a deal is "playing the > game" and judges can't tell folks to hurry along, as as long as they are > earnestly playing the game, they are playing the game. Can you please point me to the post in wich LSJ has stated that you can't hurry people along if whatever they are doing is judged as slow play?

In message <8khgi.453950$g24....@newsfe12.phx>, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >Which shows a neophyte player I think. Which supports Tetragrammaton's >original point: New Players get stomped on (and perhaps derided) if >they can't do deals. New players can get stomped on for all sorts of reasons. For example, at a UK tournament a few years ago, one player turned up playing a Guns + Blur deck. Fairly simple archetype. Bleed or block. Fight. On one table, he got sat next to an Immortal Grapple deck, which he'd never seen before. Ever. He had no way of doing much of anything. The players next to him would not be expected to hold off on playing Immortal Grapples, because they are part of the game and part of his deck. It seems odd that, for example, a political deck that was playing the game would, somehow, attract ire for making a deal with another political deck on the table, so that they can both pass votes rather than cancelling each other out. In both cases, the newbie is utterly hosed, though. The "problem" of newbies is usually best solved, IME, by being supportive and helpful, but still playing the game. Aside from the first couple of games, or maybe a game where he's playing something utterly new, you should still be playing to win. In early games, you don't play aggressively because the newbie won't easily be able to cope with that, and you'll miss all the useful things like being able to show the newbie a situation that hasn't come up before. e.g. don't do the tactically appropriate burn of a vampire in combat, send it to torpor so you can explain torpor. In fact, I've seen and played in tournaments where a newbie would be *utterly* screwed by Silence of Death. Why? Because they want, need to ask for advice. "I've never played against Salubri before. Does Obeah have any nasty combat surprises I might need to plan for?" "What does 'Circle' mean?" "I think I should rush Anneke or Anson. Anyone have any thoughts which one I should worry about more?" Since no newbie will be able to have all of V:TES in his or her head, it seems unhelpful to tell them "Well, you may turn up and get hosed by something unusual which no-one on the table will warn you about." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-6199D7.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <$HMArrR4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> Players who turn up with the express intention of undermining the >> tournament and the express intention of playing slowly as much as they >> possibly can... they're not very sporting now, are they? > >So if you go into a tournament with the express intention of using >significant deal making and negotiation as often as it helps you, which >can take up a considerable amount of time if done correctly and to your >advantage, they are not being sporting? Since that player hasn't, apparently, come with the intention to play slowly or undermine the tournament, that doesn't seem unsporting. Similarly, a player who plays badly - because they're really bad with a particular deck but just haven't realised it yet - isn't necessarily unsporting. A player who turns up with the express intention of playing badly in order to force the judge to make many tricky edge case decisions about play-to-win might play in a very similar fashion but would, pretty clearly, not be being sportsmanlike. Let me try this very simply, since both you seem to want to read anything anyone says as saying "Deal making cannot be touched in any way, and in reality is actually evil." 1) If a player turns up with the intention of being a complete jerk, that's unsportsmanlike. 2) Turning up with the express intention of "ruining" several rounds at the NAC is being a jerk. 3) Taking an appropriate amount of time to negotiate deals when it's good play for you is not being a jerk. 4) Deal making is not inherently jerky. Nor is it inherently unjerky. 5) When deal making, you can fall foul of not playing in a timely fashion, just as much as in any other area of the game. Note also that planning for lengthy deal-making is extremely hard anyway. Planning to have some deal-making capability is really easy - if you have cards that can be used to the benefit of others, that's fine. Parity Shift, Anathema, KRC, Rumors of Gehenna, Con Boon - all good. Kindred Spirits cross table? Fine. Bum's Rushing someone else's vampires? Just dandy. Dropping your Pentex Subversion onto the Turbo Arika when it's stalled temporarily? Absolutely. However, forcing the table into a situation where you have to make *lengthy* deals is extremely hard. For example, if you play in such a fashion as to force the table into really complex situations, rather than progressing your own game in what the judge feels is a sensible fashion, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a Play To Win ruling before you get anywhere near deal-making. Turning up with an arsenal that will let you make deals when you need to is no problem at all. But when you make those deals, you have to do so in a fashion that is not slow play and not stalling. In some situations, that may involve lengthy deal-making, but it's hugely hard to plan for. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-8E2BCE.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <TVFr$VUdGW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> I'm not sure how you can earnestly negotiate a deal for 15 minutes when >> the deal accomplishes nothing. > >You propose something. I counter propose something. But the deal being proposed accomplishes nothing. (You said so.) So someone calls the judge over and says "Look, they've been arguing over a deal that accomplishes nothing for the last five minutes." Obviously, if the judge isn't aware of the problem because they're on the other side of the room, they can't do much to help. >> Player suggests a crappy deal that "accomplishes nothing at all" and >> proceeds to attempt to negotiate it by going "nowhere" for 15 minutes? >> How on earth do you believe that that's earnest deal making? > >It wasn't a crappy deal. It was a mutually beneficial deal that, after >enough scrutiny, seemed to be more beneficial to you than it was to me. >So I decided against making it. All of which was discovered through >earnest, lengthy discussion. You expressly said that the deal "accomplishes nothing". If the deal is actually a good deal, that's different. But deals that accomplish nothing are crappy by definition. However, moving from a situation where you expressly state that the deal accomplishes nothing to a situation where the deal is mutually beneficial to make a point... that fundamentally doesn't work if you want to discuss points. Negotiating for 15 minutes over a deal that accomplishes nothing and goes nowhere is not timely play. Negotiating for 15 minutes over a mutually beneficial deal is possibly timely play (or possibly not). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <L+Edl1oY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Since that player hasn't, apparently, come with the intention to play > slowly or undermine the tournament, that doesn't seem unsporting. But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, really)? Again, how is this unsporting? > Let me try this very simply, since both you seem to want to read > anything anyone says as saying "Deal making cannot be touched in any > way, and in reality is actually evil." This is not what I am reading into anything. This is what I understood the discussion to have determined (well, except for the "evil" part)--early on, whenever I suggested that Judges be able to curtail excessive dealmaking (in the original "excessive dealmaking is scaring away new players" discussion), I was shot down. Indicating that, well, Judges can't curtail excessive dealmaking, as long as it is being done in earnest (i.e. isn't obviously stalling). And here we are. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <qeXVdtpW...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > But the deal being proposed accomplishes nothing. (You said so.) Now you are just being a pedantic prig. I did say it accomplishes nothing. And then clarified that it accomplished nothing due to the deal not being taken, not because it was an irrelevant deal in the first place. > So someone calls the judge over and says "Look, they've been arguing > over a deal that accomplishes nothing for the last five minutes." Unless they have been arguing over a deal that would accomplish something if it was agreed upon and accomplishes nothing if it is not agreed upon. Any deal accomplishes nothing if it isn't agreed upon. > You expressly said that the deal "accomplishes nothing". Let it go. I also explained what I meant. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 jun, 14:57, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Indicating that, well, > Judges can't curtail excessive dealmaking, as long as it is being done > in earnest (i.e. isn't obviously stalling). And here we are. This sentence makes no sense. either the dealmaking is excessive (meaning slow play) OR it's in earnest. Those two are mutually exclusive. If you mean 'excessive dealmaking accoriding to my individual taste', you're right, but that means as much as: 'there was excessive bleeding in that game, too much for my liking.' Not something you can call a judge for.

In article <1182949694.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > This sentence makes no sense. either the dealmaking is excessive > (meaning slow play) OR it's in earnest. Those two are mutually > exclusive. And as noted before, why is earnest, non excessive deal making discussion that goes on for 15 minutes ok, where someone carefully figuring out their next move for 15 minutes in earnest not ok? Both are people earnestly playing the game. Both do not change the state of the game. Both bring the game to a grinding halt for everyone not involved. > If you mean 'excessive dealmaking accoriding to my individual taste', > you're right, but that means as much as: 'there was excessive bleeding > in that game, too much for my liking.' Not something you can call a > judge for. But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their options for 15 minutes. Why is that? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 jun, 15:26, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182949694.869515.140...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > This sentence makes no sense. either the dealmaking is excessive > > (meaning slow play) OR it's in earnest. Those two are mutually > > exclusive. > > And as noted before, why is earnest, non excessive deal making > discussion that goes on for 15 minutes ok, where someone carefully > figuring out their next move for 15 minutes in earnest not ok? It is, actually. Only very hard to imagine that someone would earnestly figure out his move for 15 minutes. It's very rare, but i could happen, and it's legal, too. > > Both are people earnestly playing the game. Both do not change the state > of the game. Both bring the game to a grinding halt for everyone not > involved. > > > If you mean 'excessive dealmaking accoriding to my individual taste', > > you're right, but that means as much as: 'there was excessive bleeding > > in that game, too much for my liking.' Not something you can call a > > judge for. > > But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their > options for 15 minutes. Why is that? no, you can't. Not if he's earnestly considering their options.

On Jun 27, 9:26 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1182949694.869515.140...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > This sentence makes no sense. either the dealmaking is excessive > > (meaning slow play) OR it's in earnest. Those two are mutually > > exclusive. > > And as noted before, why is earnest, non excessive deal making > discussion that goes on for 15 minutes ok, where someone carefully > figuring out their next move for 15 minutes in earnest not ok? > > Both are people earnestly playing the game. Both do not change the state > of the game. Both bring the game to a grinding halt for everyone not > involved. > > > If you mean 'excessive dealmaking accoriding to my individual taste', > > you're right, but that means as much as: 'there was excessive bleeding > > in that game, too much for my liking.' Not something you can call a > > judge for. > > But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their > options for 15 minutes. Why is that? Moot. You can call the judge in any event. The judge will use his judgment to determine whether the player is playing slowly. It doesn't matter whether the time taken is 15 minutes or 15 seconds - slow play is slow play, and timely play is timely play. If any part of the game is complex enough that taking 15 minutes to resolve it is reasonable, it's timely play to take 15 minutes resolving it. If any part of the game is simple enough that 15 seconds is an excessive amount of time to devote to it, 15 seconds is slow play. witness1

Peter D Bakija wrote: > But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their > options for 15 minutes. Why is that? Probably because you think that the 15 minutes isn't being spent as earnestly as all that, and you think the judge may agree.

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1182891778....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > It can give you an advantage, perhaps. > > But I think you will find the other players at the table to be clever > enough to take advantage of the artificial time-shortage you're trying > to manufacture and spoil your victory, particularly at a high-level > event like a Continental Championship. I'm interested as to what you have in mind... Can you elaborate? DZ AW

On Jun 26, 8:26 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > If people were hurrying up and only taking 2 minutes at a time (which > would be fine, for my money), it wouldn't probably be scaring away new > players. Do we know that it was the quantity of table talk that "scared" away the new players, rather than the *quality* of it? I'm only raising the question because, anecdotally, I've had a few girlfriends that almost got into the game but got right back out, claiming they felt they were being "pushed around" by all the deal-making attempts. If some players are just a bit touchy and prone to interpreting persuasion as coercion then there's not much that can be done for them.

In article <Luugi.27149$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Probably because you think that the 15 minutes isn't being spent as earnestly > as all that, and you think the judge may agree. I bet the person spending that time figuring out his best possible move earnestly thinks he is spending his time earnestly. That he is doing it in his head rather than in conversation with another person makes it a less earnest expenditure of time? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1182951478.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > no, you can't. Not if he's earnestly considering their options. I suspect that most folks would disagree with this sentiment (including LSJ, noted above). I am hard pressed to imagine a situation where someone could spend that 15 minutes, regardless of how earnestly he is spending it, figuring out his best move without being called on for stalling (even if in his mind, he is honestly planning and figuring and not stalling). I am not at all hard pressed to imagine a situation where two people could spend the same amount of time dealing. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] At least herel this has been a progressive process - as old players learnt to use deals for the best, trough a continous table talk to convince others, more players (some old ones, and especially new ones) felt somewhat stomped by this somewhat unavoidable table talk process. On the other side, i re bate that right now there's *too much* for a beginners to learn with this game - the absence of a specific sanctioned format that is best fitted for newbies is a thing that should be adressed. This is a 14 years old game, with an *huge* amount of mechanics to learn (barring even the social ability/table talks to get into due the deal system), seems so strange to me that it has not official tournament levels for "beginners" and, o n the other side, for "experienced" players ; imho this also one of the causes for the (very low, if not almost non-existent, almost here) low numbers of new players that get into the game. best Emiliano

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <Luugi.27149$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Probably because you think that the 15 minutes isn't being spent as earnestly >> as all that, and you think the judge may agree. > > I bet the person spending that time figuring out his best possible move > earnestly thinks he is spending his time earnestly. That's what judges are for. Some even have to make calls involving PlayToWin when there's a disagreement as to whether a given activity violates the PlayToWin rule.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:pdb6-CB588E.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <1182951478.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> no, you can't. Not if he's earnestly considering their options. > > I suspect that most folks would disagree with this sentiment (including > LSJ, noted above). Just like i said in the part you snipped. > I am hard pressed to imagine a situation where > someone could spend that 15 minutes, regardless of how earnestly he is > spending it, figuring out his best move without being called on for > stalling (even if in his mind, he is honestly planning and figuring and > not stalling). internal, very hard to check. > > I am not at all hard pressed to imagine a situation where two people > could spend the same amount of time dealing. So?

bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1182960093.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Tetragammon said at one point in the thread that 30-45 minutes of a two hour round spent in various deal negotiations is no longer uncommon in his area (Emiliano, please correct me if that is wrong). I cannot find it, but Josh Duffin had thought I was launching into hyperbole when I was talking about 45 minutes being used up by deals, and Emiliano replied that it was not unprecendented in his group... Wait here it is; Message-ID: <K5cgi.23907$y05...@tornado.fastwebnet.it> SO the answer could be either "quantity" or "both"... DZ AW

In message <pdb6-0050D9.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >I bet the person spending that time figuring out his best possible move >earnestly thinks he is spending his time earnestly. > >That he is doing it in his head rather than in conversation with another >person makes it a less earnest expenditure of time? He may well think that. But the judge is there to use his judgement. At the point at which we all become psychic, this will be fine. Judges will determine what is earnest play and what is a player being shitty using a level three mind scan. At present, however, the judge uses their judgement whenever a problematic situation arises. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-3E01D6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of >time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* >motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact >same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just >exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, >really)? Again, how is this unsporting? His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he uses in the process. These are not sporting. The act of deliberately being a jerk is not sporting. If another player turned up with such a deck and wanted to play it without being a jerk, there would be a number of things that might be doable. For example, if I knew that my plan was to make 30 Embraces with 30 copies of Obfuscate and that this was going to slow down play a lot, I might take steps to not be a jerk. Perhaps, if the judge okayed it, I'd have someone else *not* involved in the game find the card for me. With my back turned, I'd also ask them to cut the deck a few times. This would reduce my excessive jerkiness. If a player does object, or the judge does, fine, I play the deck anyway. But I've made a concerted effort to not be a jerk. I could still play absolutely by the book if someone made me, though. There are other workarounds that could be applied in situations, depending on what's going on. This sort of problem comes from the same situation as players saying "But LSJ! You won't tell us exactly what parts of a card we have to read out when we play it! So I'm going to be a jerk and read out everything, including noting where the smudges are, and who the artist is and the copyright line and describe the set symbol in detail." That is, it comes from people deliberately being jerks for no reason other than the need to make some bizarre point that everyone already understands anyway: in this case, things can take time, and people don't like too much time being used. But we already have the solution: judgement and sportsmanship. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-62EE72.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >And as noted before, why is earnest, non excessive deal making >discussion that goes on for 15 minutes ok, where someone carefully >figuring out their next move for 15 minutes in earnest not ok? If a judge is okay that 15 minutes of time is necessary to make a play in a timely fashion, it's fine. If a judge doesn't believe that 15 minutes of time is necessary to make a play in a timely fashion, he moves the game along. (And applies any penalties that are necessary.) Similarly, deals. If a judge believes.... If a judge doesn't believe... (Filling in the blanks is left as an exercise for interested students.) [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in > news:1182960093.9...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > >> On Jun 26, 8:26 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> >>> If people were hurrying up and only taking 2 minutes at a time >>> (which would be fine, for my money), it wouldn't probably be >>> scaring away new players. >> >> Do we know that it was the quantity of table talk that "scared" away >> the new players, rather than the *quality* of it? I'm only raising >> the question because, anecdotally, I've had a few girlfriends that >> almost got into the game but got right back out, claiming they felt >> they were being "pushed around" by all the deal-making attempts. If >> some players are just a bit touchy and prone to interpreting >> persuasion as coercion then there's not much that can be done for >> them. >> > > Tetragammon said at one point in the thread that 30-45 minutes of a > two hour round spent in various deal negotiations is no longer > uncommon in his area (Emiliano, please correct me if that is wrong). You're right - i've cited the final of an italian qualifier too (that should be far from the local playstyle, by definition). It's pretty normal, given the local playstyles - some playgroups deal a lot, some don't, some are in the middle of this. I do *not* pretend, that the case i'm referring to are the norm however, only that it *can* actually happens to witness a table going on with continous deals and counter deals arguing, because rules just allow to do so (and lsj confirmed this): trying to win (or to maximize) earnestly trough deal systrem and not by the play of cards alone is perfeclty doable. That adds an unique level of complexity to the game; however, that usually scares newbies and beginners too. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] But those calls (about ptw on a deal's disagreement) should remain unanswered ny the judge. You're never forced to keep your word on a deal, at any stage and in any moment of the game, is this right ? Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> In article <Luugi.27149$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Probably because you think that the 15 minutes isn't being spent as >>>> earnestly as all that, and you think the judge may agree. >>> I bet the person spending that time figuring out his best possible >>> move earnestly thinks he is spending his time earnestly. >> That's what judges are for. >> >> Some even have to make calls involving PlayToWin when there's a >> disagreement as to whether a given activity violates the PlayToWin >> rule. > > But those calls (about ptw on a deal's disagreement) > should remain unanswered ny the judge. I wasn't talking about PTW on deals specifically. Just PTW. The judge shouldn't divulge hidden information, naturally, deal or no. > You're never forced to keep your word on a deal, > at any stage and in any moment of the game, is this right ? Correct. But not related to the PTW comment above. If, in the absence of a deal, a player violates PTW (in the judge's opinion), the judge can rectify that. Likewise for stalling.

In message <Xns995C943A7E...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >Tetragammon said at one point in the thread that 30-45 minutes of a two >hour round spent in various deal negotiations is no longer uncommon in >his area (Emiliano, please correct me if that is wrong). They may become less common if the judge(s) use their judgement to judge timeliness, slow play, and stalling appropriately, so that deals that are taking excessive amounts of time stop doing so. Of course, if the deals are occurring a timely fashion, there is no problem. Similarly, some areas have common errors made with some cards or some card plays - perhaps because people don't know better, perhaps because one or two players have "bullied" their interpretation into being used. These can also be corrected by judges. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 @gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <pdb6-3E01D6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of >>time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* >>motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact >>same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just >>exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, >>really)? Again, how is this unsporting? > > His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he uses > in the process. *sigh* You must be having something personal going on in your life James. This is so unlike you. > These are not sporting. The act of deliberately being > a jerk is not sporting. > My motive is Game Wins. I accomplish my motive through using the rules to my advantage, since it is legal to do so, per LSJ's time-use precedent, and I can see a clear advantage in doing so. Being a jerk is not a part of my motives. At all. Really. If I do choose to pursue this angle in a tournament (its a thought- experiment so far), it is because I also seek to show through evidence that this precedent is damaging to the structure of tournaments, in a fixable way. Yeah. A couple of guys might have a round where they don't accomplish much, and they might see it as unfair, in the same way the Succubus Club made things unfair during deal-making era before it was banned. If it has that effect, though, _and_ I end up with Game Wins, thats evidence that my position is correct; that the time use precedent is wrong. > > If another player turned up with such a deck and wanted to play it > without being a jerk, there would be a number of things that might be > doable. For example, if I knew that my plan was to make 30 Embraces > with 30 copies of Obfuscate and that this was going to slow down play a > lot, I might take steps to not be a jerk. Perhaps, if the judge okayed > it, I'd have someone else *not* involved in the game find the card for > me. With my back turned, I'd also ask them to cut the deck a few times. > This would reduce my excessive jerkiness. > > If a player does object, or the judge does, fine, I play the deck > anyway. But I've made a concerted effort to not be a jerk. I could > still play absolutely by the book if someone made me, though. > > There are other workarounds that could be applied in situations, > depending on what's going on. > I'm confused, then, how this acceleration of _my_ legal use of the clock, due to your perception of "excessive jerkiness" is acceptable, but when Peter asks if its OK for a Judge to encourage deal-making to reach a conclusion because it is taking an equivalent amount time, he is told that the metric is "if the time use and conversation is necessary to the deal, it is playing the game, how much time is used is irrelevant." i.e. Don't interfere unless it is obviously stalling. If I accuse someone who is legally spending 45 minutes in bits and pieces across a round, talking different deals at different times of "being a jerk", do I get to apply unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, too? No, I do not. I asked LSJ if necessary-but-excessive deal talk could be limited under the Unsportsmanlike conduct section of the rules, and was told No, I couldn't. I asked if deal-talking that amounts to this extent (30-45 minutes) of time use amounted to Slow Play, but since talking deals is part of playing the game, then No again, it is not Slow Play. So again, I'm left wondering why the double standard here, between deal- making use of the clock, and building a deck which makes use of the clock..? > This sort of problem comes from the same situation as players saying > "But LSJ! You won't tell us exactly what parts of a card we have to > read out when we play it! So I'm going to be a jerk and read out > everything, including noting where the smudges are, and who the artist > is and the copyright line and describe the set symbol in detail." That > is, it comes from people deliberately being jerks for no reason other > than the need to make some bizarre point that everyone already > understands anyway: in this case, things can take time, and people don't > like too much time being used. But we already have the solution: > judgement and sportsmanship. > In fact, you cannot use the sportsmanship rules on deal-making time use, just because it runs long. See above. I've backed _every_ precedent LSJ has made up to this point 7 years in, with respect to using one's judgement as a judge, and shouted down a helluva lot of people here in the process. Because with his prior examples, there are game state factors that can be checked, player comments to account for, deck contents,etc etc. I don't have a single problem judging deal legality, play to win, or any other circumstance, up until this one of time usage. The "infinite, in earnest" time use metric is horrible, IMO. Here, the guidelines for judging leave an obviously big disparity in the way its applied, as evidenced by various observations in the thread. Josh Duffin _never_ sees deals taking more than a few minutes(to the point where he and you seem to take comments about 45 minutes of dealmaking as hyperbole), but Emiliano sees 30-45 minutes of a round spent deal-making with a frequency great enough to scare off newer players from the game. He was told that this level of time consumption is also supported by the time use precedent... which IMO, is absurd (or at least, bad for the game in general). I would think that this should make it glaringly obvious that time use guidelines with greater clarity are needed for more consistent enforcement, and so I asked for that; factors upon which to judge what is appropriate time use, and a metric against which to judge it. Neither are satisfactory, the metric in particular is IMO very poor. Regardless of how often you want to call me a jerk, James, there's some strong evidence that I just might also happen to be right about this. DZ AW

On Jun 27, 10:22 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 > @gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > > In message <pdb6-3E01D6.08575927062...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > > Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > >>But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of > >>time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* > >>motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact > >>same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just > >>exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, > >>really)? Again, how is this unsporting? > > > His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he uses > > in the process. > > *sigh* You must be having something personal going on in your life James. > This is so unlike you. > > > These are not sporting. The act of deliberately being > > a jerk is not sporting. > > My motive is Game Wins. I accomplish my motive through using the rules > to my advantage, since it is legal to do so, per LSJ's time-use precedent, > and I can see a clear advantage in doing so. Being a jerk is not a part of > my motives. At all. Really. Put a deck together and post it to the newsgroup >:-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

On Jun 27, 4:22 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm confused, then, how this acceleration of _my_ legal use of the clock, > due to your perception of "excessive jerkiness" is acceptable, but when > Peter asks if its OK for a Judge to encourage deal-making to reach a > conclusion because it is taking an equivalent amount time, he is told that > the metric is "if the time use and conversation is necessary to the deal, > it is playing the game, how much time is used is irrelevant." i.e. Don't > interfere unless it is obviously stalling. Obvious is unnecessary. Using judgment does not require that something be obvious. > If I accuse someone who is legally spending 45 minutes in bits and pieces > across a round, talking different deals at different times of "being a > jerk", do I get to apply unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, too? No, I do > not. I asked LSJ if necessary-but-excessive deal talk could be limited > under the Unsportsmanlike conduct section of the rules, and was told No, I > couldn't. I asked if deal-talking that amounts to this extent (30-45 > minutes) of time use amounted to Slow Play, but since talking deals is part > of playing the game, then No again, it is not Slow Play. Taking an excessive amount of time to perform a necessary task is slow play. Taking a lot of time on a task is not necessarily excessive. Taking 30-45 minutes to deal is Slow Play if and only if 30-45 minutes is an excessive amount of time for the deal(s) being discussed (i.e., we cannot without further information properly exercise judgment about whether or not it is slow play). But the assumption has always appeared to be that the 30-45 minutes was being spent "earnestly," i.e., actively attempting to reach a successful conclusion in a timely fashion. If it's timely, it's not Slow Play. "Earnest" was probably a bad choice of words on Scott's part, but here we are. > So again, I'm left wondering why the double standard here, between deal- > making use of the clock, and building a deck which makes use of the > clock..? There is no double standard. Actively attempting to stall for time is against the rules. Actively attempting to undermine an event is also against the rules. > I've backed _every_ precedent LSJ has made up to this point 7 years in, > with respect to using one's judgement as a judge, and shouted down a > helluva lot of people here in the process. Because with his prior > examples, there are game state factors that can be checked, player comments > to account for, deck contents,etc etc. I don't have a single problem > judging deal legality, play to win, or any other circumstance, up until > this one of time usage. The "infinite, in earnest" time use metric is > horrible, IMO. Not infinite. Just not pre-limited. Use your judgment. 30-45 minutes may be too much. It may not be. Without details, exercising judgment is impossible. > Here, the guidelines for judging leave an obviously big disparity in the > way its applied, as evidenced by various observations in the thread. Josh > Duffin _never_ sees deals taking more than a few minutes(to the point where > he and you seem to take comments about 45 minutes of dealmaking as > hyperbole), but Emiliano sees 30-45 minutes of a round spent deal-making > with a frequency great enough to scare off newer players from the game. > He was told that this level of time consumption is also supported by the > time use precedent... which IMO, is absurd (or at least, bad for the game > in general). 30-45 minutes is not excluded by the time use rules. No particular amount of time use is. It is up to the judge to determine whether a player is playing slow or not. > I would think that this should make it glaringly obvious that time use > guidelines with greater clarity are needed for more consistent enforcement, > and so I asked for that; factors upon which to judge what is appropriate > time use, and a metric against which to judge it. Neither are > satisfactory, the metric in particular is IMO very poor. Regardless of how > often you want to call me a jerk, James, there's some strong evidence that > I just might also happen to be right about this. Interesting. What's glaringly obvious to me is that this ruling is exactly consistent with all previous rulings about using your judgment. witness1

In article <Xns995CA7B498...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm confused, then, how this acceleration of _my_ legal use of the clock, > due to your perception of "excessive jerkiness" is acceptable, but when > Peter asks if its OK for a Judge to encourage deal-making to reach a > conclusion because it is taking an equivalent amount time, he is told that > the metric is "if the time use and conversation is necessary to the deal, > it is playing the game, how much time is used is irrelevant." i.e. Don't > interfere unless it is obviously stalling. For what it is worth, the indications I have gotten so far are: -If someone is mentally masturbating on their turn for an excessive amount of time, they can be called on it for stalling and told to speed up, as it is "internal" and difficult to judge what is actually going on. -If someone is mentally masturbating out loud on their turn, and helping other folks mentally masturbate with them in the name of striking a deal for an excessive amount of time, they can't be called on it for stalling (unless they are obviously stalling) and told to speed it up, as they are "playing the game". -If someone is physically masturbating with their cards for an excessive amount of time, the can be called on it for stalling and told to speed it up, as long as their motives are jerky. And with that, I continue in my surrender phase. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 27, 4:47 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns995CA7B498DE6atomwea...@207.115.17.102>, > > atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I'm confused, then, how this acceleration of _my_ legal use of the clock, > > due to your perception of "excessive jerkiness" is acceptable, but when > > Peter asks if its OK for a Judge to encourage deal-making to reach a > > conclusion because it is taking an equivalent amount time, he is told that > > the metric is "if the time use and conversation is necessary to the deal, > > it is playing the game, how much time is used is irrelevant." i.e. Don't > > interfere unless it is obviously stalling. > > For what it is worth, the indications I have gotten so far are: > > -If someone is mentally masturbating on their turn for an excessive > amount of time, they can be called on it for stalling and told to speed > up, as it is "internal" and difficult to judge what is actually going on. > > -If someone is mentally masturbating out loud on their turn, and helping > other folks mentally masturbate with them in the name of striking a deal > for an excessive amount of time, they can't be called on it for stalling > (unless they are obviously stalling) and told to speed it up, as they > are "playing the game". This is false. If they are verbally masturbating, they can and should be called on it. The rules, however, will not define 30-45 minutes (or even 2 hours, or any specific limited amount of time) of discussion as verbally masturbating by default. In other words, the judge has to judge it to actually be "verbal masturbation" rather than "earnest deal-making" on the merits of the individual case, rather than crusading against those vile dealmakers for being so different. witness1

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:e1do3X88...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns995C943A7E...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >>Tetragammon said at one point in the thread that 30-45 minutes of a two >>hour round spent in various deal negotiations is no longer uncommon in >>his area (Emiliano, please correct me if that is wrong). > > They may become less common if the judge(s) use their judgement to judge > timeliness, slow play, and stalling appropriately, so that deals that > are taking excessive amounts of time stop doing so. > When we apply LSJ's metric for time use, Tetragammon's issue isn't resolved. > Of course, if the deals are occurring a timely fashion, there is no > problem. > We agree, here. I'm out at the extremes of argumentation, but I still hold to the same idea that negotiation and deal-making should remain a part of VTES. However, VTES shouldn't become _solely_ or even _significantly_ about deal-making and negotiation (here, I'll claim Designer Intent). We should also have a means of curbing deal-making (or any other excessive (ab)use of the game clock) which gets waaaay out of hand, if for no other reason than that the rounds are timed. Tetragammon is experiencing a circumstance where none of the tools which the judge has, may be appropriately applied to curtail the situation, and it is losing him newer players. DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <1182977605.3...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > This is false. If they are verbally masturbating, they can and should > be called on it. If the verbal masturbation is attempting to set up a deal, and not intentional stalling, they aren't getting called on it. Thus, not false. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 27, 5:17 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote innews:e1do3X88...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > > In message <Xns995C943A7E07Eatomwea...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > > <atomwea...@hotmail.com> writes: > >>Tetragammon said at one point in the thread that 30-45 minutes of a two > >>hour round spent in various deal negotiations is no longer uncommon in > >>his area (Emiliano, please correct me if that is wrong). > > > They may become less common if the judge(s) use their judgement to > judge > > timeliness, slow play, and stalling appropriately, so that deals that > > are taking excessive amounts of time stop doing so. > > When we apply LSJ's metric for time use, Tetragammon's issue isn't > resolved. > > > Of course, if the deals are occurring a timely fashion, there is no > > problem. > > We agree, here. I'm out at the extremes of argumentation, but I still > hold to the same idea that negotiation and deal-making should remain a > part of VTES. However, VTES shouldn't become _solely_ or even > _significantly_ about deal-making and negotiation (here, I'll claim > Designer Intent). We should also have a means of curbing deal-making (or > any other excessive (ab)use of the game clock) which gets waaaay out of > hand, if for no other reason than that the rounds are timed. Tetragammon > is experiencing a circumstance where none of the tools which the judge > has, may be appropriately applied to curtail the situation, and it is > losing him newer players. He needs to use the same tool he uses in every situation as a judge: his judgment. He cannot judge that a particular lengthy negotiation is Slow Play SOLELY because it took 15 minutes, or 1 hour. He has to first ascertain that 15 minutes (or 1 hour) is an excessive amount of time *for the particular deal(s) being negotiated*. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7fb60b75989dd07a witness1

witness1 wrote: > "Earnest" was probably a bad choice of words on Scott's > part, but here we are. How's that?

Peter D Bakija wrote: > For what it is worth, the indications I have gotten so far are: > > -If someone is mentally masturbating out loud on their turn, and helping > other folks mentally masturbate with them in the name of striking a deal > for an excessive amount of time, they can't be called on it for stalling > (unless they are obviously stalling) and told to speed it up, as they > are "playing the game". There has been no indication that this is the case. Indeed, it the opposite has been directly contradicted.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ambiguity of meaning. Earnest (from dictionary.com) -adjective 1. serious in intention, purpose, or effort; sincerely zealous: an earnest worker. 2. showing depth and sincerity of feeling: earnest words; an earnest entreaty. 3. seriously important; demanding or receiving serious attention. -noun 4. full seriousness, as of intention or purpose: to speak in earnest. Definition 1 seems fine for these purposes. If someone is serious in their intention, purpose, and effort to play the game, then they are likely not wasting time. Definition 2, however, can lead to problems. One can be earnest (by definition 2, showing depth and sincerity of feeling) in proposing the same deal over and over again even though it is being constantly rejected, which can reasonably be classified as slow play. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/385ca09d54e3cff5 witness1 -english is like that sometimes

witness1 wrote: > On Jun 27, 5:43 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> witness1 wrote: >>> "Earnest" was probably a bad choice of words on Scott's >>> part, but here we are. >> How's that? > > Ambiguity of meaning. [...] > See also: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/385ca09d54e3cff5 That's the "proper" usage it seems. But whatever. Earnest is not a bad choice of words. It conveys the proper meaning.

[ quoted text not captured ] I do use judgement - i judge tournaments since seven years , so i have an idea of what it implies. Peter atom and some other seem to have got the point - the question is not with the judge having to judge something special - if there are 3-4 players dealing, you *have* to let them the time needed to clear all of their arguments and counter-arguments. I judged and witnessed and played myself plenty of such situations - iand f table talk due deals *is* to be considered part of the game (giving notable chanche of winning at standard constructed tournaments), then you *have* to lef that "part" of the game to be played. And the idea of the judge having to step in a conversation in which the dealing players are involved for their best interest toward the GW sounds not too good to me. A judge should be supposed to observe game state in general, not to be specifically the big brother listening all the time to *all* of the motivations the players may put in their effort to deal (earnestely), arguing and counter-arguing, giving and offering vps and the like. Emiliano

On Jun 27, 6:03 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > For newbies, however, the all-social consuming level due deals of standard > tournaments simply > represent, usually, too much of a barrier for them right now, considering > all the rest of the "normal" vtes > game to get and learn, to lure them effectively in the regular weekly games > / monthly tournaments > enviroment. When you start playing tournaments you expect things to be tough and to face a bit of a learning curve. Table talk is part of that learning curve, as is experiencing all manor of nasty decks that people (generally) wouldn't play in a friendly game down at the pub. This is no different from the step up from playing say social football (pick any type) and then going up a few grades and playing in the serious grade, one will be faster and probably a good deal rougher than the other. Perhaps one thing that might help your particular situation is to make it clear to new players that tournaments are a step up to help manage their expectations. Just a thought. > Keeping this the way are now, just will make more difficult at every set > release the infusion > of new players. I think your trying to say here that the game is getting more complex for newbies each release. That's undoubtedly true but VtES is a complex game and certainly that's one of the reasons why people play it. The essiential mechanics don't change (that) much each set although clearly the cards will, I don't see why newer players will struggle any more than long time players when a new set comes out. Cheers Simon

In message <pdb6-247467.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >-If someone is mentally masturbating out loud on their turn, and helping >other folks mentally masturbate with them in the name of striking a deal >for an excessive amount of time, they can't be called on it for stalling >(unless they are obviously stalling) and told to speed it up, as they >are "playing the game". This is simply wrong. You have been repeatedly told that this is not the case. You are wrong. Repeating this sheer, utter nonsense is wrong. I do not understand how you can have read what people have written and then assert that they're telling you the exact opposite. 1) You do not have to penalise people for stalling. You can also penalise them for slow play, which is a distinct penalty there for distinct reasons. (Stalling is largely intentional, slow play is largely not.) 2) Deal-making is not a protected activity. It is no different from any other section of the game. If a player is not being timely in *any* area of the game, you can move them along - be that haggling over a vote, making a deal, making a choice of cards, shuffling their deck after a Third Tradition, deciding whether to prevent some damage or not, deciding whether to blow an Awe now in the hope they pull a Voter Cap, and so on. 3) A player talking is not the same as a player earnestly making a deal. If the judge believes that the players are not making the deal in a timely fashion, using an appropriate amount of time, then it *doesn't matter* that they're talking. They can apply appropriate remedies and penalties, just as they can for EVERY situation where too much time is used and players play too slowly. It's *exactly the same*. 4) That a deal takes a long time is not proof that too much time is being taken. But similarly, that a decision takes a long time is not proof that too much time is being taken. Obviously, both factors will be used in the judge's judgement! In *exactly the same* way that you would look at a player's decision-making and decide "Okay, you're taking too long. This is just silly now.", you make *exactly* the same decision when deal-making takes too long (or might have taken too long). You look at the situation, you look at what's going on, you look to see what you think is reasonable in your judgement, you look to see if the players are being unreasonable in your judgement, and then you make a decision. 5) A 5 minute fight over Rumors of Gehenna on this table might be too long in your judgement. A 5 minute fight over a seat-switcher (when they were allowed) might have been fine and dandy. A minute to see how many Deflections have been played by your prey might be sensible, but 45 seconds trying to decide whether to play Taste of Vitae or not might be too long. You use your judgement. Just like in every other slow play or stalling decision you've ever made. 6) Deals are treated like *every other* part of the game. In any part of the game, if the judge believes the play is timely, they don't need to touch it. In any part of the game, if the judge believes the play is not timely, they can apply slow play rulings. In any part of the game, if the judge believes the play is not timely and is deliberately not timely for an external reason (such as deliberately timing out in order to get a timeout VP, or to annoy a particular player), they might look to apply stalling rulings. Deals are not special. Within the realm of practical remedies, anything you can do to affect any other part of the game when players are being slow or stalling, you can apply to deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-54D9C6.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >If the verbal masturbation is attempting to set up a deal, and not >intentional stalling, they aren't getting called on it. Thus, not false. If the verbal masturbation is slow play and you as a judge are not calling them on it, no amount of rules changing will help. You as a judge are not enforcing the slow play rules. Enforce them. Why have you chosen only to focus on intentional stalling and not on the rest of the rules? If LSJ were to change the rules, how does anyone know that you wouldn't just ignore that section of the rules in the same way that you're ignoring the slow play rules? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns995CA7B498...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 >@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > >> In message <pdb6-3E01D6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D >> Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>>But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of >>>time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* >>>motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact >>>same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just >>>exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, >>>really)? Again, how is this unsporting? >> >> His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he uses >> in the process. > >*sigh* You must be having something personal going on in your life James. >This is so unlike you. No, seriously. Turning up to the NAC so that you can ruin several rounds *is* being a jerk. You've said you intend to do this. Ruining people's games = jerk. Please, feel free to tell us why intentionally ruining several rounds at the NAC is not being a jerk. Because you can't. It's being a jerk. Want to know how I know that? I used judgement. This is the strike zone. Intentionally ruining people's games is not sportsmanlike. You must be having something personal going on in your life Dave. Intentionally setting out to ruin people's games is so unlike you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Xns995CB1042F...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >However, VTES shouldn't become _solely_ or even >_significantly_ about deal-making and negotiation (here, I'll claim >Designer Intent). Many games don't. Some games do. Just like some games become mostly about combat, or mostly about bleed, or mostly about vote, or mostly about getting Nergal off the table, or mostly about fighting over some Cultist cards, or mostly about getting that bastard Fall of the Camarilla off the table because three of us here are using Camarilla cards (a Parity Shift vote deck, a deck with 10 2nd Traditions in it, a deck using Derange and Imperial Decree). There are many, many games out there that don't become about heavy deal- making. One of the simplest ways of doing this is, as has been shown elsewhere, for players who don't want 45 minutes used to discuss whether Arika should have blue shoelaces or red shoelaces to clamp down on the dealmakers, or get them off the table. You know that someone shoots his mouth off for five minutes at the slightest provocation? Warn the rest of the table, and move on. >We should also have a means of curbing deal-making (or >any other excessive (ab)use of the game clock) which gets waaaay out of >hand, if for no other reason than that the rounds are timed. We do. It's called "judgement". Just like for any other abuse of the game clock. Any abuse at all. Of any part of the game. Somehow, you seem to believe that judges can't intervene on abuses of the game clock if they involve deals. They can. If players are abusing the clock, you move in with a ruling on slow play. If players aren't abusing the clock, don't rule. If that means that a five minute conversation about Political Flux is too long, slap them. If it means that a 20 minute conversation about Eldest Command Undeath isn't too long, don't slap them. Use your judgement. Encourage others to do the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <FzBgi.25893$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >I do use judgement - i judge tournaments since seven years , so i have >an idea of what it implies. So could you tell us why you think that 45 minutes of arguing is timely? >Peter atom and some other seem to have got the point - the question >is not with the judge having to judge something special - if there >are 3-4 players dealing, you *have* to let them the time needed >to clear all of their arguments and counter-arguments. No. This is wrong. You *have* to use your judgement. Everything else is window dressing. A player might, for example, introduce seven spurious arguments and fifteen spurious counter-arguments for each one of them. Do you *have* to let them do that? No, you don't. If you're letting them do that, you're letting them down as a judge. You judge that they're spurious and time-wasting, you tell the player so, they stop doing it (or you eject them from the game). If a player wants to enumerate all the steps that could occur as a result, in infinite detail, as part of his argument, do you have to let them do that? No, you don't. Step in as a judge and say "Billy-Bob, I think Billy-Jean and Mary-Sue have got the idea now", and move on. You *have* to use your judgement. >then you *have* to lef that "part" of >the game to be played. You do. But it *must* be played in a timely manner. If players are playing slowly, they fall foul of the general requirement for timely play. >And the idea of the judge having to step in a conversation in which the >dealing >players are involved for their best interest toward the GW sounds not too >good >to me. You have to be able to do this. If intervening in the table when you need to sounds "not too good" to you, you're judging wrong. The deal may well be in the best interests of the players. If it's not, you have other rules to apply. If the deal is in the best interests of the players but the negotiation is *not* being conducted in a timely fashion, you move in and correct the play. The players can still make the deal, but you make them make it in a timely fashion. Apply appropriate remedies, if necessary. Example that might be an appropriate judgement: "You've all been talking in circles for twenty minutes. Carol-Anne, Mikey-James and Freddy-Kevin, you each have a minute to make your final proposal, and a minute to come to a decision. I'm then going to add five minutes back to the table. Carol-Anne, *looks at watch* go." > A judge should be supposed to observe game state in general, not to >be specifically the big brother listening all the time to *all* of the >motivations the players >may put in their effort to deal (earnestely), arguing and counter-arguing, >giving and offering vps and the like. No, the judge very often won't be able to listen in on everything. So the judge gets the players to tell him what's gone on, with disagreements from other players where appropriate, and exercises judgement. It's imperfect, as any judgement will be, but it's what we do. If the judge can listen in the whole time - it's the final table, every other has finished, whatever - then being "Big Brother" can be just fine. Leave out the deals, I need to decide if Elly-May is playing badly or playing intentionally badly to knock Jenny-Sue out of the final. So I sit there, watch the intentions, and judge the play. Then make a ruling. If this means I hear the deal-making too, then I'm going to make judgements in the same way and correct slow play when I feel it is slow play, and leave it alone when I feel it isn't slow play. If you're not willing to intervene on slow play in a deal, seven years experience or not, you're letting your players down. The deal can be in the interests of the players, clearly. But if they're playing slowly, you fix it. As you are required to do by the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 28, 2:46 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <Xns995CA7B498DE6atomwea...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > > > > <atomwea...@hotmail.com> writes: > >James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 > >@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > >> In message <pdb6-3E01D6.08575927062...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D > >> Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> writes: > >>>But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the use of > >>>time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what *his* > >>>motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the exact > >>>same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, just > >>>exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal making is, > >>>really)? Again, how is this unsporting? > > >> His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he uses > >> in the process. > > >*sigh* You must be having something personal going on in your life James. > >This is so unlike you. > > No, seriously. > > Turning up to the NAC so that you can ruin several rounds *is* being a > jerk. You've said you intend to do this. Ruining people's games = > jerk. Only, because he let you know he was going to do it in advance, if he had shown up with the secret motivation to do this and concealed that motivation, would you be able to catch him doing it? > Please, feel free to tell us why intentionally ruining several rounds at > the NAC is not being a jerk. Because you can't. It's being a jerk. > Want to know how I know that? I used judgement. This is the strike > zone. Intentionally ruining people's games is not sportsmanlike. Probably, he is doing it because it is legal which is the point of this whole thread. > You must be having something personal going on in your life Dave. > Intentionally setting out to ruin people's games is so unlike you. What you are not getting is that it is ruining people's games right now. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Only, because he let you know he was going to do it in advance, if he > had shown up with the secret motivation to do this and concealed that > motivation, would you be able to catch him doing it? If players collude, but do so secretly and conceal that secret, would you be able to catch them? The whole point of judging is to use the information you have. If some player manages to keep his illegal activity secret from the judge (even concealing it with the effective appearance of proper play), then naturally the judge judgment will, per statement of the case, perceive it as proper play. On the other hand, if the information available to the judge indicates that illegal activity is occurring/has occurred, then, naturally, the judge can correct that state. >> Please, feel free to tell us why intentionally ruining several rounds at >> the NAC is not being a jerk. Because you can't. It's being a jerk. >> Want to know how I know that? I used judgement. This is the strike >> zone. Intentionally ruining people's games is not sportsmanlike. > > Probably, he is doing it because it is legal which is the point of > this whole thread. You've got pronoun troubles there. The "it" James is referring to is not legal. You seem to be referring to some other "it". >> You must be having something personal going on in your life Dave. >> Intentionally setting out to ruin people's games is so unlike you. > > What you are not getting is that it is ruining people's games right > now. Again with the different antecedents.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <pEt17bR+...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> This is simply wrong. You have been repeatedly told that this is not >> the case. You are wrong. Repeating this sheer, utter nonsense is >> wrong. I do not understand how you can have read what people have >> written and then assert that they're telling you the exact opposite. > > What I have been told repeatedly that any amount of time spent making > deals is legal, as long as it is in earnest (i.e. the "infinite if in > earnest" precedent). Yes. The trouble is, the examples give absurd values of time spend "in earnest". If the given assumption is true, then, yes, it is playing the game. Just as in the case where a single combat "really" takes 45 minutes. If it does, then it's legal. But it rarely does. > Over and over again. If people spend 15 minutes > debating a deal, and that 15 minute discussion is not obvious stalling, > it is a totally legal use of 15 minutes (i.e. "playing the game is not > preventing people from playing the game"). Yes. And, as indicated previously, that's a big IF. > If I want to call people spending 15 minutes making a deal "verbal > masturbation", even if it is a legal, non stalling use of 15 minutes, > I'm gonna call it "verbal masturbation". 'Cause even if it is a legal > use of time, it is still onanism. "Verbal masturbation" conflicts with "in earnest". The two are mutually exclusive. >> 2) Deal-making is not a protected activity. > > It seems to be. It is not. Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of playing the game. As has been previously indicated. Likewise, it has no special restriction, even though you want it to be specially restricted. > As if it takes 40 minutes to secure a deal, players > apparently can spend that 40 minutes to secure that deal ("infinite if > in earnest"). Which is absurd. And the point that is being made. Over > and over again. It is not absurd to allow players to play the game. > I am not, nor have I ever been, implying that anything that is obviously > stalling or non timely play, cannot be dealt with by judgement (I have > said repeatedly "I'm not talking about slow play, as it is covered by > the rules"). As it can. The problem stems from the repeated conflating of time spent in earnest with times spent absurdly.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <pEt17bR+...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> This is simply wrong. You have been repeatedly told that this is not >> the case. You are wrong. Repeating this sheer, utter nonsense is >> wrong. I do not understand how you can have read what people have >> written and then assert that they're telling you the exact opposite. > > What I have been told repeatedly that any amount of time spent making > deals is legal, as long as it is in earnest (i.e. the "infinite if in > earnest" precedent). Over and over again. If people spend 15 minutes > debating a deal, and that 15 minute discussion is not obvious stalling, > it is a totally legal use of 15 minutes (i.e. "playing the game is not > preventing people from playing the game"). > > If I want to call people spending 15 minutes making a deal "verbal > masturbation", even if it is a legal, non stalling use of 15 minutes, > I'm gonna call it "verbal masturbation". 'Cause even if it is a legal > use of time, it is still onanism. > >> 2) Deal-making is not a protected activity. > > It seems to be. As if it takes 40 minutes to secure a deal, players > apparently can spend that 40 minutes to secure that deal ("infinite if > in earnest"). Which is absurd. And the point that is being made. Over > and over again. > > I am not, nor have I ever been, implying that anything that is obviously > stalling or non timely play, cannot be dealt with by judgement (I have > said repeatedly "I'm not talking about slow play, as it is covered by > the rules"). As it can. > > This issue is, and always has been, that it is absurd that players can > legally spend that much time debating a deal, should they want to in > earnest, in a timed game. but while they may do it in earnest, in theory, in practise it is unlikely they could sustain it for that long. but if they could sustain it for that long, i am not sure they could sustain the judge's belief that it is in earnest, and so a judge, using his judgement, would likely tell them to shut it, even if they believed they were doing it in earnest. ...IMO -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:RUm7P9VT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns995CB1042F...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: > There are many, many games out there that don't become about heavy deal- > making. One of the simplest ways of doing this is, as has been shown > elsewhere, for players who don't want 45 minutes used to discuss whether > Arika should have blue shoelaces or red shoelaces to clamp down on the > dealmakers, or get them off the table. You know that someone shoots his > mouth off for five minutes at the slightest provocation? Warn the rest > of the table, and move on. > >>We should also have a means of curbing deal-making (or >>any other excessive (ab)use of the game clock) which gets waaaay out of >>hand, if for no other reason than that the rounds are timed. > > We do. > > It's called "judgement". Just like for any other abuse of the game > clock. Any abuse at all. Of any part of the game. > James, did you read the front end of these threads? This crap all started off because Peter naively responded to Tetragammon's OP with _just_ this position (Pete said something like "Yeah, if my guys take to long, as a Judge I go over there and tell them to wrap it up and get to playing"), and was told by LSJ that, NO, dealmaking is a part of VTES. So long as the deal-making is legitimate and in earnest, no matter how detailed, no matter how much time is being used, it is Playing.The.Game, and a judge may NOT interfere with legitimate instances of playing the game. Your examples about negotiating the color of Arika's shoelaces (I like that, BTW ;-) are not relevant, because what we're talking about are instances of _legal_, lengthy negotiations. I know you don't believe that such a thing exists, but I beleive Tetragammon when he says they're real and prevalent in his group, and that thay're having a strong negative effect on the popularity of the game with newer players. > Somehow, you seem to believe that judges can't intervene on abuses of > the game clock if they involve deals. They can. You've got to actually be able to call what is happening an abuse, before you can step in. This is not what we're talking about here... What we're talking about is the negative impact of legitimate, lengthy dealmaking (or ay other lengthy, legitimate clock use) on the popularity of the game. Secondarily, I personally added the topic of the inherent unfairness of having a timed game, where the available time may be spent in a heavily lop-sided fashion, without recourse from the other players so long as the time was necessary for the game activity (deal-making being the most obviously time-consuming example, my ambitions towards a deck which is mechanistically time-consuming possibly being another). We're hashing this topic out ad nauseam specifically because the tournament rules as you describe them don't apply in the situations at hand... DZ AW

In article <z1Ogi.18458$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Verbal masturbation" conflicts with "in earnest". The two are mutually > exclusive. Are you honestly debating what the meaning of "verbal masturbation" is? I can call whatever I want "verbal masturbation". I am currently calling totally earnest, legal dealmaking "verbal masturbation". Thus, no mutual exclusivity. > Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of playing the > game. > As has been previously indicated. Likewise, it has no special restriction, > even > though you want it to be specially restricted. No, I just want it to happen within the bounds of reason. > The problem stems from the repeated conflating of time spent in earnest with > times spent absurdly. It is very possible for time spent in earnest to be time spent absurdly. I'm sure Karen Finley is being quite earnest when she spends time covering her body with yams... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 28, 10:10 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote innews:RUm7P9VT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > > > > > > In message <Xns995CB1042FF1Batomwea...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > > <atomwea...@hotmail.com> writes: > > There are many, many games out there that don't become about heavy deal- > > making. One of the simplest ways of doing this is, as has been shown > > elsewhere, for players who don't want 45 minutes used to discuss whether > > Arika should have blue shoelaces or red shoelaces to clamp down on the > > dealmakers, or get them off the table. You know that someone shoots his > > mouth off for five minutes at the slightest provocation? Warn the rest > > of the table, and move on. > > >>We should also have a means of curbing deal-making (or > >>any other excessive (ab)use of the game clock) which gets waaaay out of > >>hand, if for no other reason than that the rounds are timed. > > > We do. > > > It's called "judgement". Just like for any other abuse of the game > > clock. Any abuse at all. Of any part of the game. > > James, did you read the front end of these threads? > > This crap all started off because Peter naively responded to Tetragammon's > OP with _just_ this position (Pete said something like "Yeah, if my guys > take to long, as a Judge I go over there and tell them to wrap it up and > get to playing"), and was told by LSJ that, NO, dealmaking is a part of > VTES. So long as the deal-making is legitimate and in earnest, no matter > how detailed, no matter how much time is being used, it is > Playing.The.Game, and a judge may NOT interfere with legitimate instances > of playing the game. Legitimate play is legitimate. Slow Play and Stalling are not. It is not accurate to say that the amount of time used "does not matter". It does matter how much time your play takes, as this is a necessary (but not sufficient) piece of information to use your judgment. Any given specific instance of dealmaking has a limit on the amount of time it can eat up before the judge will step in and call it slow play. But there could, hypothetically, be some instance of dealmaking that takes 15 minutes without being judged an excessive use of time. And if it happens, we should treat it the same as the hypothetical situation in which 15 minutes planning your 30+ actions in the correct order so that you can oust your prey is not an unreasonable amount of time. witness1

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-A1D7AC.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <z1Ogi.18458$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> "Verbal masturbation" conflicts with "in earnest". The two are >> mutually >> exclusive. > > Are you honestly debating what the meaning of "verbal masturbation" > is? > > I can call whatever I want "verbal masturbation". I am currently > calling > totally earnest, legal dealmaking "verbal masturbation". Thus, no > mutual > exclusivity. You can call it "fruit salad" if you want, but that won't make it into a bowl containing pieces of various sweet plant parts, will it? >> Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of playing >> the >> game. >> As has been previously indicated. Likewise, it has no special >> restriction, >> even >> though you want it to be specially restricted. > > No, I just want it to happen within the bounds of reason. Are you sure you know where the bounds of reason are, anymore? Scott has said - in the message you responded to - that dealmaking is required to conform to the bounds of reason, as determined by the judge, just like all other activities in a game of VTES must conform to the bounds of reason. I don't know if you'd noticed, but the reason Scott stopped responding to the messages in this thread is that he believed everything relevant to have already been said from his side. If you want to go on textually masturbating on discredited themes, he might not stop you, but that doesn't mean he agrees, or that the VEKN rules support what you're writing, either. >> The problem stems from the repeated conflating of time spent in >> earnest with >> times spent absurdly. > > It is very possible for time spent in earnest to be time spent > absurdly. > I'm sure Karen Finley is being quite earnest when she spends time > covering her body with yams... If she sees it as absurd, then how is she doing it in earnest? Conversely, if she is in earnest, then it's not absurd to her, is it? Josh guess what guys, i'm wise to your bag of tricks you're in for a big surprise here it comes, it's a TON OF BRICKS!

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1182952563....@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 27, 9:26 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their >> options for 15 minutes. Why is that? > > Moot. You can call the judge in any event. The judge will use his > judgment to determine whether the player is playing slowly. > > It doesn't matter whether the time taken is 15 minutes or 15 seconds - > slow play is slow play, and timely play is timely play. > > If any part of the game is complex enough that taking 15 minutes to > resolve it is reasonable, it's timely play to take 15 minutes > resolving it. If any part of the game is simple enough that 15 seconds > is an excessive amount of time to devote to it, 15 seconds is slow > play. You, sir, are a paragon of wisdom and discernment. Josh feel free to judge tournaments anytime

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1182977031.8...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > Taking an excessive amount of time to perform a necessary task is slow > play. Taking a lot of time on a task is not necessarily excessive. > Taking 30-45 minutes to deal is Slow Play if and only if 30-45 minutes > is an excessive amount of time for the deal(s) being discussed (i.e., > we cannot without further information properly exercise judgment about > whether or not it is slow play). > Right. And when 30-45 minutes of discussion is spent in earnest, and this becomes a prevalent habit on the tournament scene, the game is being legally played, but it becomes a game which few new players, and some portion of existing players, have no interest in participating in. > But the assumption has always appeared to be that the 30-45 minutes > was being spent "earnestly," i.e., actively attempting to reach a > successful conclusion in a timely fashion. Right. This is the only aspect that I'm really talking about, legal instances of very lengthy use of the clock. Examples of crappy deals, discussions about irrelevant matters, etc. I _get_ that a Judge can step in, in these instances. Really, I do. Got it. All set. Understood. >> So again, I'm left wondering why the double standard here, between >> deal- >> making use of the clock, and building a deck which makes use of the >> clock..? > > There is no double standard. Actively attempting to stall for time is > against the rules. Actively attempting to undermine an event is also > against the rules. > Then you've set up a false parallel. I am attempting to do neither. Try looking at it this way; deal-makers may spend what time they need to negotiate a deal, so long as the discussion topics are pertinant to the game at hand, and the conversation doesn't wander to not-necessary topics. This can still lead to a significant use of the limited time avialable in the round, which can have an impact on the availability of time that others at the table to make their attempt at the Game Win. All I'm proposing is that, since _any_ legitimate use of the limited time available in the round is allowed, Time Use itself can become a legitimate factor to consider, when choosing a Game Winning strategy. As with the lengthy deal-maker who uses up the time available, I too can use that time, so long as it is mechanistically needed. (I'm choosing this route, instead of deal-making, because I'm frankly crappy at negotiating deals, I tend towards brief, tit-for-tat, "I'll rescue your guy, if you don't bleed me this turn"-type deals, and I tend not to trust my deal-partners when dealing for extended returns). So that's what I proposed. Among the Game Winning strategies I'm going to consider for my next tournament, each will be gauged for its Time Use, and selected on the basis of using more time, because that offers an in- game advantage, and is legal. I got a lot of cries of "foul!" "unsportsmanlike" "Bad play!" etc, in part my own fault because of the way I presented this choice. That was somewhat deliberate, because I wanted folks to see what the time use metric can do to the tournament scene. I'm still going to bring a good deck, but its likely to be something more like a Creation/Boon deck which uses Thaum to get the weenies Laptops via MotS, and bleeds with Mirror Walks (maybe with supporting Cloaks from whatever is Creating the weenies), than it is to be something which only takes a more 'normal' number of actions per turn. If it sounds to the Judge like it will result in a library which is sufficiently random, I'll do two riffle shuffles, three or four overhand shuffles, and a third riffle before presenting for a cut, and i shulffle pretty fast; that'll be less than 30 seconds to do. Taken iteratively, though, all of those actions, library searches, and shuffles will start to add up. Will it add up to as much time as deal-making can consume? Probably not even close. Consider the outcry to my proposed deck in these threads in _that_ light for a minute; my best shot may not even come _close_ to touching what Tetragammon is already coping with. I might not succeed in chewing up as much of the clock as I might like, but any un-balanced use of time which reduces the total number of rounds, works to my advantage, if I build a deck suited toward that environment. >> I've backed _every_ precedent LSJ has made up to this point 7 years >> in, >> with respect to using one's judgement as a judge, and shouted down a >> helluva lot of people here in the process. Because with his prior >> examples, there are game state factors that can be checked, player >> comments to account for, deck contents,etc etc. I don't have a >> single problem judging deal legality, play to win, or any other >> circumstance, up until this one of time usage. The "infinite, in >> earnest" time use metric is horrible, IMO. > > Not infinite. Just not pre-limited. Use your judgment. 30-45 minutes > may be too much. It may not be. Without details, exercising judgment > is impossible. > Its only the instances where 30-45 minutes is 'not too much' that concern me, as Tetragammon has evidence that they detract from the game's ability to attract new players. Seperately, it strikes me as inherently unfair, in a tournament with timed rounds, to have a legal means by which one player out of five can use as much as half of the time available, or more, but those are the rules as they stand. The outcry to my suggestion that Time Use be a significant factor to consider in building a deck may also be evidence that, on some level, people recognize this. At some point, _each_ player should have an opportunity to play.the.game. Somewhat unbalanced use of time is reasonable, and to be expected, but the sort of legal time use allowed by the rules as they stand is unreasonable. If one player's use of time is impacting the ability of another to have enough time to _even attempt_ to get the GW, something is wrong with the structure of the Time Use rules. But, the rules allow this. As long as they do, I'll consider the impact of this rule (like we do all others), when choosing a deck and a strategy to Win. DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > At some point, _each_ player should have an > opportunity to play.the.game. Somewhat unbalanced use of time is > reasonable, and to be expected, but the sort of legal time use allowed by > the rules as they stand is unreasonable. If one player's use of time is > impacting the ability of another to have enough time to _even attempt_ to > get the GW, something is wrong with the structure of the Time Use rules. However, the structure of the time use rules is currently fair: each legal activity is allowed the time it requires. Changing that to arbitrarily curtail certain activities deviates from the fairness the rules seek to achieve. Freak Drive? Uh-oh. That minion is now taking twice the time his is rationed for the minion phase. Weenies? Uh-oh. Those minions are now taking more than the time rationed for your minion phase. Anson? Uh-oh. Now you're spending more than your rationed time for master phase actions.

James Coupe wrote: > In message <FzBgi.25893$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >> I do use judgement - i judge tournaments since seven years , so i >> have >> an idea of what it implies. > > So could you tell us why you think that 45 minutes of arguing is > timely? Where i written that 45 minutes is timely ? Usually isn't - there are some complicated game situation in which, however, players *do* need lot of time to clear all the arguing and counter.arguing. They can consume as much as of that time on such occasions, because "winning" the table talk ending up on the proficient side of the deal it's still considered playing the game. On the other side, i already pointed that, however, this all consuming social interaction (due big power and impact of deals on the game, at any stage) has gone too far. > >> Peter atom and some other seem to have got the point - the question >> is not with the judge having to judge something special - if there >> are 3-4 players dealing, you *have* to let them the time needed >> to clear all of their arguments and counter-arguments. > > No. This is wrong. You *have* to use your judgement. Everything > else is window dressing. No you're plain weong, sorry - i do use hudgment when needed, not when isn't - if players are playing the game, trying to end up on the "winning" side of a deal i won't step in as long as they're still debating by PTW, and not for stalling, that's granted. I always did like this, and lsj has confirmed that this is right. > > > You *have* to use your judgement. > I never pointed i shouldn't do that, however. > >> then you *have* to lef that "part" of >> the game to be played. > > You do. But it *must* be played in a timely manner. > Let's give an exact quantity of time, them. > If players are playing slowly, they fall foul of the general > requirement for timely play. > > >> And the idea of the judge having to step in a conversation in which >> the dealing >> players are involved for their best interest toward the GW sounds >> not too good >> to me. > > You have to be able to do this. If intervening in the table when you > need to sounds "not too good" to you, you're judging wrong. You're misunderstanding - a judge should not step in when players are playing by the rules and by the PTW - long discussion about deals can happens, and if they happens because players are trying to *win* the game, gaining the best set up (by the deal) for themselves, following the ptw and *not* trying to consume time stalling, i'll them go on with the table talk as much as i always did, as much as i'll let go a player to get his 10 combats each of his turn with his potence weenie. > If you're not willing to intervene on slow play in a deal, seven years > experience or not, you're letting your players down. The deal can be > in the interests of the players, clearly. But if they're playing > slowly, you fix it. As you are required to do by the rules. Let's give a maximum time for table talk, then - otherwise, every judge will left judge about this situations by his taste about what "long discussion" is; and whatės be considered "long" by someone, will be considered "too much long" for someone else, or "still accetable" by some other.... and so on. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Afaik, in fact, it has. You can keep a deal against the PTW rule, can you ? Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] My experience is telling me quite the opposite. And it's for this reason that i started the discussion about SoD. Emiliano

In article <5ei2dsF...@mid.individual.net>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> wrote: > You can call it "fruit salad" if you want, but that won't make it into a > bowl containing pieces of various sweet plant parts, will it? No, but I found it particularly preposterous that multiple folks (Coupe and LSJ) reacted specifically to what they believed my particularly rediculous language to mean. > Are you sure you know where the bounds of reason are, anymore? Always. > Scott > has said - in the message you responded to - that dealmaking is required > to conform to the bounds of reason, as determined by the judge, just > like all other activities in a game of VTES must conform to the bounds > of reason. Here is one of the big flaws in all of this--everyone keeps pointing out that dealmaking is treated just like every other aspect of the game, in terms of use of time, etc. But deal making *isn't* just like every other aspect of the game. Every other aspect of the game is bounded in by rules, mechanisms and structures. Deal making/table talk is not. Making it a very different animal. When someone is tapping cards, shuffling their deck, or deciding which strike card to play, I know, due to the existence of rules and mechanisms governing these things, how long they should take, more or less. I know that if some guy spends 30 seconds shuffling his deck, that is totally reasonable, but if he spends 5 minutes shuffling his deck, he is wasting time. I know if someone spends 10 seconds choosing a strike card, that is reasonable, but if he spends 5 minutes deciding which strike card to use, he is just wasting time. Due to the existence of a structure that governs how these things happen. Dealmaking has no such structure built in that gives onlookers or judges or the people involved a meter to determine if a fair amount of time is being used or if an unfair amount of time is being used. How long does it take to make a complicated table split deal? 2 minutes? 5? 15? I don't know. As a result, I can't judge if it has gone on too long or not (even if in complete earnestness--the assumption here, which I'm sure many disagree with, is that even an earnest use of time can be too long), like I could if someone was spending too long deciding what their best move is or shuffling their deck or choosing a strike card. All I want, really, is for the judge to have the ability to get called over when some player at a table thinks things have gone on too long, and the judge can say "ok, move it along, this is a timed game...", even if the discussion going on is in earnest. In effect, giving the judge the ability to limit excessive time spent dealmaking, just like the judge can limit excessive time spent thinking or shuffling or deciding what strike card to play. > or that the VEKN rules support what you're writing, either. I don't think they do. Which is why I think there is a problem. > If she sees it as absurd, then how is she doing it in earnest? > Conversely, if she is in earnest, then it's not absurd to her, is it? If I see it as absurd, I can get up and walk away and stop having my time wasted. Karen Finley isn't holding me captive (mind you, I'm very fond of Karen Finley). I can't so much get up and walk away from a game of VTES given the same situation (assuming I care how I do in the game). [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of playing >> the game. > > Afaik, in fact, it has. > You can keep a deal against the PTW rule, can you ? Non-sequitur. You may honor a PTW deal, yes.

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1183042048.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 28, 10:10 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> But there could, hypothetically you don't need to call it hypothetical. Its real, and Tetragammon is dealing with what it does, when it becomes the prevalent mode of play. > be some instance of dealmaking that > takes 15 minutes without being judged an excessive use of time. And if > it happens, we should treat it the same as the hypothetical situation > in which 15 minutes planning your 30+ actions in the correct order so > that you can oust your prey is not an unreasonable amount of time. > I can see 5 to 15 minutes in _executing_ 30+ actions (depending upon the level of blocking by opponents), but 'planning'? No, 15 minutes of planning is clearly an instance of slow play, 30- 60 seconds of planning without a card played would probably be slow play, in the case of high-action decks are just iterative attempts at the same or similar actions. Did you mean something like 'plan and execute', instead? DZ AW PS I snipped your upper comments about Slow Play, since they aren't relevant to the topic of legal, lengthy game play.

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1182952563.827762.50030 @n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com: >> But you can call a a judge for someone carefully considering their >> options for 15 minutes. Why is that? > > Moot. You can call the judge in any event. The judge will use his > judgment to determine whether the player is playing slowly. > Ok. He rules the player is not playing slowly, because the 15 minutes was spent legitimately. What now? > It doesn't matter whether the time taken is 15 minutes or 15 seconds - > slow play is slow play, and timely play is timely play. > > If any part of the game is complex enough that taking 15 minutes to > resolve it is reasonable, it's timely play to take 15 minutes > resolving it. If any part of the game is simple enough that 15 seconds > is an excessive amount of time to devote to it, 15 seconds is slow > play. OK. Now, consider Tetragammon's situation, where the part of the game that the group is focusing on, is deal negotiations which are complex enough to legitimately take 15 minutes, or more, to resolve. Say that multiple people at the table decide that this is the part of the game that they are going to focus on (which is what is happening there). End result? 45 minutes spent on a two hour round, and disinterested new players thinking people are crazy for playing this game. That's the thing, its allowed by the rules, and its legal play, yet its _also_ not the sort of game many people are interested in playing... If there was a mechanism in place by which a Judge, if another player asked, could say "Guys, I know you're deep in discussions, and its all legal and relevant to the outcome, but the clock is ticking on this round, and Timmy here hasn't had a turn in 15 minutes. Get it moving and wrap it up in the next minute", limiting legal time use, when it rises to the level of encroaching on other's ability to have a chance at even trying for the GW (the Judge can use his Judgement to decide when that level has been exceeded), I think that'd be a perfectly resonable addition to the Judges capabilities, and would preserve the game's interest/appeal for new players, without changing the way most people play the game... DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:rJQgi.18460$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > atomweaver wrote: >> At some point, _each_ player should have an >> opportunity to play.the.game. Somewhat unbalanced use of time is >> reasonable, and to be expected, but the sort of legal time use >> allowed by the rules as they stand is unreasonable. If one player's >> use of time is impacting the ability of another to have enough time >> to _even attempt_ to get the GW, something is wrong with the >> structure of the Time Use rules. > > However, the structure of the time use rules is currently fair: each > legal activity is allowed the time it requires. > > Changing that to arbitrarily curtail certain activities deviates from > the fairness the rules seek to achieve. > I did not suggest an arbitrary curtailment (in fact, I tried not to suggest anything, because I was looking for some recognition of the problem first, and a dialogue to arrive at a better solution). How about "if the Judge, using his judgement, determines that a player's legal use of time is significant enough to reduce _all_ remaining player's ability to have a reasonable chance at resolving the table in a Game Win, that player can be issued a warning (or an escalated penallty, for further infractions), and encouraged to choose a more expedient route to achive his desired effect." Time can be added back to the table to compensate. That phrasing gets troublesome, when you get close to the end of as round, but it at least recognizes the fact that rounds are timed, and time available is therefore fininte... > Freak Drive? Uh-oh. That minion is now taking twice the time his is > rationed for the minion phase. > Some degree of variance in time use should always be acceptable. > Weenies? Uh-oh. Those minions are now taking more than the time > rationed for your minion phase. Some degree of variance in time use should always be acceptable. > > Anson? Uh-oh. Now you're spending more than your rationed time for > master phase actions. Some degree of variance in time use should always be acceptable. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Jun 28, 1:23 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <FzBgi.25893$y05.16...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > > Tetragrammaton writes: > >> Peter atom and some other seem to have got the point - the question > >> is not with the judge having to judge something special - if there > >> are 3-4 players dealing, you *have* to let them the time needed > >> to clear all of their arguments and counter-arguments. > > > No. This is wrong. You *have* to use your judgement. Everything > > else is window dressing. > > No you're plain weong, sorry - i do use hudgment when needed, not > when isn't - if players are playing the game, trying to end up on the > "winning" > side of a deal i won't step in as long as they're still debating by PTW, > and not for stalling, that's granted. > I always did like this, and lsj has confirmed that this is right. This is the point where I believe this whole discussion is still lying on. When is it "needed" to use a judge's judgment, or not. Let me just illustrate my take on the subject with an example, and then you guys can bash me as needed... =) I'm judging a table. In that table, 2 or 3 players are arguing, trying to get a deal done. At a certain point, I judge it's going too far. I'm using my personal judgment (based on table state/history, on their talking etc.) to make this decision. Please notice that I realise it's *possible* that all of them are dealing in earnest. I just judged this is taking too long, and that play should resume. I say "Ok, guys, enough of this. Let's get this done or not, and play". One, or more, of them might argue "We are not stalling, we are playing the game by trying to cut a PTW deal". This is when I reply "Fine. I'm not accusing any of you of stalling, but I'm still ruling that this has gone on for too long, based on my personal judgment. So, please, you have one minute to close matters and resume playing cards. I'm also adding X more minutes to this table." And that's it. I think this is part of my prerogative as a judge. None of LSJ's post made me believe otherwise. Am I right about this? I'm not saying that a judge should interfere with table talk arbitrarily, just that he may do so based only on his judgment. Even if the players are debating "in earnest" from their point of view. (...) > >> then you *have* to lef that "part" of > >> the game to be played. > > > You do. But it *must* be played in a timely manner. > > Let's give an exact quantity of time, them. It's not possible to determine this exact quantity of time. That's why it has to rely on judgment. (...) > You're misunderstanding - a judge should not step in when players > are playing by the rules and by the PTW - long discussion about > deals can happens, and if they happens because players are trying to *win* > the game, gaining the best set up (by the deal) for themselves, following > the ptw > and *not* trying to consume time stalling, i'll them go on with the table > talk as much as > i always did, as much as i'll let go a player to get his 10 combats each of > his > turn with his potence weenie. I appreciate the idea that judges should not interfere unless it strictly required. But "required" is also partly determined by judgment. Even if the players are playing by the rules, it might be required that you interfere somehow, maybe because of things you observed. It's also judgment. > > If you're not willing to intervene on slow play in a deal, seven years > > experience or not, you're letting your players down. The deal can be > > in the interests of the players, clearly. But if they're playing > > slowly, you fix it. As you are required to do by the rules. > > Let's give a maximum time for table talk, then - otherwise, every judge will > left judge about this situations by his taste about what "long discussion" > is; and > whatìs be considered "long" by someone, will be considered "too much long" > for someone else, or "still accetable" by some other.... and so on. That's true. And, although I don't like it anymore than you do, it's a fact that judgment calls will result in different outcomes at times. I'm sure that objective criteria would be used everytime, if it was possible at all *and* if it was better than trusting the judges to judge what's best in every specific situation. But that's not the case here, I'm afraid. Abraço, Luiz Mello

Clément <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in news:1183053831.0...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 28, 1:23 pm, "Tetragrammaton" wrote: > This is the point where I believe this whole discussion is still lying > on. When is it "needed" to use a judge's judgment, or not. > > Let me just illustrate my take on the subject with an example, and > then you guys can bash me as needed... =) > > I'm judging a table. In that table, 2 or 3 players are arguing, trying > to get a deal done. At a certain point, I judge it's going too far. > I'm using my personal judgment (based on table state/history, on their > talking etc.) to make this decision. Please notice that I realise it's > *possible* that all of them are dealing in earnest. I just judged this > is taking too long, and that play should resume. > > I say "Ok, guys, enough of this. Let's get this done or not, and > play". One, or more, of them might argue "We are not stalling, we are > playing the game by trying to cut a PTW deal". This is when I reply > "Fine. I'm not accusing any of you of stalling, but I'm still ruling > that this has gone on for too long, based on my personal judgment. So, > please, you have one minute to close matters and resume playing cards. > I'm also adding X more minutes to this table." > > > Am I right about this? I'm not saying that a judge should interfere > with table talk arbitrarily, just that he may do so based only on his > judgment. Even if the players are debating "in earnest" from their > point of view. > As I understand it, you are wrong, a Judge may not do this. I thought the same way as you, up until this thread and the SoD thread that originated it. I think the above response you gave to the circumstance you laid out, should be a perfectly allowable response by a Judge to the situation of extremes of time use. At this time, it is not. DZ AW

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > >>> Please, feel free to tell us why intentionally ruining several rounds at >>> the NAC is not being a jerk. Because you can't. It's being a jerk. >>> Want to know how I know that? I used judgement. This is the strike >>> zone. Intentionally ruining people's games is not sportsmanlike. >> >> Probably, he is doing it because it is legal which is the point of >> this whole thread. > > You've got pronoun troubles there. > > The "it" James is referring to is not legal. > > You seem to be referring to some other "it". > Hmmm, I thought the point of VTES was in essence to ruin other people's games for your own benefit. Dave's suggested deck design doesn't seem any more heinous than weenies or PTO (or even Agaitas/Ericyes). If someone is playing a 1st Tradition/Reversal of Fortune/Madness Network/Rachel Brandywine deck, and only 2 players get to play for like 40-60 minutes, that is completely legal play, and I would say is not unsportsmanlike - would you? Or if one is playing a Tha Breeder deck that equips using MotS and creates weenies and has a lot of shuffling so that one's turns take 10 minutes compared to other's turns of 5 minutes, doesn't seem unsportsmanlike to me - do you disagree? And knowing Dave's online personality, my guess is he would be pretty fun to play with, even as he is chewing up all that damn time with his turn. I would not think he was being unsportsmanlike at the table. If he states in advance he wants to use up a bunch of time with legal, non-stalling play, isn't that just like someone saying (in advance) they want to eat up their prey's library with an Agaitas deck? Or eat up their vamps with any number of vampire removal strategies? Tactically not so smart perhaps, but not unsporstmanlike, nor anti-PTW. At least from my point of view. I don't understand James' point of view. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Jun 28, 6:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Only, because he let you know he was going to do it in advance, if he > > had shown up with the secret motivation to do this and concealed that > > motivation, would you be able to catch him doing it? > > If players collude, but do so secretly and conceal that secret, would you be > able to catch them? Is table politics collusion? In fact, it is. Therefore you could ban table deals as collusion as, in fact that is what they are doing. People often only make deals with "honorable" players or players that are not known "dealbreakers". Doesn't this out of game reference infer collusion. It does in fact. > The whole point of judging is to use the information you have. If some player > manages to keep his illegal activity secret from the judge (even concealing it > with the effective appearance of proper play), then naturally the judge judgment > will, per statement of the case, perceive it as proper play. Its no secret that players behave and expect others to behave in a predictable fashion. If a player has a out-of-game history of predictable behavior then basing table deals on that out-of-game information is identical to collusion. Both players have a level of trust established that fosters a level of cooperation that would not exist between two strangers. This is collusion, and it is impossible to detect. Thanks for the transition to what everyone is talking about, but no one will point their finger at (please ignore the 800 lb gorilla sitting in the corner). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 28, 1:18 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1183042048.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > On Jun 28, 10:10 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> But there could, hypothetically > > you don't need to call it hypothetical. Its real, and > Tetragammon is dealing with what it does, when it becomes the > prevalent mode of play. > > > be some instance of dealmaking that > > takes 15 minutes without being judged an excessive use of > time. And if > > it happens, we should treat it the same as the hypothetical > situation > > in which 15 minutes planning your 30+ actions in the correct > order so > > that you can oust your prey is not an unreasonable amount of > time. > > I can see 5 to 15 minutes in _executing_ 30+ actions (depending > upon the level of blocking by opponents), but 'planning'? No, > 15 minutes of planning is clearly an instance of slow play, 30- > 60 seconds of planning without a card played would probably be > slow play, in the case of high-action decks are just iterative > attempts at the same or similar actions. Did you mean something > like 'plan and execute', instead? It takes a mere 30 seconds of deliberation per action to add up to 15 minutes of _just planning_ in this case. And the actions need not be "same or similar" enough to make deciding them a mindless task (Do I start making more minions now, or wait until later in the turn?, Should I play my Govern yet? Do I utilize Filchware's Pawn Shop to grab every piece of equipment in my prey's ash heap, even if that delays my oust another turn? If not, which choice pieces should I grab, if any?) Yes, the example is contrived. MOST players in MOST situations will not need this amount of time to take their turns. MOST deals should also not take this long to negotiate. But when one comes along where taking a large amount of time is reasonable, it should be (and is) allowed, even if the other players don't like it. witness1

librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in news:QQSgi.13431$s57....@newsfe07.phx: [ quoted text not captured ] Thank You, Chris! It seems at least one other person understands what I'm trying to say (well two, but Peter and I are, like, engaged or something...) DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Against the PTW, is right ? You can honor even if in honoring you'll end up losing the game , right ? - so deals *have* (or better, players using them have) actually a special privilege over other aspect of the game. Emiliano

Clément wrote: > This is the point where I believe this whole discussion is still lying > on. When is it "needed" to use a judge's judgment, or not. > > Let me just illustrate my take on the subject with an example, and > then you guys can bash me as needed... =) > > I'm judging a table. In that table, 2 or 3 players are arguing, trying > to get a deal done. At a certain point, I judge it's going too far. > I'm using my personal judgment (based on table state/history, on their > talking etc.) to make this decision. Please notice that I realise it's > *possible* that all of them are dealing in earnest. I just judged this > is taking too long, and that play should resume. > > I say "Ok, guys, enough of this. Let's get this done or not, and > play". One, or more, of them might argue "We are not stalling, we are > playing the game by trying to cut a PTW deal". This is when I reply > "Fine. I'm not accusing any of you of stalling, but I'm still ruling > that this has gone on for too long, based on my personal judgment. So, > please, you have one minute to close matters and resume playing cards. > I'm also adding X more minutes to this table." > > And that's it. I think this is part of my prerogative as a judge. None > of LSJ's post made me believe otherwise. > > Am I right about this? I'm not saying that a judge should interfere > with table talk arbitrarily, just that he may do so based only on his > judgment. Even if the players are debating "in earnest" from their > point of view. You are right about this. If the players have gone "too far" in the arguing (for example, arguing back and forth with no progress, as seems implied in your example), the judge is free to break the logjam. If the deal-brokering hasn't stalled, though (and isn't pushing against the time limit barrier that would decrease one of the deal-broker's expected GW/VP outcome), the the players haven't gone "too far" (and so the deal-making would be allowed, just like any other legal activity that needed the time and isn't stalling or violating PTW would be allowed).

librarian wrote: > Hmmm, I thought the point of VTES was in essence to ruin other people's > games for your own benefit. > > Dave's suggested deck design doesn't seem any more heinous than weenies > or PTO (or even Agaitas/Ericyes). You're using "ruin" in quite a different context than Dave started with.

XZealot wrote: > On Jun 28, 6:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> Only, because he let you know he was going to do it in advance, if he >>> had shown up with the secret motivation to do this and concealed that >>> motivation, would you be able to catch him doing it? >> If players collude, but do so secretly and conceal that secret, would you be >> able to catch them? > > Is table politics collusion? In fact, it is. No. It is not done surreptitiously. > Therefore you could ban > table deals as collusion as, in fact that is what they are doing. > People often only make deals with "honorable" players or players that > are not known "dealbreakers". Doesn't this out of game reference > infer collusion. It does in fact. In fact, it does not. >> The whole point of judging is to use the information you have. If some player >> manages to keep his illegal activity secret from the judge (even concealing it >> with the effective appearance of proper play), then naturally the judge judgment >> will, per statement of the case, perceive it as proper play. > > Its no secret that players behave and expect others to behave in a > predictable fashion. If a player has a out-of-game history of > predictable behavior then basing table deals on that out-of-game > information is identical to collusion. Both players have a level of > trust established that fosters a level of cooperation that would not > exist between two strangers. This is collusion, and it is impossible > to detect. It is not collusion. > Thanks for the transition to what everyone is talking about, but no > one will point their finger at (please ignore the 800 lb gorilla > sitting in the corner). "Everyone"? I've heard only one talking about this in the past month.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of >>>> playing the game. >>> Afaik, in fact, it has. >>> You can keep a deal against the PTW rule, can you ? >> Non-sequitur. >> >> You may honor a PTW deal, yes. > > Against the PTW, is right ? No. The PTW deal is PTW.

[ quoted text not captured ] But you can honor it if later that will end up with you losing the game, is right ? Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Meaning that you would lose the game when the deal was made and the deal represents merely maximizing your VPs, sure. Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment of the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the GW when made ends up only leading you to a non-GW. I think the issue though, is that you see this as an exception to something, when in fact it is merely an expression of one aspect of the sportsmanship rules, not an exception to them.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't remember Dave using the word originally. I do remember James using it. I guess I disagree with James' saying that Dave sitting down with a deck like I described (Rachel MN or Thau Breed or other), and playing it legally, playing it to win is "Intentionally setting out to ruin people's games" beyond what a normal tournament game of VTES entails. Dave *IS* trying to maximize the time he consumes, consuming as much of a finite resource in the game, time, to better his own position. I think LSJ, that you would agree that not only is that legal by the rules, but sportsmanlike too. I disagree with James that Dave playing a deck like that in that manner is "jerky", "unsportsmanlike", or "ruin[s] people's games". From what I can see, it's Playing.The.Game. (snore...). [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nkUgi.18498$RX.1...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> No. The PTW deal is PTW. >> >> But you can honor it if later that will end up with you >> losing the game, is right ? > > Meaning that you would lose the game when the deal was made and the > deal represents merely maximizing your VPs, sure. > > Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment of > the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the GW > when made ends up only leading you to a non-GW. Also noting that you can only honor your "playing to win as much as possible" losing deal up until the game has been reduced to 2 players, if you are still in it at that time. If you survive to the 2-player game, you must attempt to win even if you previously were (legally) on the losing end of a deal. > I think the issue though, is that you see this as an exception to > something, when in fact it is merely an expression of one aspect of > the sportsmanship rules, not an exception to them. Indeed. Josh just play to win and you won't have any problems

librarian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> You're using "ruin" in quite a different context than Dave started with. > > I don't remember Dave using the word originally. Google is your friend.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, using Google with this search string: ruin "rec games trading cards jyhad" author:atomweaver He used the word "ruin" in a thread titled "Sleeves" back on 9/8/06; he mentioned Ruins of Villars Abbey in the Voter Cap thread, and then it's in a quote in this very thread about 4 messages up where he quotes me quoting James. Your Google-Fu is way better than mine, I must somehow have searched wrong. But regardless, what do you think about Dave playing the decks I described in the manner I described? Do you think that's sportsmanlike or not? Regardless of how the this thread splinter started with Dave gloating about how he was going to "take advantage" of the "earnest time" issue and create a deck that was going to deny the other players of their "just desserts" of time. Regardless (hey, three times in a paragraph, that's just laziness now) of how this particular corner of this discussion got started, it has now evolved to Dave playing a time-consuming deck in a legal manner with legal intent - is that in any way unsportsmanlike? My guess is your answer has to be "No". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <gEUgi.446970$7g3.1...@newsfe14.phx>, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >ruin "rec games trading cards jyhad" author:atomweaver > >He used the word "ruin" in a thread titled "Sleeves" back on 9/8/06; he >mentioned Ruins of Villars Abbey in the Voter Cap thread, and then it's >in a quote in this very thread about 4 messages up where he quotes me >quoting James. > >Your Google-Fu is way better than mine, I must somehow have searched wrong. "ruined" http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b4961d588eeafd63 -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> Tetragrammaton wrote: >>>>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>>>> Deal-making has no special privilege over any other aspect of >>>>>>> playing the game. >>>>>> Afaik, in fact, it has. >>>>>> You can keep a deal against the PTW rule, can you ? Non-sequitur. >>>>> You may honor a PTW deal, yes. >>>> Against the PTW, is right ? >>> No. The PTW deal is PTW. >> >> But you can honor it if later that will end up with you >> losing the game, is right ? > > Meaning that you would lose the game when the deal was made and the > deal represents merely maximizing your VPs, sure. > No > Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment of > the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the GW > when made ends up only leading you to a non-GW. > This > I think the issue though, is that you see this as an exception to > something, To me, is the exception to the play to win rule/maximize, by definition yes. > when in fact it is merely an expression of one aspect of > the sportsmanship rules, not an exception to them. I dind't referred to sportmanship or whatever, i just pointed about your statement that the deals had not "special privileges" over other aspect of the game - in fact, they have a special privilege - on the ptw rule. Emiliano

James Coupe wrote: > In message <gEUgi.446970$7g3.1...@newsfe14.phx>, librarian > <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >> ruin "rec games trading cards jyhad" author:atomweaver >> >> He used the word "ruin" in a thread titled "Sleeves" back on 9/8/06; he >> mentioned Ruins of Villars Abbey in the Voter Cap thread, and then it's >> in a quote in this very thread about 4 messages up where he quotes me >> quoting James. >> >> Your Google-Fu is way better than mine, I must somehow have searched wrong. > > "ruined" > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b4961d588eeafd63 > Thanks. Is this worse than someone playing weenie Dom bleed and "ruins" other people's games in the name of "data collection"? I don't really understand James what it is about Dave's wanting to lean on an aspect of the game rules to his advantage that has you crying out that it's unsportsmanlike. Sure, he can say in advance that he's doing it to ruin other people's games. Big deal, anyone could say that outside the game, regardless of what deck they are going to play. If however once the game begins, and the person plays perfectly charmingly, plays to win, and doesn't stall, and in general plays their game *but takes an unusual[0] amount of time to do it*, why would you DQ them for unsportsmanlike conduct? At no time has Dave said he will create a deck that isn't PTW, he has said again and again (ok, at least once) that he won't "stall" while shuffling or taking his turn. Would you, or LSJ, DQ him? You still haven't answered that. A deck that played fully legally that takes a lot of time to play should not be DQ'ed simply because it takes a lot of time to play. (see Imbued). Right? James? Scott? Or are you considering DQ'ing Dave because of the comments he has made here in this thread? If so, that is quite the chilling thought. best - chris [0]"unusual", not "inordinate" or "excessive". [ quoted text not captured ]

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1183054724.7...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: > Yes, the example is contrived. MOST players in MOST situations will > not need this amount of time to take their turns. MOST deals should > also not take this long to negotiate. But when one comes along where > taking a large amount of time is reasonable, it should be (and is) > allowed, even if the other players don't like it. > We're not dealing with a situation though, where MOST deals don't take long to negotiate. From what I've read and heard, Emiliano is a perfectly competent judge, his players are merely choosing to deal legally, legitimately, and at length... and when new players see the game played with _that_ as the prevalent mode of play, they naturally assume that the game sucks rocks. So, if you don't change the rules to help curtail legal and lengthy game play in timed tournaments, what do you do suggest we do to help Emiliano? He asked for a sanctioned newbie format, and that didnt' go over too well, either. DZ AW

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:GUS+PAUD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <Xns995CA7B498...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 >>@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >> >>> In message <pdb6-3E01D6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, >>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >>>>But David is simply suggesting building a deck that maximizes the >>>>use of time as a resource to his own advantage. Yeah, we know what >>>>*his* motives are, as he is telling us. But what if someone does the >>>>exact same thing with no intention at all of undermining anything, >>>>just exploiting the rules to his advantage (which is what deal >>>>making is, really)? Again, how is this unsporting? >>> >>> His motives are being a jerk, and maximising the amount of time he >>> uses in the process. >> >>*sigh* You must be having something personal going on in your life >>James. This is so unlike you. > > No, seriously. > > Turning up to the NAC so that you can ruin several rounds *is* being a > jerk. You've said you intend to do this. Ruining people's games = > jerk. > I keep saying that is not my motive. You keep saying it is, and further create all kinds assumptions of bad or slow play or unsportsmanlike conduct on my part... Strawman, much? The point is, players can be fundamentally prevented from participating in the game itself(ie have their round 'ruined') by my _LEGAL_ game play. This indicates a flaw in the rules, not my motives. DZ AW

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:$sKwB6tn...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <gEUgi.446970$7g3.1...@newsfe14.phx>, librarian > <auct...@superfuncards.com> writes: >>ruin "rec games trading cards jyhad" author:atomweaver >> >>He used the word "ruin" in a thread titled "Sleeves" back on 9/8/06; >>he mentioned Ruins of Villars Abbey in the Voter Cap thread, and then >>it's in a quote in this very thread about 4 messages up where he >>quotes me quoting James. >> >>Your Google-Fu is way better than mine, I must somehow have searched >>wrong. > > "ruined" > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b4961d > 588eeafd63 > Correct, I did in fact use it first. To further clarify; Player's rounds may be 'ruined' through my legal play. Players will fundamentally be prevented from participating, which I equate with 'ruined'. Your assumptions about me ruining it through bad/slow/unsportsmanlike play are your own extra additions, and not a part of my strategy (and never were). See librarians re-statement, if you want to see it written a different way. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Personally i don't think that there's some kind of flaw in the rules, actually - Just that at the level of competitive tournaments it's pretty obvious (for experienced players) that the dealing process will be a key aspect of the game, in most rounds, to deal with for the road to victory. The rules and what LSJ confirmed here seems pretty consistent about all of this, to me - And now this has just strengthend in me the idea that competitive play of the tournament is too much far from the possibilities of a beginner willing to play, in short time, a sanctioned event. In most cases, i think newbies/beginners are likely to be not interested in such level of play (a level in which, confidence with *all* the mechanics of the game apart, they need a real skill at table-talk/deals making). Emiliano

On 29 jun, 08:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > atomweaver wrote: > > James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in > >news:GUS+PAUD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > >> In message <Xns995CA7B498DE6atomwea...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver > >> <atomwea...@hotmail.com> writes: > >>> James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:hnrHTGslwqgGFwF7 > >>> @gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > > >>>> In message <pdb6-3E01D6.08575927062...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] > Emiliano- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I still don't get it. Why would you get new players to tournements before they are confident about playing the game? Let them play a lot of normal games *before* going to a competitive tourney. Set up a league or something... Let them play a lot of games. And THEN let them play tourneys.

On 28 jun, 23:12, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment of > > the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the > To me, is the exception to the play to win rule/maximize, by definition > yes. Here you are plain wrong. The rule says: 1. you need to play for a Game Win 2. Failing to get a game win, you should try to maximise your VPs. So the one who takes the winning end of the deal is playing to win if he gets a game win. no problem there. The one who lets him win should get more VPs by making that deal than by just playing. Again, no exceptions here. Keeping a deal where you roll over when you already have a GW, isn't against playing to win, because you already have a game win. Note that the PTW rule doesn't care if you GW is a 2VP game win or a 5 VP game win. It just says: play for the Game win. You don't need to get a Game Win AND maximise your VPs.

Jeroen wrote: > On 28 jun, 23:12, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > >>> Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment >>> of the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the >> To me, is the exception to the play to win rule/maximize, by >> definition yes. > > Here you are plain wrong. > > The rule says: > 1. you need to play for a Game Win > 2. Failing to get a game win, you should try to maximise your VPs. > > So the one who takes the winning end of the deal is playing to win if > he gets a game win. no problem there. Sure it's play to win as long as the conditions remains the same that were on at the moment of the deal. But you can honor a "winning" deal even if you'll end up (with a progressive change of the game state since the time the deal was set up) not winning the game - Say, you can keep on tapping all of your minions (if you dealt like that) and be ousted suddenly by some "unpredictable" means (bleed bounces, domain challenge... whatever) - this is just an example. So, to me *this is* a special privilege over the ptw rule, sorry. > The one who lets him win should get more VPs by making that deal than > by just playing. Again, no exceptions here. > > Keeping a deal where you roll over when you already have a GW, isn't > against playing to win, because you already have a game win. But in the case i'm referring to you actually just dealt for certain conditions/game that should grant you a GW at a later stage. But you can keep it even if, at later changed state, keeping them (abiding to the deal) will result for you in a non-gw gain. > Note that > the PTW rule doesn't care if you GW is a 2VP game win or a 5 VP game > win. It just says: play for the Game win. You don't need to get a Game > Win AND maximise your VPs. I didn't intended gw=maximize vps anyway. But by the same extent said above for the ptw against keeping a deal - you can keep a deal against the maximize clause, however - if you're on the maximize side of a table split deal (say, 2-1-1) you should be able to keep the deal even if, at later stage, that will make you to *not* get the 1 vp dealt before (LSJ will correct me if i'm wrong) Emiliano

On 29 jun, 10:18, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Jeroen wrote: > > On 28 jun, 23:12, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > > >>> Or that the situation changed during the course of the fulfillment > >>> of the deal so that the deal which represented a possible way to the > >> To me, is the exception to the play to win rule/maximize, by > >> definition yes. > > > Here you are plain wrong. > > > The rule says: > > 1. you need to play for a Game Win > > 2. Failing to get a game win, you should try to maximise your VPs. > > > So the one who takes the winning end of the deal is playing to win if > > he gets a game win. no problem there. > > Sure it's play to win as long as the conditions remains the same that were > on at the moment of the deal. chicken - egg... Making the deal also changes the way people play. Or if you mean: a VP gets lost in a 3-2 deal, can they still honor a 2-2 split? Actually, no. Because at the moment they get left over with 2 players they both have to play for the GW. > But you can honor a "winning" deal even if you'll end up (with a progressive > change of the game state since the time the deal was set up) not winning the > game - No, because you have to play for the GW when down to 2 players, unless you already have that GW. > Say, you can keep on tapping all of your minions (if you dealt like that) > and be > ousted suddenly by some "unpredictable" means (bleed bounces, domain > challenge... > whatever) - this is just an example. That's cheating to get out of the PTW rule. > So, to me *this is* a special privilege over the ptw rule, sorry. cheating does not a priveledge make... > > > The one who lets him win should get more VPs by making that deal than > > by just playing. Again, no exceptions here. > > > Keeping a deal where you roll over when you already have a GW, isn't > > against playing to win, because you already have a game win. > > But in the case i'm referring to you actually just dealt for certain > conditions/game that > should grant you a GW at a later stage. > But you can keep it even if, at later changed state, keeping them > (abiding to the deal) will result for you in a non-gw gain. nope. See above. > > > Note that > > the PTW rule doesn't care if you GW is a 2VP game win or a 5 VP game > > win. It just says: play for the Game win. You don't need to get a Game > > Win AND maximise your VPs. > > I didn't intended gw=maximize vps anyway. > But by the same extent said above for the ptw against keeping a deal - > you can keep a deal against the maximize clause, however - if you're > on the maximize side of a table split deal (say, 2-1-1) you should be > able to keep the deal even if, at later stage, that will make you > to *not* get the 1 vp dealt before (LSJ will correct me if i'm wrong) I'm sure I don't really understand this, care to elaborate?

On 29 jun, 00:24, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: > Correct, I did in fact use it first. To further clarify; Player's rounds > may be 'ruined' through my legal play. Players will fundamentally be > prevented from participating, which I equate with 'ruined'. Your > assumptions about me ruining it through bad/slow/unsportsmanlike play are > your own extra additions, and not a part of my strategy (and never were). I don't see the problem with decks like that either. I don't see you winning with them, but that's another problem. I'd suggest: Thaumaturgy princes with 3 th trad, Magic of the Smith, learjet and Heart of Cheating. Especially learjet. Another good one: Ventrue Multi-action with lots of Mind Numb. You get a lot of actions, and time consuming votes and you Mind Numb other's to reduce their playing time.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, it's honoring a given deal. "I'll never block your minion for the rest of the game, and i'll let you 2 pv and you let me make GW". Honoring that is perfeclty honorable - it's not cheating. >> So, to me *this is* a special privilege over the ptw rule, sorry. > > cheating does not a priveledge make... > Isn't cheating - it's just honoring a given deal. >> >>> The one who lets him win should get more VPs by making that deal >>> than by just playing. Again, no exceptions here. >> >>> Keeping a deal where you roll over when you already have a GW, isn't >>> against playing to win, because you already have a game win. >> >> But in the case i'm referring to you actually just dealt for certain >> conditions/game that >> should grant you a GW at a later stage. >> But you can keep it even if, at later changed state, keeping them >> (abiding to the deal) will result for you in a non-gw gain. > > nope. See above. > Let's see what lsj says on this, then. >> >>> Note that >>> the PTW rule doesn't care if you GW is a 2VP game win or a 5 VP game >>> win. It just says: play for the Game win. You don't need to get a >>> Game Win AND maximise your VPs. >> >> I didn't intended gw=maximize vps anyway. >> But by the same extent said above for the ptw against keeping a deal >> - >> you can keep a deal against the maximize clause, however - if you're >> on the maximize side of a table split deal (say, 2-1-1) you should be >> able to keep the deal even if, at later stage, that will make you >> to *not* get the 1 vp dealt before (LSJ will correct me if i'm wrong) > > I'm sure I don't really understand this, care to elaborate? Can't explain clearer, sorry (english isn't my native tongue). Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] It depends on how they end up in the 2 player game. If the guy getting the game win already has the game win by the time they get to the 1- on-1, he can keep that deal. If he doesn't, and keeps the deal of not blocking, he's cheating (unless not blocking is what his deck does, of course), because he has to play for the GW. [ quoted text not captured ] English is not my native tongue, either.

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in news:FD1hi.27780$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it: > Personally i don't think that there's some kind of flaw in the rules, > actually - Well, to the extent that the rules allow an environment like the one you're experiencing now, and to the extent that the rules apparently result, in some cases, in a game that new players aren't particulrly interested in, it is kinda flawed. I mean, when most people hear about a Collectible Card Game, they have some ideas in their head as to what to expect. VTES is great in that it is mind-blowingly deep (for a CCG) in terms of strategic play. But, if what your newbies see in a tournament is not a Collectible Card Game, but rather a Collective Bargaining Game, something is not right. > Just that at the level of competitive tournaments it's pretty obvious > (for experienced players) that the dealing process will be a key > aspect of the game, in most rounds, to deal with for the road to > victory. The rules and what LSJ confirmed here seems pretty consistent > about all of this, to me - Yeah. I won't dispute that LSJ's ruling supports the game being played in the manner that your group has migrated to playing it. I just question if that is a particularly good thing for the health of the game, overall... > And now this has just strengthend in me the idea that competitive > play of the tournament is too much far from the possibilities of a > beginner willing to > play, in short time, a sanctioned event. > In most cases, i think newbies/beginners are likely to be not > interested in such level of play > (a level in which, confidence with *all* the mechanics of the game > apart, they need a real skill at table-talk/deals making). > If your final objective is to transition players of this newbie- sanctioned format into the full-blown deal-talking mode of your base group, SoD strikes me as a not-so-good-idea, because you want the newbies to _learn_ about deal-making. One way to do that is to have them learn it with a limited scope to the deals, so it doesn't overwhelm them learning the game's mechanics. For a start, just disallow table-split or lengthy partnership deals, where most of the gabbing gets longwinded. Tit-for-tat, and one-round duration deals are fine with most newbies. Or, you could say "all deals are off after they have been in effect for one full round of play" similar to what we do calling off all deals, once the tourney gets down to two players. Or, just send them to game with Peter or me ;-) I don't know that a newbie-sanctioned format will ever be practical, because the population of new players is at most times very small. A player either learns, or leaves, and for those who stay, I can only ever see them playing two or three newbie-sanctioned tournaments before they'll get the hang of things, and want to play in the big leagues... DZ AW DaveZ Atom Weaver

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns995E604AC5...@207.115.17.102... > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in > news:FD1hi.27780$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it: > > >> Personally i don't think that there's some kind of flaw in the rules, >> actually - > > Well, to the extent that the rules allow an environment like the one > you're experiencing now, and to the extent that the rules apparently > result, in some cases, in a game that new players aren't particulrly > interested in, it is kinda flawed. I mean, when most people hear > about a > Collectible Card Game, they have some ideas in their head as to what > to > expect. VTES is great in that it is mind-blowingly deep (for a CCG) > in > terms of strategic play. But, if what your newbies see in a > tournament > is not a Collectible Card Game, but rather a Collective Bargaining > Game, > something is not right. Unions Versus Capitalists: The Eternal Struggle? :-) I'm not sure that that is something not right. VTES as a multiplayer game is affected by bargaining (or to put it another way, multiplayer dynamics) in a way that most CCGs (being two-sided games) are not. That's where a lot of the depth in VTES comes from. I don't see how it's even possible (and I'm not sure it would be desirable) for VTES *as a game* to address Emiliano's problem, which as I understand it is really *not* that people are always taking a long time dealing, but that people are dealing *at all*, which apparently intimidates the new players who, he says, are having a hard time even learning the mechanics of the game. I mean, I can sympathize with that problem, but I don't think you can *solve* it without making VTES into something that is not VTES. A Collectible Solitaire Game, perhaps. Or Silence of Death, which is fine as far as it goes, but clearly is not the VTES that we know and love. (Its restriction against talking is so unusual that the only card game I know of having a similar one is bridge, which is played in teams, unlike VTES.) Other than that, it seems to me like getting used to the mechanics of the game in casual games before trying to play in tournaments is about the best thing new players could do. I haven't really had the experience of seeing new players feeling overwhelmed by the mechanics of VTES or unable to participate in multiplayer dynamics, so maybe I lack understanding here. Josh silence = death

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns995E604AC5...@207.115.17.102... >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in >> news:FD1hi.27780$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it: >> > I haven't really had the > experience of seeing new players feeling overwhelmed by the mechanics > of VTES or unable to participate in multiplayer dynamics, so maybe I > lack understanding here. > May i ask you how many new players have come to play on regular basis at your playgroup, since last year ? Emiliano

Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1183107728....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Great Minds... My two ideas so far were a Quentin King/(forget her name G3 Malk Justicar) 3rd Trad/Boon MotS/Laptop + Mirror Walk/Cloaks, or Marcus Vitel 3rd Trad/Embrace/vote multi action via Freak Drive/Majesty. I was thinking Bleed again with Marcus, but Mind Numb might work, too. DZ AW

"Joshua Duffin" <jtduf...@gmail.DOT.com> wrote in news:5ekistF38ulvfU1 @mid.individual.net: > >> But, if what your newbies see in a tournament >> is not a Collectible Card Game, but rather a Collective Bargaining >> Game, something is not right. > > Unions Versus Capitalists: The Eternal Struggle? :-) > > I'm not sure that that is something not right. VTES as a multiplayer > game is affected by bargaining (or to put it another way, multiplayer > dynamics) in a way that most CCGs (being two-sided games) are not. > That's where a lot of the depth in VTES comes from. I don't see how > it's even possible (and I'm not sure it would be desirable) for VTES *as > a game* to address Emiliano's problem, which as I understand it is > really *not* that people are always taking a long time dealing, but that > people are dealing *at all*, which apparently intimidates the new > players who, he says, are having a hard time even learning the mechanics > of the game. > Really? 'Cause I've always been reading it as merely lengthy debate/dealmaking. Nothing in what Emiliano has posted (or me, or Peter) has sought to eliminate delaing _entirely_... Quite the opposite, if prominent dealing is a part of your local meta, your newbies are going to _have_ to learn that aspect of the game at some point. No, I think we're only looking here to just put a cap on exactly how much deal-making goes on, in a newbie-friendly format. There's a lot of ways to do that in non- sanctioned play. DZ AW

On Jun 30, 2:22 am, "Joshua Duffin" <jtduffin...@gmail.DOT.com> wrote: > I'm not sure that that is something not right. VTES as a multiplayer > game is affected by bargaining (or to put it another way, multiplayer > dynamics) in a way that most CCGs (being two-sided games) are not. > That's where a lot of the depth in VTES comes from. I don't see how > it's even possible (and I'm not sure it would be desirable) for VTES *as > a game* to address Emiliano's problem, which as I understand it is > really *not* that people are always taking a long time dealing, but that > people are dealing *at all*, which apparently intimidates the new > players who, he says, are having a hard time even learning the mechanics > of the game. > > I mean, I can sympathize with that problem, but I don't think you can > *solve* it without making VTES into something that is not VTES. I totally second this! It's a complicated multi-player game with amazing depth and variation. Take away some of the complexity, some of depth, and I'm sure we'll lose more players than we'll gain. Simon

On Jun 30, 3:07 am, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "atomweaver" <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Are we talking about the to playgroup or too tournaments? We've had a few new players and old players starting up again in our group, and sure, they do tend to need to read the cards a bit. Which is cool, hell occasionally I have to read the card to remind myself how I'm about to be screwed over :-) We'll have to stop and explain new mechanics that they haven't seen before, Red List or whatever, and move on. Most people that pick up VtES and keep playing aren't stupid so they'll pick it up given a bit of time and help from us. I understood though this thread started about newer players at tournaments. Which is different to new players at a playgroup I think. All players at a tournament are assumed to have the basics of the game and, hopefully, will have played a bunch of games away from the tournament environment first. Like I said before, not everyone will want to play competitively and, you know, that's OK. Still if you're looking for a solution, maybe give them a bit longer before suggesting they start playing in your monthly tournaments, or invite them along to watch and observe so the step up isn't so great. Or help manage their expectations about the step up. I think you have the ability to address your issue without any formal changes myself. Simon

On Jun 28, 4:27 pm, LSJ wrote: > If the players have gone "too far" in the arguing (for example, arguing back and > forth with no progress, as seems implied in your example), the judge is free to > break the logjam. > > If the deal-brokering hasn't stalled, though (and isn't pushing against the time > limit barrier that would decrease one of the deal-broker's expected GW/VP > outcome), the the players haven't gone "too far" (and so the deal-making would > be allowed, just like any other legal activity that needed the time and isn't > stalling or violating PTW would be allowed). Thanks a lot. This is exactly what I was understanding before I asked - but phrasing it this way made it clearer for me. >From your post, I assume that we judges have at least two good guidelines to use when deciding whether deal-making at a table is excessive or not: 1) When the time left in the clock to actually put the deal in place is probably too short already for at least one of the dealers (phrasing probably could be better here); 2) When the discussion is not moving forward anymore. Any other criteria? For example, I would think that I'm allowed to rule the discussion illegal based on things players say, or the way they behave - if such things make me believe they are not dealing in earnest anymore. Abraço, Luiz Mello

On Jun 28, 3:08 pm, atomweaver wrote: > As I understand it, you are wrong, a Judge may not do this. I thought > the same way as you, up until this thread and the SoD thread that > originated it. I think the above response you gave to the circumstance > you laid out, should be a perfectly allowable response by a Judge to the > situation of extremes of time use. At this time, it is not. In my example, I implied that the dealing was stalled (and therefore taking too long), a judgment possible to make based on table state and the player's talking. Turns out that in this case it is possible to tell them to get the deal done (or not) and move on. I chose this example on purpose, because I suspected it was inside the "gray area" of the disagreements in these threads. The questions are: (1) Is a judge allowed to interfere with dealmaking if he judges it to be excessive (even if no player called him)? and (2) What are the (possible) guidelines for a judge to determine excessive table talk? The answer to (1) is yes, and I think (2) is worth exploring so we judges feel more comfortable about it. I have no problems ruling on table talk if it's needed, but I would hate to find out that I interfered too much in a given situation. Abraço, Luiz Mello

[ quoted text not captured ] I totally agree. Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] The depth, in a no-deals tournament format, should remain almost the same. What would be simpler is the social interactions - all the rest would remain pretty unchanged - it would be still a 5 players table, with cross table, politics and backward actions still possibile. I pretty sure that an alternate format is worth a try, actually. And i didn't advocated a *change* from one format (sc tournaments) to another (no-deals / SoD) - i just see that having an *addtional* sanctioned tournament format (deal-free) could only be good for the game. It's strange how most of experienced players are somewhat scared by this. Emiliano

Clément <lcmello...@terra.com.br> wrote in news:1183169894.4...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 28, 3:08 pm, atomweaver wrote: >> As I understand it, you are wrong, a Judge may not do this. I thought >> the same way as you, up until this thread and the SoD thread that >> originated it. I think the above response you gave to the circumstance >> you laid out, should be a perfectly allowable response by a Judge to the >> situation of extremes of time use. At this time, it is not. > > In my example, I implied that the dealing was stalled (and therefore > taking too long), a judgment possible to make based on table state and > the player's talking. Turns out that in this case it is possible to > tell them to get the deal done (or not) and move on. > > I chose this example on purpose, because I suspected it was inside the > "gray area" of the disagreements in these threads. The questions are: > (1) Is a judge allowed to interfere with dealmaking if he judges it to > be excessive (even if no player called him)? and (2) What are the > (possible) guidelines for a judge to determine excessive table talk? > > The answer to (1) is yes, and I think Sorry, I had missed the point that dealing had "stalled", which puts continued debating of a deal into the "Slow Play" camp. The point that I was making was that, for a timed game, even legal dealings, when lengthy, are a negative thing for the tournament (how lengthy? good question). They are negative because; 1 - They do not promote the game's main objectives (Oust your prey. Get the Game Win.) 2 - They encourage timeouts 3 - They allow a heavily disproportionate use of a finite resource 4 - They can detract significantly from the game's popularity DZ AW

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:yYTgi.18486$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: > If the deal-brokering hasn't stalled, though (and isn't pushing > against the time limit barrier that would decrease one of the > deal-broker's expected GW/VP outcome), the the players haven't gone > "too far" IT looks here like you are setting up a kind of "sliding scale" where the legal time use in deal-brokering is shortened, the closer you get to the end of the round... is that a reasonable read of it? Or, would it depend only upon what is being negotaited, and whether it can be acheived in the time left? DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not setting up anything. Just noting that the rules as they are include playing to win as part of the sportsmanship rules. If something violates PTW, deal or otherwise, then that violation is a violation.

On Jul 2, 8:00 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote innews:yYTgi.18486$RX....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net: [ quoted text not captured ] 6.3.2. The Referendum If a political action is successful, the referendum is called. Some cards from older sets use the phrase "during a political action" to refer to the referendum part of the political action. The referendum consists of three steps: setting the terms, polling (casting votes) and resolving the referendum. 1. Choose the terms, if any, of the referendum. Cards that are used "during a political action" but "before votes are cast" are used at this time. 2. Polling. All Methuselahs may now cast any votes they have (see below) at this time, in any order. They call out their votes freely, and there is no obligation to vote. Once a vote has been cast, however, it cannot be changed. The polling stage is completed only when all Methuselahs are finished voting (if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds after the last vote cast to close the polling stage). 3. Resolve the referendum. If there are more votes for the referendum than against, the referendum passes, and the effects of the successful referendum take place. Otherwise, the referendum fails and has no effect. Tied referendums fail. Perhaps this could be stretched to table poliitics? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp