There's an interesting detail in the rules for referenda:
"if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"
How does this work? When is the agreement made and who enforces it?
And what happens if they don't agree?
Andrew
On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:39:51 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fuck off. Your shit disturbing ways arent wanted here.
In message <A46E6217A86BE744.6987D2F9...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>"if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
>after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"
>
>How does this work? When is the agreement made and who enforces it?
>And what happens if they don't agree?
A judge rules against them for Unsportsmanlike Conduct, Playing Slowly
or Cheating - Stalling.
Is this so hard?
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> There's an interesting detail in the rules for referenda:
>
> "if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
> after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"
>
> How does this work?
As stated.
> When is the agreement made and who enforces it?
When the players need it.
The players.
> And what happens if they don't agree?
They stop playing. Or at least, they stop playing with the
"player" (to use the term loosely) who cannot agree.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:19:11 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>> There's an interesting detail in the rules for referenda:
>>
>> "if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
>> after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"
>>
>> How does this work?>
>As stated.
Let me try again:
1. is the rule automatically in force during tournaments?
2. is a judge summoned to keep time?
3. does this happen before or after the need arises?
I've seen this problem before. The latest Shadowfist rules offer a
wishy-washy alternative in the similar case of what it calls
"deadlocks". Either the current player says, "going, going, gone" or
the players have to sequentially pass around the table, saying that
they are done. The latter is what we do because a real-time method is
fraught with practical problems and I'm curious to know how this is
done in VTES events.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<35D4B9E6E3C7EF26.EEF89E58...@lp.airnews.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Andrew, these rules are enforced when and if they are needed. It is
an absolutely ridiculous idea to suggest that the judge be called for
each and every referendum - do you not think they have enough to
do?!?! Besides, most players can agree on the spot whether a vote is
passing or whatever. Come on, use some discression.
Oh, and one last thing. This is not, nor ever will be a Shadowfist
game. Maybe you should go post on that NG instead of bitching about
VTES which you so clearly dislike.
Martin
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:19:11 -0500, LSJ wrote:
> >> There's an interesting detail in the rules for referenda:
> >>
> >> "if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
> >> after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"
> >>
> >> How does this work?
> >
> >As stated.
>
> Let me try again:
>
> 1. is the rule automatically in force during tournaments?
No. It is used when the players need it. As stated.
> 2. is a judge summoned to keep time?
The judge is summoned whenever needed.
> 3. does this happen before or after the need arises?
Moot.
> I've seen this problem before. The latest Shadowfist rules offer a> [...]
Sure.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:35D4B9E6E3C7EF26.EEF89E58...@lp.airnews.net...
> >> There's an interesting detail in the rules for referenda:> >>
> >> "if you need a time limit, the players can agree to wait 15 seconds
> >> after the last vote cast to close the polling stage"> 1. is the rule automatically in force during tournaments?>
> 2. is a judge summoned to keep time?
>
> 3. does this happen before or after the need arises?
>
> I've seen this problem before. The latest Shadowfist rules offer a
> wishy-washy alternative in the similar case of what it calls
> "deadlocks". Either the current player says, "going, going, gone" or
> the players have to sequentially pass around the table, saying that
> they are done. The latter is what we do because a real-time method is
> fraught with practical problems and I'm curious to know how this is
> done in VTES events.
I've never seen a tourney where this option was used. In
all the tournament VTES I've played, the player calling the
referendum runs the vote-counting, and when he says "Anyone
else want to vote? No? Then it passes six to two" then
that's what happens.
I think you'd only use the 15-second time limit thing if
for some reason you had more than one player who didn't
want to cast their votes unless someone else who was
currently abstaining decided to cast *theirs*. Or something
similarly unlikely. Usually people have little trouble
deciding whether or not they want a referendum to pass.
Josh
serious answers to silly questions
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:08:34 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote:
>I think you'd only use the 15-second time limit thing if
>for some reason you had more than one player who didn't
>want to cast their votes unless someone else who was
>currently abstaining decided to cast *theirs*.
Not quite. The way this sort of thing arises is if the vote is
currently passing, say, and there are two player in a position to vote
against but neither of them wants to do so - they want to hold their
vote cards back for the next referendum, say. They know that the vote
is going to fail but neither of them wants to volunteer to be the one
to make it happen. And because votes aren't cast in an particular
order, neither of them is put on the spot.
A time-limit then forces this to a conclusion but the trouble is that
both players are encouraged to play "chicken" and only cast their vote
at the last instant. You then get a tough judgement call, like diving
for home in baseball. Hence my interest in who manages the timing and
how.
The wording still seems fuzzy though. It implies that the players
have to agree to this procedure. What if they don't?
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> A time-limit then forces this to a conclusion but the trouble is that
> both players are encouraged to play "chicken" and only cast their vote
> at the last instant. You then get a tough judgement call, like diving
> for home in baseball. Hence my interest in who manages the timing and
> how.
>
> The wording still seems fuzzy though. It implies that the players
> have to agree to this procedure. What if they don't?
>
Its simply not an issue. The referendum closes 15 seconds after the
last vote tallied. As per the rules. If they stall too long, the acting
players simply states the vote is closed. Have yet to see a game where
there are none wearing a watch, or a clock is not visible.
Raille
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:990FE44B13526906.2EBA2F06...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:08:34 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> >I think you'd only use the 15-second time limit thing if
> >for some reason you had more than one player who didn't
> >want to cast their votes unless someone else who was
> >currently abstaining decided to cast *theirs*.
>
> Not quite. The way this sort of thing arises is if the vote is
> currently passing, say, and there are two player in a position to vote
> against but neither of them wants to do so - they want to hold their
> vote cards back for the next referendum, say. They know that the vote
> is going to fail but neither of them wants to volunteer to be the one
> to make it happen. And because votes aren't cast in an particular
> order, neither of them is put on the spot.
But this never happens. It's almost unheard-of for the
situation to even arise that they both not only have vote
cards in hand they can toss but actually would need to toss
one (but not both) to make the vote fail. And then, when
two players need to make the vote fail, one of them will
suck it up and do it.
But virtually every time, there's no "sucking it up" involved,
because the outcome will be determined by votes in play rather
than vote cards thrown from hand. And in that case there's
almost always no point in waiting till the last minute to vote
against, if you actually want the vote to fail.
> The wording still seems fuzzy though. It implies that the players
> have to agree to this procedure. What if they don't?
Obviously if the players can't agree to play the game, they
can't play the game. If they can't even agree to resolve
their indecision via a time limit, they probably can't agree
on a method of deciding who should start the game either.
Josh
generally agreeable
> They know that the vote
> is going to fail but neither of them wants to volunteer to be the one
> to make it happen. And because votes aren't cast in an particular
> order, neither of them is put on the spot.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the chance to play cards and
modify the vote went clockwise around the table.....
>But this never happens. It's almost unheard-of for the
>situation to even arise that they both not only have vote
>cards in hand they can toss but actually would need to toss
>one (but not both) to make the vote fail. And then, when
>two players need to make the vote fail, one of them will
>suck it up and do it.
Yeah, and I've also seen cases where the vote was passing by say 2 votes, and
some Methusaleh gives up the edge or discard a vote card. Even though it's only
1 vote, they may often do it out of spite or desperation, or may *hope* that
this act will convince some other Methusaleh who has hidden away a PA card in
his hand to do the same...
Halcyan 2
In message <ddd3e087.02010...@posting.google.com>, Tobias
Loehr <tlo...@satx.rr.com> writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the chance to play cards and
>modify the vote went clockwise around the table.....
In terms of casting votes, it's pretty much freeform.
"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." [6.3.2.2]
This is an exception from the general rules of [1.6.1.6]
One might regard the actual playing of cards, however, as still coming
[1.6.1.6]. LSJ might want to clarify this.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <ddd3e087.02010...@posting.google.com>, Tobias
> Loehr <tlo...@satx.rr.com> writes:
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the chance to play cards and
> >modify the vote went clockwise around the table.....
>
> In terms of casting votes, it's pretty much freeform.
>
> "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." [6.3.2.2]
>
> This is an exception from the general rules of [1.6.1.6]
>
> One might regard the actual playing of cards, however, as still coming
> [1.6.1.6]. LSJ might want to clarify this.
"Any order" seems to handle the overriding of 1.6.1.6 pretty well, yep.
[ quoted text not captured ]