Jyhad/VtES Etiquette

Greets, I have asked a variation of this question in the past, but I would like a re-clarification of an issue my gaming group brough up. Having never played in a tournament, I am hoping someone will shed some light on the following: Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash out deals against another player while they are away from the table momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this? The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals, then we will play exactly like that :-) Cheers, Jason.

In article <%NBv5.68804$RI4....@news2.mts.net>, Jason Mowat <jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> writes >Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at >the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) Tournament rounds rarely last that long, and people can go in between if they are worried about what you suggest. >sometimes there are nature >calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash >out deals against another player while they are away from the table >momentarily? There are no specific rulings against it. You could appeal under "Unsportsmanlike conduct", but it seems very unlikely you would get an appeal. > Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into >another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What >is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this? It could be ruled as collusion, or potentially collusion, since you have no way of knowing what was introduced, which you do during table-talk. >The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along >excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably >unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from >the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted >to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a >tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals, >then we will play exactly like that :-) There aren't. However, you mustn't collude. Specifically, that means that no players may introduce non-game factors into the equation. ("Look, if you do this bleed, I'll clean your room for a month!" would be collusion, if used to persuade a player to do something, and would certainly get the offering player an appropriate reprimand from a fair judge.) The manner in which you neogtiate deals should also be timely etc. You shouldn't be seen to drag the game on for "hours" with your deal-making. But your thoughts of plotting behind someone's back seem, to me, fine. If you have any problems with it, consult the Head Judge of your tournament before you start playing, who should be able to provide a rough sketch of a scenario in which he would take action, and one in which he wouldn't. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

In article <%NBv5.68804$RI4....@news2.mts.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] what about when a deal is broken? how is that handled in people's playgroups? no one in our group has ever broken a deal but i've heard of people throwing chairs around at tournaments when a deal has been broken (CANCON '98 ('97?) in Canberra). Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:39:55 GMT, "Jason Mowat" <jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> wrote: >Greets, > >I have asked a variation of this question in the past, but I would like a >re-clarification of an issue my gaming group brough up. Having never played >in a tournament, I am hoping someone will shed some light on the following: > >Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at >the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. It is not exactly -rare- for tournament games to go the full 2 hours, but the majority of games finish before that. I'd guess that most finish right about at the 1 to 1.25 hour mark. Our pickup games in our playgroup run a bit longer - around 1.5 to 2 hours. Although occasionally we have a 30 to 45-minute wonder. =) If you're going to 4 or more hours, rest assured that games will begin to pass a lot quicker when you gain more experience building decks (you will be able to oust people faster), and when you become more familiar with the method of the game (you won't have to think for very long on what your minions' actions will be). =) >calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash >out deals against another player while they are away from the table >momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into >another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What >is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this? If someone was in sufficiently bad shape that they needed to rush and pee, I would say it'd be perfectly proper etiquette to speak, deal-make, etc. in their absence since they removed themselves from the environment voluntarily. I would object to any group of people leaving the table to conduct dealings in secret, however, as it would really smack of collusion and kingmaking - something which can be a problem in any multiplayer game. I've never personally seen it done in a tournament. I wouldn't care for it at all, even if it didn't affect me in the slightest - I just find that it adds much more to the game if you are forced to make all your deals in a reasonably open atmosphere, and if you wish to pull something on someone, you need to be crafty. =) >The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along >excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably >unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from >the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted >to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a >tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals, >then we will play exactly like that :-) It's worth noting that while lying is not prohibited - you can make a deal like "I won't bleed you with that vampire if you don't Rush and kill him", and then break it and bleed him anyway, you haven't broken any rules or anything, but you will earn the undying scorn of your group for doing so. (The UK has "doing a Sid", I believe. We have "pulling a Stu".) Generally, one broken deal is enough to make certain that nobody EVER deals with you again on terms that might be favorable to you, so it's a good idea not to. However, if you made the above deal and then that vampire played two Deflections and called a Kine Resources Contested, it wouldn't be considered lying. Shameless fudging, but as with any deal, it would be wise to read the fine print. This sort of thing goes on all the time and, in our playgroup, is TOTALLY encouraged. See also "jedi mind trick". =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

it is generally accepted that deals aren't broken, expecially during friendly games - gentlemanly conduct or something like that. as for chairs being thrown and that - mostly people sulk and mouth off but chair throwing is for those who can't lose under any circumstances the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final. just a point anam

"Jason Mowat" <jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> writes: >But, we also wanted to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, >particularly in a tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in >place for deals, then we will play exactly like that :-) Some rules of etiquette I have picked up on over the years: 1. If you bleed for 14 or more and oust in a single turn, apologize to your prey. As in, "I'm sorry, but that sure was FUN!" 2. If you Sudden Reverse three critical discpline cards in three consecutive turns played by an opponent, it would be sporting to turn your back and/or pointedly ignore the steam coming out of his ears. 3. The smirk inspired by the successful play of an Archon Investigation should never measure more than 0.4 cm above the average of the bottom lip line. (Work on it.) 4. Any player making a reference to Robert's Rules of Order during a vote should be physically removed from the game. 5. Never cackle, no matter how many times you've S:CEd out of combat. That Immortal Grapple will be along sooner or later. 6. A good house rule to use is one where you're allowed hit your prey on the shoulder each time he plays superior Obedience. 7. Using Rotschreck during a combat in which your minions are not involved shows poor taste. 8. Sensory Deprivation is an incredibly unfair, obnoxious, annoying card which should probably be banned. Unless it's your's, of course. 9. After the Mind Rape has been left unblocked and is now physically sitting on top of your opponent's vampire is *not* the time to ask, "By the way, are we playing NJL or VEKN rules here?". 10. When calling a blood hunt against an opponent's vampire which diablerized another of the same opponent's minions, try not to sound too indignant. 11. "I strike with my RPG Launcher at range" is more correct than, "I TOAST THAT PATHETIC CRACKER'S PIMPLY WHITE ASS!!!". Fred

In article <8pn9nr$oas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com writes >In the '99 UK Nationals final my predator was a malky >stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some >kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled >next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do >that!" he said "So???" Andy Smith (for it is he) was also at GenCon UK '97 (or EuroGenCon, as it was then). He has always seemed a slightly erratic player to me. By that, I'm not questioning his ability, but some of the things he does seem ever so slightly "odd" to me - but then, when it comes to real play, I am only average. (Apologies to David Tatu for doing badly with Ugly Princes.) He'd sat in a similar position to that, however, before. I remember dealing out the previous round, looking and thinking "Oh god, what have I done." Andy's deck was hard, it has to be said, but Rob's could beat it up no trouble (another LoP deck, as you say). It was, basically, in Andy's interests here to get rid of you as quickly as possible. He was going to die to Rob, inevitably. His deck could not defend against it by any means, at all. > This triggered the Wrath of the Legbiter™. For >the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add >insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob >got him [it was legal then, not now]. Thus generating the luvverly 2-2-1 VP split. It would be interesting to have seen what would have happened otherwise. >This year to add extra chocolate >sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them >not to make deals with him. Not possible. Andy Smith turned up very late in the day this year to have a bit of a look, having done the night shift, and had been unable to sort through his Jyhad collection to sort out a deck, due to lack of time and sleep. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000913...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes >> Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. I > >Actually, that should be 2 hours minimum. The time limit may not be set >at less than two hours in a sanctioned tournament, but it may be set >higher. I think what Derek is saying here is more: "A sanctioned tournament will (almost always) have 2 hour rounds, except for the final. Because of that, you should never be sat down for more than 2 hours at a time, maximum." If you do go from one 2 hour to another 2 hour, just ask the judge before the start of the second round if you can delay for a couple of minutes so that the players who timed out/went the distance can have a couple of minutes to themselves. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000913...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes >> the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup >> delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final. > >I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like >it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament >rules. I was actually chatting to the Southampton lot about this one, as Collusion is a tricky bugger to judge. They were saying that when they played in their first couple of Portsmouth tournaments, many moons ago, that yes, they possibly did "collude", just a little. Thing is, they are all very strong players now, and don't need to do anything of the sort. I will also go on record as saying that I saw *nothing* that looked even remotely like collusion at GenCon UK 2000. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8pne6k$u2v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, hamd...@my-deja.com writes >If someone welches on a deal, > >Since we play games other than VTES, we also allow points to carry >accross to other formats. It certainly ensures fair play. Just on a deal? Making and breaking deals, and being able to judge whether someone will or not, is one of the fundamental parts of Jyhad. I can see an argument for the making a deal behind someone's back (I wouldn't enforce such an option, unless the penalty guidelines were altered to fit), but making a deal in plain-sight, and backing out of it, is perfectly valid and, indeed, necessary way to play, IMO. If you get a bit of bad card flow, making a deal with someone which is in your interests and theirs, for the time being, is good. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jason Mowat wrote: > Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at > the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature > calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash > out deals against another player while they are away from the table > momentarily? I would not consider it proper. Good sportsmanship would seem (to me) to require that other gamers put the game on hold while any player were temporarily indisposed. The design of the game assumes that all players are aware of everything that takes place at the table. No provision is made for secret dealing. > Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into > another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? I would say that this is bad sportsmanship. Other considerations aside it slows down the game, and could probably be judged as deliberate stalling. Time is important in tournaments. I have done this, however, when playing Jyhad-on-Line. In a format where rules against secret dealings are unenforceable, it makes no sense to have such a rule. Besides, it makes the games fun & different. > What is done at the tournament level? In the games I have played, either friendly or in tournament, I am not aware of such behavior being prevalent (except JOL). I would not consider it proper (except on JOL). > Are there any specific rulings on this? Not that I am aware. The V:KEN tournament rules forbid "collusion", though it has always been a bit iffy precisely what that means. My understanding is that each player is expected to play to win, and not come as part of a "team" intent on insuring the victory of one particular player. This does not of course prevent them from attempting to make deals that they hope will benefit themselves. It is also forbidden for players to wager on the outcome of a game. Stalling and intentionally slow play are likewise forbidden. Players are not allowed to bribe or otherwise coerce eachother into condeding a game. Since allowing for "secret dealing" makes all of these rules unenforceable, I would guess that this implies that "secret dealing" is itself not allowed, though nowhere is it specifically stated. > The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along > excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably > unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from > the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted > to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a > tournament setting. Around here (NYC and NJ) it is not done. > If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals, > then we will play exactly like that :-) You could always check with the judge ... -- John Whelan

In article <8pmtr5$bl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] i don't think that actually happens in playgroups because they tend to be leagues of friends. When it happens in tournaments [to me, so far, only once] then if you get a chance to retaliate the deal-breaker has made a BIG error. In the '99 UK Nationals final my predator was a malky stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do that!" he said "So???" This triggered the Wrath of the Legbiter™. For the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob got him [it was legal then, not now]. This year to add extra chocolate sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them not to make deals with him. Maybe i will get tired of revenging myself on him now - i have a self-imposed rule that having done TWO nasty things to someone who has wronged me i will then call it quits. > Buffer line to stop message tailing Buffer line to stop message tailing Buffer line to stop message tailing Buffer line to st [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. I Actually, that should be 2 hours minimum. The time limit may not be set at less than two hours in a sanctioned tournament, but it may be set higher. In local tournaments, it is always 2 hours for preliminary rounds, with more time alotted for the final round. > >calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash > >out deals against another player while they are away from the table > >momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into > >another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What > >is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this? > > If someone was in sufficiently bad shape that they needed to rush and > pee, I would say it'd be perfectly proper etiquette to speak, > deal-make, etc. in their absence since they removed themselves from > the environment voluntarily. Hmm. I'm not sure that a "call of nature" break would be classified as "voluntary". Players should not take "voluntary" breaks in tournaments, but if they are forced to excuse themselves due to factors beyond their control (and "calls of nature" qualify) then I would think that courtesy and sportsmanship demands that other players not attempt to take advantage of such situations. Not that this is a big deal either way... If the length of the break is a problem for other players, the matter should be referred to the judge. -- John Whelan

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 theve...@my-deja.com wrote: > what about when a deal is broken? how is that handled in people's > playgroups? no one in our group has ever broken a deal but i've heard > of people throwing chairs around at tournaments when a deal has been > broken (CANCON '98 ('97?) in Canberra). It is of course perfectly legal to break deals. I think this is rather short term thinking however. Personally I would not do it, even in the final round of a tournament where the prize was significant. If you get known as a deal-breaker it affects your ability to negotiate in future games. I once lost a tournament due to a broken deal. The deal-breaker took first prize as a direct result of his betrayal. His attitude was that, under the circumstances, I had been very foolish to trust his word, and so deserved my fate. True enough! That's fine with me, however, because I expect to participate in other tournaments with the same player. I expect to be able to use History to my advantage during any negotiations. It is certainly not worth throwing chairs over. In the long run, the honest player has the advantage ... but he must accept that the "long run" might be longer than a single game, or even a single tournament. -- John Whelan

One system we have used successfuly in our group is the Treason Point system. If someone welches on a deal, they gain a treason point. This can be burned at any time (not even in the same game!) and means any directed actions or bleeds can be directed at the treasonous one for three turns. Essentially, it means that if the Treason Point is called in, all the other players are allowed to wipe the floor with that Methusula. Curiously enough, since we introduced the system, only one person has ever gained a treason pount. As a direct result, he lost in the most hideous way possible, and no-one wants to get another one! Since we play games other than VTES, we also allow points to carry accross to other formats. It certainly ensures fair play. DH [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, stubby wrote: > it is generally accepted that deals aren't broken, expecially during > friendly games - gentlemanly conduct or something like that. I generally don't expect deals to be broken in friendly games. However, this is not because of some unwritten rule. This is because it is stupid behavior. One's credibility is valuable, even if just for purposes of effective future play. If one is going to sacrifice one's credibility, one should at least wait until there is a hefty box of Sabbat boosters as 1st prize to tempt you in some final tournament round. Even then, the wisdom of such behavior is debatable. > as for chairs being thrown and that - mostly people sulk and mouth off > but chair throwing is for those who can't lose under any circumstances > > the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup > delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final. I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament rules. Each player is expected to play for his own benefit, not for anyone elses.

John Whelan wrote: > stubby wrote: > > the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup > > delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final. > > I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like > it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament > rules. Each player is expected to play for his own benefit, not for > anyone elses. Quite right. If any of the members of a playgroup (or anyone at all, for that matter) plays to aid another player *instead* of herself (i.e., taking measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position suffers), that is collusion, and it is against the V:EKN rules. -- 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 Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:18:30 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >This year ... i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them >not to make deals with him. This is collusion. Andrew

>>Quite right. If any of the members of a playgroup (or anyone at all, for that matter) plays to aid another player *instead* of herself (i.e., taking measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position suffers), that is collusion, and it is against the V:EKN rules.<< at the last LA con, this happened quite a bit....a player used succubus club to give all his pool to another player so as to send him to the finals instead of the ever hated.....anarch revolt/delaying tactics deck. hmmmm...this is such a touchy subject to judge.

[ quoted text not captured ] No it isn't. Why do you think so? -- John Whelan

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm unsure if this is necessarily collusion. Did the player really damage his own position, or did he merely excercise control over the manner of his own inevitable demise? What were his motives? I don't think that punishment or vengeance strategies qualify as "collusion". While they may sacrifice short term benefit, they also send a message, and thereby attempt to have an effect on the play environment that one hopes to be to one's long-term benefit (which may extend beyond a particular tournament). Such messages may include "If you break a deal with me, you will regret it." In this case, the motive may have been to discourage the use of a particular deck strategy that that player felt he could not win against. By punishing the strategy, he hopes to discourage its use in future competitions (which he hopes will improve his chances). I've seen a similar response to "Anarch Revolt" decks in friendly games. Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion" (even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate interests in favor of another player). It is your long term interests that concern you, and these may extend beyond the tournament. You do not want to become known as a deal-breaker, and thereby damage your negotiating ability. But in the long run, you are playing to win. -- John Whelan

In article <Wl1GhABa...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <8pn9nr$oas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com writes > >In the '99 UK Nationals final my predator was a malky > >stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some > >kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled > >next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do > >that!" he said "So???" > > Andy Smith (for it is he) was also at GenCon UK '97 (or EuroGenCon, as > it was then). He has always seemed a slightly erratic player to me. By > that, I'm not questioning his ability, but some of the things he does > seem ever so slightly "odd" to me - but then, when it comes to real > play, I am only average. (Apologies to David Tatu for doing badly with > Ugly Princes.) > > He'd sat in a similar position to that, however, before. I remember > dealing out the previous round, looking and thinking "Oh god, what have > I done." Andy's deck was hard, it has to be said, but Rob's could beat > it up no trouble (another LoP deck, as you say). It was, basically, in > Andy's interests here to get rid of you as quickly as possible. He was > going to die to Rob, inevitably. His deck could not defend against it > by any means, at all. Indeed, so it was PARTICULARLY stupid of him to break his deal. He could have come out of that game with me owing him a favour, instead of a grudge. > > > This triggered the Wrath of the Legbiter™. For > >the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add > >insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob > >got him [it was legal then, not now]. > > Thus generating the luvverly 2-2-1 VP split. It would be interesting to > have seen what would have happened otherwise. > > >This year to add extra chocolate > >sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them > >not to make deals with him. > > Not possible. Andy Smith turned up very late in the day this year to > have a bit of a look, having done the night shift, and had been unable > to sort through his Jyhad collection to sort out a deck, due to lack of > time and sleep. > Alright, i knew i had seen him and hadn't played against him but i just assumed that was because he was on another table. Cool. So i STILL owe him a bad turn. > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) > "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful > they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why > it's possible I could get by." > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article < 2CD84752DE2D3A53.49410A0C...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Nah, it's a legitimate part of the metagame and one of the mechanisms for keeping people honest. If i had taken my friends to one side and said, "hey, let's all gang up on Andy Smith and make sure he doesn't get any VP" that could have been collusion but it would have been pretty stupid of me to suggest it and even more stupid of them if they'd agreed to cooperate. What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a new player". No way is any of that collusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes: >On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > [ quoted text not captured ] >No it isn't. Why do you think so? I'm not Andrew and wouldn't necessarily agree with his view. But to play Devil's Advocate, I would say this _could_ be collusion if Legbiter were expecting his friends not to make deals with the guy as part of the vengence for breaking the previous deal with Legbiter - because that amount to cooperation to advance Legbiter's position in tournaments based on personal friendship. It wouldn't be vengenence, OTOH, if the point were to simply make one's friends aware of a player who can't be trusted to keep deals (which is what I expect Legbiter's point was). As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign and cannot be viewed independently of one another. Fred

> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a > group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily > on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign > and cannot be viewed independently of one another. It is not so much the game as it is the person's character. If someone could (and does) break a deal with you once, why would you ever deal with them again? I mean, it is only a game. Why lie and make yourself look like a total ass for a game? Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

My comentary on the rules: > Some rules of etiquette I have picked up on over the years: > > 1. If you bleed for 14 or more and oust in a single turn, apologize to your > prey. As in, "I'm sorry, but that sure was FUN!" > Asking if they have a minion tap in hand is just cruel. > 2. If you Sudden Reverse three critical discpline cards in three consecutive > turns played by an opponent, it would be sporting to turn your back and/or > pointedly ignore the steam coming out of his ears. > Ahhh... counter spell deck. It is generally nice to let them get off their next master card. > 3. The smirk inspired by the successful play of an Archon Investigation > should never measure more than 0.4 cm above the average of the bottom lip > line. (Work on it.) > .6 cm if you warned them and/or it was an unblockable bleed to oust you. > 4. Any player making a reference to Robert's Rules of Order during a vote > should be physically removed from the game. > And hit on the head with a gavel... All in favor? > 5. Never cackle, no matter how many times you've S:CEd out of combat. > That Immortal Grapple will be along sooner or later. > Right, that's when you skin of steel and watch them have a heart attack. Generally the apropriate time to cackle is once the ambulance has taken them away. > 6. A good house rule to use is one where you're allowed hit your prey > on the shoulder each time he plays superior Obedience. > Or any wake above four. > 7. Using Rotschreck during a combat in which your minions are not involved > shows poor taste. > Yeah, probably. But it's still funny. > 8. Sensory Deprivation is an incredibly unfair, obnoxious, annoying card > which should probably be banned. Unless it's your's, of course. > Well duh. Ohh... another way to break Ian. > 9. After the Mind Rape has been left unblocked and is now physically > sitting on top of your opponent's vampire is *not* the time to ask, "By > the way, are we playing NJL or VEKN rules here?". > Ditto that RTI > 10. When calling a blood hunt against an opponent's vampire which > diablerized another of the same opponent's minions, try not to sound > too indignant. > Unless the vampire was famous... in which case you can be indignant only if you're a groupie. > 11. "I strike with my RPG Launcher at range" is more correct than, "I TOAST > THAT PATHETIC CRACKER'S PIMPLY WHITE ASS!!!". > And perhaps better than: "Eat white hot molten doom!" Regardless blurring and then throwing a car to boot is obviously in the wrong order. Throw the car first and then blow it up with the RPG. On a more serious note In any situation where I may be tempted to break a deal i tell the other party that, and let them know that I'll be hapy to abide by a deal unless X. X usually being I can oust them, and my prey is about to oust me, or something similiar. I have a bit of an issue with the perfectly moralistic approach to deal making, because i think it goes against the spirit of the game (we are back stabbing.) As such I try to convince others to do things, and remain vague on an actual 'deal'. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

GymNat1 wrote in message <20000914024303...@ng-mg1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used succubus club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually plays in the same group as the anarch player (Rob Weber). They are both in my group. The player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did this to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck from making it to the final. A final "screw you" if you will. There was actually a pretty heated argument between Mike and Rob after. Anarch decks are the only thing despised more in our neck of the woods then Hostile Takeover or Temptation of Greater Power decks. The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the lucky seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn

"Christoph" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a >> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily >> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign >> and cannot be viewed independently of one another. > >It is not so much the game as it is the person's character. If someone >could (and does) break a deal with you once, why would you ever deal >with them again? I mean, it is only a game. Why lie and make yourself >look like a total ass for a game? The classic answer to your question is that you shouldn't be making deals with a player that you cannot enforce with the threat of vengenance during the same game. If you do so, you deserve what you get. And if you can, then the advantage of making deals is self-evident. The question, naturally, would be about the issue of whether the "known dealbreaker" had a reputation for breaking unenforcable deals at a logical time with obvious benifits for himself or if he was just being an idiot about about it. As I said, I understand the basics of the dispute, both for and against this form of metagaming. I was more wondering why Jyhad, as a game, seems to attract more players who would continue the vengenance of a broken deal into a different game. Perhaps the answer is that vengenance of a deal broken is much harder to enforce during a single game in Jyhad than it is in a lot of other multiplayer games? Fred

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:26:17 -0700, "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote: >This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used succubus >club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually plays >in the same group as the anarch player (Rob Weber). > >The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the lucky >seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion. Some can considere this as "Unsportsmanlike Conduct". I explain : you are there to win, you are not there to do something that will send yourself to final death. But I guess that's how many methuselahs play in many tournaments. I've seen similar things at Dragon*Con. 3 of the 5 finalists in the Sabbat Draft event just kinda oust themselves by influencing out or just yielding to their predator. Scott seemed to find it a little weird but no more than that. I was like, duh ! I've never seen something like this here. We use to play to death, and we won't give a pool if we need it to survive, even if it's for a single turn (there's always something you or somebody else can do to get you out of a desesperate situation). I think it's part of the machiavelous side of the game ; you try to give the hardest time possible to your predator while he tries to kill you. I remember one time, I had no minion left in front of me and only 3 pools. My predator came to bleed me with a threat. I DI'ed his threat so he had to bleed me with one more minion. I was dead for sure, but I made it harder for him to kill me, and I was very proud of that ! Just my 2 pools Rafid

In article <8pr07p$hqh$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > As I said, I understand the basics of the dispute, both for and against > this form of metagaming. I was more wondering why Jyhad, as a game, seems > to attract more players who would continue the vengenance of a broken deal > into a different game. Perhaps the answer is that vengenance of a deal > broken is much harder to enforce during a single game in Jyhad than it is > in a lot of other multiplayer games? > I think the nature of jyhad's meta-game helps the long-term view of things. Decks are only dominant in a local group because they react/surpass what was dominant. Trying to build a deck when you have no idea what you will be up against is harder than when you have a basic clue-this is one of the reasons tournaments play diffrently than friendly weeklies. If your deck building needs to take multiple games into account, it is a small stretch to say your deal-building does as well. Kevin [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <2CD84752DE2D3A53.49410A0C...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes [ quoted text not captured ] It is perfectly legitimate table-talk to tell people how trust-worthy or not a player is. A player's reputation, skill and so forth are perfectly legitimate game-based considerations. It is only collusion if you start ganging up on him to your own detriment, possibly using non-game considerations ("Rush him and I'll give you a fiver" being the most obvious). [ quoted text not captured ]

(Steve said...) > This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used succubus > club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually plays > in the same group as the anarch player (Rob Weber). They are both in my > group. The player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did this > to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck from making it to the > final. A final "screw you" if you will... > The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the lucky > seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion. However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify? (I'm not trying to rile anyone up -- I agree with Steve that this is not collusion. I'm just trying to assess the floor rule.) Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes found myself playing specifically to undermine another Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP), and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have me to worry about), that seems to be collusion. However, I've never considered this unethical or unsportsmanlike. Does anyone currently on the newsgroup have a factual instance of collusion to report, or is all of our discussion hypothetical? -Matt

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:8pqnsd$h67$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net... > As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed > that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this > newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals > than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of > basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why > that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an > eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on > rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There > are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a > group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily > on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign > and cannot be viewed independently of one another. This is digressing from my initial point about making deals against another player with other players while that first player was incapable of "counter-dealing" to prevent a "don't attack me for x turns and I'll go nuts on the target for x turns". The "counter-dealing" is part of the fun, IMO, and adds to the atmosphere. This is not possible if you don't know that player y and player z have an "arrangement", and can lead to the improper timing on the target's side of playing their cards. But, the topic is shifting to "deal-breaking" and the consequence thereof. I myself think that deal-breaking is totally worthwhile in **some** instances, and it actually adds to the ambiance of an "underground, evil vampires hatching schemes" themed game. Deals are made. It takes a shrewd and cunning person to know when a deal has outlived it's usefulness, and to capitalize on that fact. However, deal making and breaking has to be conducted carefully. If you have a reputation of breaking many of your deals, then right, you will never be trusted again. So be it. However, if you renege on a deal or two, and it suits your best interests (or, it hinders your "partner's" interests more than yours, plus advances you), then I say do it! You are all playing a competitive game where the objective is to win (and to have fun). If it is understood that deal making and breaking are aspects of the game, I think it adds a fun dimension to an already tense, fun, and exciting game. I like to think of each game as a seperate entity. Deals, alliances, etc made in the last game don't carry over. The deal I broke against player X last game "could" come back to haunt me (i.e. I may have an untrustworth reputation), but then again, if I play the diplomacy right, promise alot, and actually deliver some of my promises faithfully, the people who play with me learn to deal with me all the time, but to be ever vigilant when making such deals. I am also careful to watch for a revenge strike. When it starts looking like my "partners" are profiting too much from a deal as to make me vulnerable, they would be wise to look for treachery. I have broken a few deals from some players at my table, and they have stated "I WILL NEVER TRUST YOU AGAIN!" (with grins on their faces of course - well, most of the time ;-) ). Yet, I still find myself maneuvering into a position where I can offer them deals; deals which are structured around logic, fear and greed of my fellow players. The person who swore they would never trust me could then become a powerful ally during that game, and the deal I make with them could be iron clad, with me not wanting to break it because I don't want a reputation as a **habitual** deal-breaker. I am also totally willing to give concessions to attempt to heal some old wounds (like 'I won't bleed you for x rounds') - although I never say it was because of the deal I broke in a previous game, which would contradict me stating that I don't let the actions from previous games carry over; I don't. It's purely a "faith-building" exercise to I can win back potentially well-needed trust. However, if I have massive stealth, and the person I promised not to bleed gets down to 1 blood, hell yeah, I'll bleed him, deal or no deal. I like to capitalize on any situation in the game. Anyways, that's my take on actual deal making and breaking. I get this philosophy from playing games like Avalon Hill's Diplomacy, which is entirely fun because of the back-stabbing. I think Jyhad/VtES players would have alot of fun if they broke a deal or too to keep things interesting AND unstable :-) Cheers, Jason

On 14 Sep 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed > that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this > newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals > than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of > basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why > that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an > eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on > rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There > are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a > group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily > on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign > and cannot be viewed independently of one another. I can suggest a partial answer to your question. It starts with a well known principle of game dynamics -- that being that "deal-breaking" is to a players benefit over the course of a single game, but works to his detriment over the course of a series of games. This principle applies, in theory, to Diplomacy as much as to Jyhad. In fact, it was in connection with Diplomacy that I first heard this principle mentioned. I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games. The issue that applies in either case is not which game is being played, but rather whether players expect to play a series of games on an ongoing basis. Clearly, this is far more likely to be true of Jyhad than of Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a fairly simple game. You can explain the rules in one evening, and proceed to have a night of fun, and then put the box away for a year. I doubt that many Diplomacy players are in the habit of playing weekly with a bunch of people they have usually played with before, and expect to play with again. I'm sure some do, but I'm equally sure that in such cases a similar anti-traitor ethic develops. Jyhad on the other hand is a game that requires a certain degree of devotion. The novelty never wears off due to the infinity of deck designs possible. Those who play at all tend to play regularly, provided they can find players. The level of investment of time, energy and $$ needed to play well virtually insures that the player does not merely expect a single night of fun. Another possible factor for Jyhad is the difficulty of finding players. Thus, there may be an additional reluctance to alienate the ones you have.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:51 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a >useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is >similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a >new player". No way is any of that collusion. It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. Coaching is explicitly cheating too. What's bad is that your behaviour is shameless to the extent that you boast of it. You need to think about why these activities are prohibited. It's because they would turn the game into one of competing teams. If you're not part of a team of friends who co-operate and trust each other then you're screwed. What's telling is the way that you try to enforce your own code of honour, reacting with such vigour against those who break it. It's like the Mafia - they set great store by loyalty to the Family and the code of Omerta but they are still criminals. This provokes the interesting question of whether in-character collusion would be allowed. If one Giovanni player supports another for the good of the clan, is this considered to be collusion? Andrew

In article <8pqnsd$h67$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes: > > >On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > [ quoted text not captured ] > >No it isn't. Why do you think so? > > I'm not Andrew and wouldn't necessarily agree with his view. But to play > Devil's Advocate, I would say this _could_ be collusion if Legbiter were > expecting his friends not to make deals with the guy as part of the > vengence for breaking the previous deal with Legbiter - because that > amount to cooperation to advance Legbiter's position in tournaments based > on personal friendship. It wouldn't be vengenence, OTOH, if the point were > to simply make one's friends aware of a player who can't be trusted to keep > deals (which is what I expect Legbiter's point was). i'd say it was legitimate vengeance because it tampers with his ammunition in advance of the game, but while it WILL bugger up his position [slightly] it doesn't advance mine at all, so can't really be ruled collusive. > > As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed > that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this > newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals > than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of > basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why > that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an > eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on > rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There > are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a > group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily > on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign > and cannot be viewed independently of one another. > > Fred > Hmmmm. Down here there's a pretty steady diet of treachery and back- stabbing but there are two or three players who ALWAYS keep their word and WILL get you back if you renegue on a deal. As Sorrow says, this is just a character thing. i suspect the answer to your question is that a lot of us see VTES as an RPG with cards. Evil, ancient and ruthless s/he may be, but if the Methuselah you portray has a sense of honour that WILL be reflected in the way you play, i'd have thought. However, in support of your point one of the reasons why Rob Treasure is so good is that he will make/break ANY deal in order to win. Will Lee and Rob and i have had some interesting discussions about our relative strengths and weaknesses as players and all of us think that the Legbiter/Lee "Samurai" ethic is a weakness, but it's not going to change - that's just what our Methuselah characters are like. Rereading the above it looks a bit rambly. Sorry about that, but i can't see how to rephrase it more crisply and still say what i mean. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew Heslin" <hes...@sprynet.com> wrote: > (Steve said...) > > This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who > > used succubus club to give all his pool to another player > > (Mike Courtois) actually plays in the same group as the > > anarch player (Rob Weber). They are both in my group. The > > player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did > > this to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck > > from making it to the final. A final "screw you" if you > > will... > > The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to > > be in the lucky seat. It really had nothing to do with > > collusion. > > However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade > at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify? As I understand the situation described in the quote above, it wasn't "at his own cost". He would have been ousted if he didn't make the trade just as he would have been if he did make the trade. So the trade didn't "undermine" his position - he was still just as finished. Trying to police how a player with a lost position is allowed to play out her lost position is difficult and dangerous - eventually leading to the judge having to second-guess every action, block, decision to play a card, etc. made by every player. > [Just trying to assess the collusion rule] > Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes > found myself playing specifically to undermine another > Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm > sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP), > and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have > me to worry about), that seems to be collusion. Right. If you play to benefit other player(s) (the predator of the player you're undermining above) to the detriment of your own position, then that's collusion. > However, > I've never considered this unethical or unsportsmanlike. Collusion is unsportsmanlike in that it is cheating, by the V:EKN rules. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <01c01eb3$7640a060$f65179a5@wyld>, Matthew Heslin <hes...@sprynet.com> writes > However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade >at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify? Is suicide shortly before a player kills you really at your own cost? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:51 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a > >useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is > >similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a > >new player". No way is any of that collusion. > > It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. Coaching is explicitly > cheating too. Scouting typically means finding out which cards a play *has* in her deck - not what sort of character the player has. Scouting is not mentioned in the V:EKN rules. The rule on "coaching" is on "receiving outside assistance or coaching" [VEKN 5.1] - this is not outside, so wouldn't qualify as coaching. (A remark from your opponent is not considered coaching - coaching is when someone outside of the game offers advice/comments.) > This provokes the interesting question of whether in-character > collusion would be allowed. If one Giovanni player supports another > for the good of the clan, is this considered to be collusion? Collusion is not allowed. There is no "in-character" allowance for any rules violation. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > I can suggest a partial answer to your question. It starts with a well > known principle of game dynamics -- that being that "deal-breaking" is to > a players benefit over the course of a single game, but works to his > detriment over the course of a series of games. This principle applies, > in theory, to Diplomacy as much as to Jyhad. In fact, it was in > connection with Diplomacy that I first heard this principle mentioned. > > I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of > Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games. Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game, it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this case). But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea, borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate). EXCEPTION If your starting pool of actors is just a mass of defectors (who always defect, no matter what), then they will do as well as each other. Introducing any other (lone) strategy into this mix means that the lone strategy will do worse (always being defected against, so never able to reap the rewards of cooperating). On-line demo of the principle: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/paul.stephens/dm1/ For more, just search the web for "Prisoner's Dilemma". -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "The little demon wasn't http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | telling the truth," Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | Tom implied.

> >I've seen similar things at Dragon*Con. 3 of the 5 finalists in the >Sabbat Draft event just kinda oust themselves by influencing out or >just yielding to their predator. Scott seemed to find it a little >weird but no more than that. I was like, duh ! I've never seen >something like this here. We use to play to death, and we won't give a >pool if we need it to survive, even if it's for a single turn (there's >always something you or somebody else can do to get you out of a >desesperate situation). > >I think it's part of the machiavelous side of the game ; you try to >give the hardest time possible to your predator while he tries to kill >you. I remember one time, I had no minion left in front of me and only >3 pools. My predator came to bleed me with a threat. I DI'ed his >threat so he had to bleed me with one more minion. I was dead for >sure, but I made it harder for him to kill me, and I was very proud of >that ! > That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your predator work for it. In the first round of the constructed deck tournament at Dragon Con I was getting hammered because my grand predator was unable to put any pressure on my predator. When I was down to 3 pool and the bleed came in for 5, I felt completely justified in using my Archon Investigation to burn the minion. I was ousted either way, but felt that I still had to do whatever I could to hamper my predator in his destroying of me. (If only I could have drawn that card earlier in the game) You never know what can occur in a game to change your position. In theory you could be down to one pool and have no minions to work with and something could happen that could put you back in the game. Yes, it is a long shot and probably won't happen, but it could. Never Give Up. Never Surrender. Eric Nawrotzki Pontifex of New Jersey "Live Now. Make Now the most precious time. Now will never come again."

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 02:31:36 -0400, John Whelan wrote: >I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of >Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games. The issue that applies in >either case is not which game is being played, but rather whether players >expect to play a series of games on an ongoing basis. Clearly, this is >far more likely to be true of Jyhad than of Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a >fairly simple game. You can explain the rules in one evening, and proceed >to have a night of fun, and then put the box away for a year. I doubt >that many Diplomacy players are in the habit of playing weekly with a >bunch of people they have usually played with before, and expect to play >with again. I'm sure some do, but I'm equally sure that in such cases a >similar anti-traitor ethic develops. Not so. I have played hundreds of games of Diplomacy and the participants were often well known to each other. In the postal branch of that hobby, one person organised an "Anti-Nithing League" whose purpose was to identify and pillory oath-breakers. This was regarded as a joke by most players - contrary to the very spirit of the game. And there was one famous partnership who tended to form solid alliances in the games that they played together, splitting the board in a 2-way draw if they could. Their behaviour was frowned upon though they were otherwise such nice guys that they got away with it. This is mostly a matter of expectations. Diplomacy's theme is realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs. These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian cricketers. Andrew

> This is mostly a matter of expectations. Diplomacy's theme is > realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision > for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought > that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the > constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs. > These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The > Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian > cricketers. But see, what incentive do I have to make a deal with you if I know that the odds are good that you are going to break it? I may as well just do without and work with the situation on my own terms, good or bad, win or lose. At least then, I know where I'm getting the shaft from and how bad. If I make a deal with you, you could break it at the worst possible moment for me and make my situation even worse. If I am in a good place (ie, I'm not on the ropes), then why would I bother dealing with a person who's broker a deal in the first place? Yes, we as players are supposed to be looking out for our own best interests. But those interests include not getting screwed over. Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

In article <8pson7$6o6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com writes >i'd say it was legitimate vengeance because it tampers with his >ammunition in advance of the game, but while it WILL bugger up his >position [slightly] it doesn't advance mine at all, so can't really be >ruled collusive. Indeed. What ruling something like this as collusion (which it isn't) would mean is that you simply could never, ever talk to other people about your games, as it would unduly influence them towards supporting/attacking other players. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5B236F567D77D807.ABE02B4C...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. Coaching is explicitly >cheating too. I think you fail to understand how Jyhad is played. Would you advocate that I can never, ever talk about any game I play ever? That is all James has been doing. Have you never, ever spoken to someone about how a player performed? You have been scouting, coaching and colluding, then. Word gets around about players, you can do nothing about that, nor should there be any reason to. If a player is turning up with a new, innovative deck style, it's in the interests of the game that people can discuss it, to come up with counter-styles, find the holes etc. By your definition, this group is collusion, scouting and coaching. I suggest you unsubscribe from it, you cheat, you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <06F262969E1B64C4.96BA85A4...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the > classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection > is profitable in the long run. This is why infidelity is common in > humans and other species - it has been bred into us. In the long run, we are all dead. To make that point somewhat less succinctly, I will use your very own example; it is good for a species to tend towards having many children with (once the species becomes slightly civilized) uncertain fathers, because it tends to ensure the survival of that species and make its societal evolution more likely. However, it's generally a bad relationship strategy to lie to everybody you know and cheat on all your significant others, because you will end up alone and quite possibly shot. Many strategies that are viable in the protracted long run have very nasty consequences in the short run, or, for that matter, in the slightly less long run. Don't plan for the protracted long run. By the time it comes to pass, it won't matter any more. -- William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:29:32 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >By your definition, this group is collusion, scouting and coaching. I >suggest you unsubscribe from it, you cheat, you. This is a public forum and we are not playing in a tournament. As he told us, Legbiter's action took place at the UK Nationals this year where he "pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them not to make deals with him". It's like the difference between a public announcement while the markets are closed and insider-trading while they are not. Andrew

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 07:47:49 -0400, LSJ wrote: >coaching is when someone outside of the game offers advice/comments That's what Legbiter did, as I understand it. >Collusion is not allowed. I suppose that the collusion rule was just copied verbatim from the DCI rules for Magic. Magic is not a multi-player game though and that's why the rule is difficult to apply to VTES. Has this rule ever been applied in practise or is it just a paper tiger? > There is no "in-character" allowance for any rules violation. An amusing example of this is that Scorpion players are allowed to bribe their opponents in L5R events. Andrew

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:32:21 -0400, L. Scott Johnson wrote: >Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game, >it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this case). >But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea, >borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting >is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just >matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate). This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection is profitable in the long run. This is why infidelity is common in humans and other species - it has been bred into us. Andrew

In article <D9091101EBC4E44F.A9F3C49D...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Legbiter's action took place at the UK Nationals this year >where he "pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them >not to make deals with him". Warning someone about a player's reputation is not a breach of the rules, in any way shape or form. [ quoted text not captured ]

(I said...) > > Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes > > found myself playing specifically to undermine another > > Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm > > sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP), > > and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have > > me to worry about), that seems to be collusion. (Then Scott kicks in with...) > Right. If you play to benefit other player(s) (the predator > of the player you're undermining above) to the detriment of > your own position, then that's collusion. Hmmm... I would argue that if I can foresee my own inescapable demise in the near future, than any actions are defensible under the previous "it's not at your own cost if you're on your way out either way" discussion point. If you want to get extreme, stonewalling is collusion by virtue of failing to oust your prey. I guess no one had any collusion stories to tell? -heslin

Matthew Heslin wrote in message <01c01f9a$4f4aca20$bd5179a5@wyld>... > Hmmm... I would argue that if I can >foresee my own inescapable demise in the near >future, than any actions are defensible under the >previous "it's not at your own cost if you're on your >way out either way" discussion point. > If you want to get extreme, stonewalling >is collusion by virtue of failing to oust your prey. > > I guess no one had any collusion stories >to tell? What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so close to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes your predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust yourself, making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much stronger (and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position? -Mike

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 00:03:44 -0700, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: >What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so close >to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes your >predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust yourself, >making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much stronger >(and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position? I think this can be called an acute case of "V:TES Finger", often seen when someone begins to screw someone else before the screwing is appropriate. Someone else wondered about stonewalling - I tend to stonewall when it's obvious that either I won't ever get through my prey, or when my predator is playing something that happens to totally hose my deck if I play as normal. I call it the "2-VP plan". Basically, once you realize you can't possibly go forward and live, you begin going BACKWARDS exclusively, hoping that perhaps you can oust a couple predators and then bung up your prey completely when he finally becomes your predator. =) The 2-VP plan is not a usual game-winner, and is not recommended for casual use - but 2 VP as compared to 0 is a significant difference in a tournament, and sometimes you can pull it out. Your odds of pulling it out are significantly enhanced if you are playing a combat or intercept deck, of course. =) Not that *that* would have anything to do with me coming up with this idea. *cough* =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 03:58:26 -0400, John Whelan wrote: >I don't think that punishment or vengeance strategies qualify as >"collusion". While they may sacrifice short term benefit, they also send >a message, and thereby attempt to have an effect on the play environment >that one hopes to be to one's long-term benefit (which may extend beyond a >particular tournament). Such messages may include "If you break a deal >with me, you will regret it." > >Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by >breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion" >(even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate >interests in favor of another player). It is your long term interests >that concern you, and these may extend beyond the tournament. You do not >want to become known as a deal-breaker, and thereby damage your >negotiating ability. But in the long run, you are playing to win. If you allow consideration of long-term interest then the rule against collusion is a dead letter. A player who sacrifices his position to help a friend win _is_ doing so for his own benefit. He's either doing it because it makes him feel good or because he expects his friend to repay the favour in a subsequent event. I see no difference between this and the examples that you give - in all cases the player is no longer playing _that_ game to win and is pursuing some other agenda. To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead. Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory. Andrew

In article <05B1B74B79C66286.01ED9925...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] <snip> We used to play Diplomacy with a guy called Don - it was quite a big group and it met regularly for nearly a year. Don is memorable because he ALWAYS renegued on deals and thus he was a VERY bad Diplomacy player. Of course you are right to say that in Diplomacy you're EXPECTED to break your deals, but the thing you have missed out is that UNLESS you make AND keep some deals you will LOSE. To win in Diplomacy you have to break the deal in such a way as to give yourself an overwhelming advantage and screw up your victim beyond all hope of recovery. I'd have thought > that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the > constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs. > These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The > Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian > cricketers. *Pauses to consider the Machiavellian Beast vs Victorian Cricketing Mafioso Ultimate Grudge Match* Hmmm. Rather a lot of mixed metaphors and empty accusations of unsportsmanlike/illegal play flying around today, so let's try to make this a bit concrete. In a game of Jyhad/VTES, if i make a deal, i will keep it [exception noted below]. i expect people i make deals with to do the same. If they don't, then i will do them at least two bad turns - this game if possible, over a series of games if not. One or both of those bad turns could be NOT to keep a deal i've promised to do in the game. i don't HATE people who diss me in the game and i don't think they are cheats, but i would find it faintly amusing if they ran off to mummy complaining that Horrid Legbiter was Picking On Them as i implemented my remorseless revenge. If you think there is any collusion or cheating involved in this then too bad, because you are wrong. And in fact, to do otherwise would just be plain STUPID - do you REALLY expect me, having been screwed over in one game, to deal with the same player in a subsequent game as if the first shafting had [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <5B236F567D77D807.ABE02B4C...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:51 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a > >useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is > >similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a > >new player". No way is any of that collusion. > > It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. No, as explained below by Scott and James. <snip> > > What's bad is that your behaviour is shameless to the extent that you > boast of it. If i didn't warn people that i bite, i would have to bite more often. Rather than boasting, advertising what i do when people break deals with me is like poisonous insects wearing bright colours to warn predators off eating them. What i'm telling you openly is that you don't HAVE to make deals with me, but if you do, you should keep them or face the consequences. You need to think about why these activities are > prohibited. i know why they're prohibited. And i wasn't doing them. It's because they would turn the game into one of > competing teams. If you're not part of a team of friends who > co-operate and trust each other then you're screwed. You're not understanding what happened at Gencon and what happens everywhere in VTES, it seems to me. Outside the game, some of us are friends. Inside the game, we ruthlessly try to beat each other. Sometimes we use our knowledge of each other's in-game trustworthiness to further our own ends by making profitable deals. This is like the way bachelor male lions and Gelada baboons cooperate to get mating opportunites but it is all still part of ruthless bad ol' natural selection. And i don't trust all my friends by ANY means - Rob, for example, is just NOT a trustworthy person for in-game deals, which he will make and keep ONLY up to the point that he continues to benefit from them. Other friends, dear but nameless, actually aren't worth making deals with because they aren't very good at figuring out what constitutes a good deal. > > What's telling is the way that you try to enforce your own code of > honour, reacting with such vigour against those who break it. It's > like the Mafia - they set great store by loyalty to the Family and the > code of Omerta but they are still criminals. > Er, right, and thanks, i think. Does this mean you DON'T think i play like an absurd Victorian cricketer, or does it mean that you think Victorian cricketers were mafiosi? <snip> i think you might enjoy reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if you haven't done so already. As nicely explained in that book, the truth is that if you want to win long-term in any game, including life or VTES, then you have to do quite a lot of cooperating, not for moral reasons but just because cooperating is an efficient way to further your own selfish interests. The degree of cooperation allowed in VTES is [rightly] limited, but not to the extent that you suppose. However, in the absence of genetic relatedness, no kind of cooperation can survive under natural selection unless there are STRINGENT sanctions against deal-breaking. Buffer line to stop message tailing Buffer l [ quoted text not captured ]

> >i think you might enjoy reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if >you haven't done so already. As nicely explained in that book, the truth >is that if you want to win long-term in any game, including life or >VTES, then you have to do quite a lot of cooperating, not for moral >reasons but just because cooperating is an efficient way to further your >own selfish interests. The degree of cooperation allowed in VTES is >[rightly] limited, but not to the extent that you suppose. However, in >the absence of genetic relatedness, no kind of cooperation can survive >under natural selection unless there are STRINGENT sanctions against >deal-breaking. 1) trust you to bring genetics into it 2) we are all good friends outside the game- i think the comment from james was "he gets better results fromd eals with the southampton lot, rather than the pompey lot" thats cos we know him too well :) as for breaking deal, or warning people off other players i have one player to bring to mind MR SUITCASE MAN !!!!! anam

(Mike said...) > What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so close > to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes your > predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust yourself, > making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much stronger > (and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position? Um, sounds like you helped your predator out while sacrificing your own position. Collusion? I think so, but then again, I've been wrong about this topic quite a bit so far. There's nothing in the collusion rule that states the perfidy must be mutual. I had been under the mistaken impression that two Methuselahs had to be in cahoots for their wrongdoing to be considered collusion, but it seems as though I can collude with Mike without Mike even knowing what I'm up to. True? (Why am I beating this horse? I agree with everyone else. What's my problem? I'll shut up now.) -heslin

> I guess no one had any collusion stories > to tell? Actually Matt, I do have one. 4 years ago I was holding a tournament in New Iberia, La. and we had 12 players. It was $5 a head entry fee and winner take all. We were not playing with any errata or Golden Tenets. It was a one game tournament with everyone playing on the same table (12 player game!). Three players colluded together. One brought a weenie politics deck consisting of 10 blood dolls and 40 conservitive agitations and 40 Kine Resources Contested. The other two brought rush decks. Their plan, as I found out later, was to have the politics player win and then split the pot 3 ways. This was achieved through the rush decks crippling any vampires with votes and the vote deck laying down massive and I do mean massive Con Ags. This collusion in effect scuttled our playgroup as no one wanted to play against the triumvirate, who colluded together. This is a blatantly obvious example of collusion. Hope this helps. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <466DCD989DFF9F47.27B09706...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] In VTES you have a lot of different resources to deploy. Very important among these, especially if you do politics a lot, is your reputation. Arguably it is your MOST important resource, since you get your pool, cards etc back at the end of every game. Can't you see that often it will be necessary for you to sacrifice some other resource in order to keep your reputation? > > To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged > colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for > the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he > then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead. > Or someone who understands the value of their resources better than you seem to do: or possibly a colluder or just an incompetent clown. The test is probably something to do with overall tournament performance. i think the mistake you are making is assuming that any kind of behaviour which COULD be taking place because of collusion is actual EVIDENCE of collusion. For example, there are lots of possible reasons why my wife might kiss another man. Adulterous intention is one of these possible reasons, but it does not follow that every time she kisses a bloke i should divorce her. > Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you > must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is > not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory. > i think there is a germ of sense in some of the things you have been saying, namely that there are some kinds of behaviour that teeter on the brink of being collusive, or that actually are collusive but difficult to spot or legislate against. Sobeit - so long as we squash the most obvious cases of intra-playgroup conspiracy that's all that's required at tourney level, most people would think. However, the above paragraph is just about the silliest thing i have ever seen on the newsgroup. The fact that you are [apparently seriously] arguing in favour of FORCING people to break in-game deals or be disqualified should make you take a deep breath and put your head in a nice, cool bucket of wa [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Sep 2000, Deviant One wrote: > That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your > predator work for it. In the first round of the constructed deck tournament at > Dragon Con I was getting hammered because my grand predator was unable to put > any pressure on my predator. When I was down to 3 pool and the bleed came in > for 5, I felt completely justified in using my Archon Investigation to burn the > minion. I was ousted either way, but felt that I still had to do whatever I > could to hamper my predator in his destroying of me. (If only I could have > drawn that card earlier in the game) > You never know what can occur in a game to change your position. In theory you > could be down to one pool and have no minions to work with and something could > happen that could put you back in the game. Yes, it is a long shot and probably > won't happen, but it could. > > Never Give Up. Never Surrender. Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely a lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which might be more to your advantage. In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your predator. He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter how much you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he did. The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in future. Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways. Save your vengeance for elsewhere. Look around the table. Is there anyone else you can hold to blame for your current lost position? Did the other players at the table give you inadequate support? Did someone torpor one too many of your vampires in cross-table attacks? Why then would you want to protect them by acting as a "buffer" to your predator? Is your position lost because your prey torpored too many of your vampires with his rush deck? If so, then why would you spend your last final turns protecting him? That was exactly what he was hoping for when he rushed you. He was hoping you would just leave him alone, and spend all your remaining energies acting as a buffer for his grand-predator. Well, screw that! Show him that he made a mistake. Show him that he went too far. Show him that all he did was replace one predator with an even stronger one. Tap yourself out doing him as much damage as possible, and then transfer your pool as low as possible. In a lost position, your final turns are a chance to send a message. Don't waste it on someone to whom it will be meaningless. -- John Whelan

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.00091...@amanda.dorsai.org... > > On 15 Sep 2000, Deviant One wrote: > > > That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your > > predator work for it.<hack> > > Never Give Up. Never Surrender. > > In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your > predator. He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter > how much you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he > did. The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in > future. Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways. This reminds me of an argument I saw once on rec.sport.USFootball. When you're playing competitively - be it gridiron, rugby or VTES - and the chips are down, you ought to give it everything. When I'm on 1 or 2 pool (and being inexperienced this happens a lot) then I tend to take the "die in the last ditch" approach. I might not be all that good a flanker or Methuselah, but if I'm not giving every turn of every game my all I shouldn't have showed up in the first place. You said further down that your last turns are about a message to someone. I agree with your point, but personally think of them as a message to everyone at the table. Dan Howell.

On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Dan Howell wrote: > This reminds me of an argument I saw once on rec.sport.USFootball. When > you're playing competitively - be it gridiron, rugby or VTES - and the chips > are down, you ought to give it everything. When I'm on 1 or 2 pool (and > being inexperienced this happens a lot) then I tend to take the "die in the > last ditch" approach. I might not be all that good a flanker or Methuselah, > but if I'm not giving every turn of every game my all I shouldn't have > showed up in the first place. The arguments I made would not apply to football, which is a game with only two sides. If there is a corrolation, it is the following: How you lose is important. This applies to both Football and Jyhad. I certainly agree that, in both football and Jyhad, you should not just fold when you see you have lost, but try to go out in a manner that will give your opponents as hard a time as possible. However, such considerations in Jyhad are fare more complex than in Football. You have up to 4 opponents, not 1. You get to choose which one you want to give a hard time to. In choosing which opponent to screw with, your predator is usually the least appropriate choice ... for reasons already stated. Staying in the game as long as possible is not necessarily going to be the best way of giving your chosen target a hard time. > You said further down that your last turns are about a message to someone. I > agree with your point, but personally think of them as a message to > everyone at the table. It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory." To continue to act as a buffer after you have been defanged also sends a message. "Attack me! Even if I have no hope, I will still serve your ends." -- John Whelan

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > If you allow consideration of long-term interest then the rule against > collusion is a dead letter. Collusion has never been enforceable no matter how you look at it. Denying legitimate game-related considerations just because they transcend a *single* game sacrifices much and gains nothing in return. Unsportsmanlike collusion will still go unpunished. > A player who sacrifices his position to > help a friend win _is_ doing so for his own benefit. He's either > doing it because it makes him feel good or because he expects his > friend to repay the favour in a subsequent event. Your point might be stronger if you eliminated the "makes him feel good" motivation from consideration. That is a non-game factor, either in the short term or the long term. > I see no difference > between this and the examples that you give - in all cases the player > is no longer playing _that_ game to win and is pursuing some other > agenda. I expect that my integrity will help me win, because other players will take seriously my promises and my threats. Therefore I remain loyal to my integrity. The collusion rule forbids me colluding with other players, not colluding with myself. > To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged > colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for > the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he > then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead. Not if he is unable to defend his strategic motivation for making the deal. In a Jyhad game, all negotiation is public. If their negotiations were external to the game, then that is clearly collusion, as it brings in non-game factors. If his motivation for making the deal did not involve winning the game, then that is also a non-game factor. > Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you > must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is > not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory. That is an extreme position, but at least I cannot fault you for inconsistency. But it would be better, I think, to allow the rule against collusion to be a "dead letter" than to make integrity illegal. Nobody should be mandated to break their word. If they made the deal with improper motivations, then they have already colluded, and can be held accountable on that basis. -- John Whelan

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > This is mostly a matter of expectations. Diplomacy's theme is > realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision > for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought > that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the > constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs. Perhaps the part of the theme you are ignoring is the word "Eternal" in the title. From a role-playing standpoint I never assume, in a game of Jyhad, that my ousting means my Final Death. I assume that I shall rise from torpor next week and play again. In Diplomacy, however, the situation is intended to simulate a situation where a diplomat typically gets one game in a lifetime (which is presumably the reason real diplomacy is so duplicitous). > These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The > Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian > cricketers. We may have different perceptions of absurdity. I am just now reading some of the clan novels, and am bemused by the behavior of the vampires there, especially the Sabbat. They typically cannot spend 5 minutes together without killing eachother, or engaging in some duplicitous behavior. Their behavior transcends "amoral" or "evil" and enters into the realm of abject stupidity. You wonder how such idiots could survive a single year, much less centuries. If they have survived centuries, then why are all their strategies so dangerous and so short-sighted. Realistically, an immortal would have strong motivation to keep his word when dealing with a fellow immortal. It is simply rational self interest. Betrayal makes sense only when you are sure you can destroy its memory, which in a Jyhad game is not possible. I don't see why you are using Victorian Cricketeers as examples of paragons of morality. Someone of a radical bent might argue that the Victorian upper classes who were so fond of cricket were a perfect analogy for vampires. Like vampires, their immorality is evident in how they treat "lesser" beings, not necessarily in how they treat each other. One could have an interesting philosophical discussion about whether their is, in the long run, any difference between morality and "rational self interest". Game theory seems to support the notion that much "moral" behavior may actually be to one's benefit in the long run. I personally do not consider rational self-interest and morality to be the same -- at least, not from the perspective of the moral chooser, whose "rationality" wisdom and foresight are necessarily finite. If morality and self interest are one, it is only from the perspective of Eternity, which is something even "immortal" vampires cannot perceive. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:52:41 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I >won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If >you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from >getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think >twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory." It's the wrong message though. It says "I'll spaz and dump out if you even take a small action against me, so you better get rid of me quick, because I'm a loose cannon." And that's what I'd do. Someone who is a threat to transfer themselves out when they feel in a hopeless situation might as well do it SOONER than LATER, in my opinion, while I still have resources to deal with it and I can make sure it happens on MY terms - so I will strike them MORE cross-table than I would anyone else. Someone who is likely to come cross-table after me while they're dying just because they ended up with 1 of the 4 points from my KRC (when 3 were aimed at my prey) ... well, it's likely to go 3-1 THEIR way next time, to make sure they're gone. HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to one player's actions - your predator's. Transferring yourself out is a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing at ALL to hurt you, but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at all to really DEFEND you. So all you've done is kingmake in favor of your predator, and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me deserves to win." Your prey may have never taken a single Rush action against your vampires, but instead blocked or deflected your every bleed. Should he be screwed by his good play? There is another game consideration, too. Walling up against your predator and conserving your resources buys you time - something which can often help. An extra Blood Doll showing up in your deck, for example. The critical Rush action to remove a key vampire. The Dramatic Upheaval vote you've been hoping for. And of course, there's always the chance that players around the table will come and save you. It's in nobody's interest but your predator's that he get a VP and six pool. You can expect immediate, ACTIVE help from your grandpredator. You can expect passive help from everyone else, who may not be able to save your butt without putting themselves in a precarious position - and this is good play on their part, to give up on you after a certain point. Self-interest has to be first. Your predator is (hopefully) not an idiot. He is not going to frantically expend resources on you to the extent that he gets himself ousted. Your goal should be to buy time until his OWN predator has him on the ropes, putting him in the same position you were just in - at which point you can begin focussing on offense again. But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next game to get the loose cannon off the deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <06F262969E1B64C4.96BA85A4...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:32:21 -0400, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > >Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game, > >it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this case). > >But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea, > >borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting > >is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just > >matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate). > > This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the > classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection > is profitable in the long run. Even if the payoff matrix for a repeated game is the classic prisoner's dilemma, defection may be the equilibrium rational, self-interested strategy. [Straining to remember my college class on game theory] Basically, game theory predicts that defection will be optimal if ANY of of the following conditions hold: 1) There are only a finite number of iterations of the prisoner's dilemma, and that number is common knowledge [1] to all participants before the start of the first iteration. The logic is simple enough: in the last iteration all players will defect, since there is no possibility of retaliation in future games. But since defection will be universal in the last round, no player will have an incentive to coperate in the second round, since coopartion in that round will not lead to coopation in the last round. This arguement applies to each preceding round, with the conclusion being that defection will occur, starting with the first interation. 2) The probability that the current iteration will be the last is sufficently high [2]. 3) Defection cannot be observed or inferred [3]. The experimental literature roughly confirms these theories, with exception that in case 1, the players may behave as though they were uncertain about the number of iterations, and will converge toward the predicted behavior in later rounds. This divergence from theory might have something to do with imperfections in the hueristics actually used by players to approximate rationality. In summary, defection is always the optimal strategy unless defection is observable, and the players believe that they will play an unknown but large number of future games against players that will learn from the current game (either by being participants, or by receiving reliable information about the game). Jyhad seems to fit this requirement, perhaps more so than most other multi-player games. First, the number of interations can be quite large. Even within a single game, I might have multiple opportunities to make a deal with another play, and thus an opportunity to break that deal. Second, the pool of players is relatively small. Even tournaments have some non-trivial repetition of player meetings (within a game, between games, within a tournament and between tournaments). Thus, I would expect to see more cooperation in Jyad than in other games, and less cooperation at tournaments than in local playgroups. Steven Joyce [1] Using the usual definition of common knowledge: all the participants know it, and they all know that the others know it, and they know that the others know that they know it, ad infitum. [2] "Sufficient" is a function of the relative magnitudes of the payoffs. [3] This can happen if individual actions are not directly observable and either more than two players are involved in each iteration, or the pairings of players repeated infrequently across iterations. [ quoted text not captured ]

(warning: rather longish) On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, John Whelan wrote: > Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by > breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion" > (even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate > interests in favor of another player). LSJ suggested that to isolate and identify collusion, one should see wether the player in question is or is not working to maximize his VPs in the tournament. For instance, when you take actions that may result on the probable ousting of a meth other than your prey, you are usually (note: usually) engaged in collusion. Anyway, this rule of thumb alone can make a good tool to spot collusion. It does create a small paradox when, for instance you make a deal that involves gainging up with other meth(s) to oust your prey and then oust yourself (also referred to as 'concede'). In this case, you give up your position (probably a postion what would grant you some more VPs) in order to keep a deal - all apparently legal, from conversations with LSJ, but breaks the basic rule. It is also legal to give up your position (granting 2 VPs to your prey) when only you and another meth are still left on the table. Not a good thing, but it's how it works (yeah, read the fine print). Also note that collusion is just a subsection of unsportmanslike behavior - and it's this unsportmanslike behavior that is punished by VEKN rules, not just collusion. What the judge must ensure is that 'throughout the game, players act in a sportmanslike manner'. As you can see, this is extremely subjective. Say, if in Congo, people are expected to keep their word at all times, it might be ruled unsportmanslike behavior if someone broke a deal. The concept of 'unspostmanslike behavior' IMO depends a lot on the environment we're in. For instance, (and this actually happened) if a player makes a deal that gets broken, he cannot just complain because nobody ever did that in his games. But he migh have a point if after the deal was broken, everyone in the table laughed in his face. Also, because something (in this true case, 'someone') peeved a meth in a previous game, nothing actually prevents a meth from doing anything else during that tournament round other than paying 1 pool and 4 transfers to bring the next vampire from his crypt. (When questioned, he allegated that he was making a protest because 'the air was transparent' - I shit you not. The whole table was a mess). What can the referee do in these situations? The answer is: anything he likes, and the players have to deal with it. > It is your long term interests that concern you, and these may extend > beyond the tournament. You do not want to become known as a > deal-breaker, and thereby damage your negotiating ability. But in the > long run, you are playing to win. > There's no way you can rule sportmanslike behavior if you start with that 'long term' premise. That way, people would just say 'Hey, this is the way I am' and you'd have to leave it at that. What would you say if (again, true case) a meth started rushing all the dark-skinned vampires just 'coz they're darkies' (besides "you're a bloody moron")? You really have to start on something palpable, and VP's is IMO a good base for that. Unfortunately there are some discrepancies from judge to judge as to what accounts for unsportmanslike behavior but, as LSJ one pointed out to me, it's always a factor on judged events (take soccer, for instance). So, IMHO, ousting yourself is usually unsportmanslike behavior (again note 'usually'). In this case, it would depend heavily on the current standing - if the self-ousting player did so in knowing that he would still be in the final but not the AR/DT player, then it would be all right. Otherwise, sanctions would be in order :) Bye now, thanks for reading David Pontes, Lisbon

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:42:56 +0100, David Pontes <dp...@mega.ist.utl.pt> wrote: > For instance, when you take actions that may result on the >probable ousting of a meth other than your prey, you are usually (note: >usually) engaged in collusion. I remember myself, in a tournament, ousting my grand predator with my Malkavian Prank... duh ! : ) But I still think it was his own mistake ; he shouldn`t have taken the number of pool I had in mind. MOUAHAHAHAHA ! (really evil laugh) Rémy, Malkavian Prince of Québec city ra...@videotron.ca "Where`s my hunting ground ? You people stole my hunting ground ! I will kill you for that ! What you say ? Just a game ? Don`t try this with me ! ARRRGHHH !"

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:39:12 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >However, the above paragraph >is just about the silliest thing i have ever seen on the newsgroup. The >fact that you are [apparently seriously] arguing in favour of FORCING >people to break in-game deals or be disqualified should make you take a >deep breath and put your head in a nice, cool bucket of wa It's simple logic. LSJ tells us that the practical test or definition of collusion is "taking measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position suffers". He further tells us that this is a hard rule - "Collusion is not allowed. There is no "in-character" allowance for any rules violation." The consequence is that if you have made a deal which turns out to put you in such a position then you must break it or be in breach of the rules. For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not allowed to put another player first. Your efforts to build a reputation are directly contrary to this rule. You seek to assure other players that you will go through with a deal even if it is against your interest to do so. You expect to reap a long-term benefit but that's what makes it collusion - you're willing to trade a loss in this game for benefits outside of the game. And this is a bad thing because it naturally makes you discriminate in favour of your friends who are known to be trustworthy and with whom you have a long-term relationship. So, the only deals which are legal are those which directly and continouously serve a player's self-interest in that game. In this case, there is no need to worry about honour or reputation - self-interest is motivation enough. The playing field is level and that's the way it should be in an open tournament. Andrew

In article <C07E56B02AA3C624.03654438...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Your efforts to build a reputation are directly contrary to this rule. Complete and utter crap. All players, in all games, establish a reputation over time. That is not collusion, cheating or scouting. It is fact. I know, that if I go into a deal with Legbiter, he is more likely to go through with the deal than another player. That is all. Perhaps you would prefer that no player was ever allowed to interact with any other player? Should we all play V:TES wearing masks, or via a web based form, so that people can't work out who we are? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Trying to extend the analogy into real life impossibly complicates things. One aspect of your analysis that I question is your application of the term "long run" to the real-life scenario under consideration. The reproductive arena (in which infidelity may or may not be profitable) is an arena in which A) the stakes (successful reproduction) are very high, B) one has a very limited number of chances to "win" (or "games") in the course of ones lifetime, and C) the situation is such that there are reasonable chances of keeping the betrayal secret permanently. Thus, the situation you present is far more analogous to a single game than to a series of games. More precisely, it is analagous to a brief, limited series of games in which one's betrayal is unlikely to be discovered in the short term, and the games will likely be over before the negative consequences have a chance to fall. In such situations, betrayal may be worth the risk (unless, of course, the Theologians are right and the soul is truly immortal, in which case the games may continue much longer than the betrayer anticipates). Of course, no definite verdict has been reached with respect the the relative value of fidelity vs betrayal as reproductive strategies. Both strategies continue to be part of the game, which goes on, and on, and on, and on ... but always with different players (which is one of the reasons why betrayal maintains some viability as a strategy). The lessons of the prisoners dilemma apply very well to V:tES, for the series of games is limitless, and the chances of keeping betrayals secret are virtually nil. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > It's the wrong message though. It says "I'll spaz and dump out if you > even take a small action against me, so you better get rid of me > quick, because I'm a loose cannon." That would be a "wrong message" if it in fact described the tactics I was advocating. It doesn't. Below are is the position I presented, followed by your version of the position I presented (paraphrased to emphasise the contrast: My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you have no chance of a victory point. Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you. Please, if you are going to debate me, please take issue with the position I present, not some deformed straw-man rendition of it. That is a reasonable request, is it not? > And that's what I'd do. Someone > who is a threat to transfer themselves out when they feel in a > hopeless situation might as well do it SOONER than LATER, in my > opinion, while I still have resources to deal with it and I can make > sure it happens on MY terms - so I will strike them MORE cross-table > than I would anyone else. Someone who is likely to come cross-table > after me while they're dying just because they ended up with 1 of the > 4 points from my KRC (when 3 were aimed at my prey) ... well, it's > likely to go 3-1 THEIR way next time, to make sure they're gone. I should ignore this entirely, since it has nothing to do with any situation I presented. However, the tactics you are discussing seem poorly reasoned out, and make YOU seem like a loose cannon. Not only are you a loose cannon, but you are a pathetically ineffective one, since you are attacking someone who is already dead and could not care less. You are expending energies to attack the weakest player in the game and making his predator stronger faster. > HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to > one player's actions - your predator's. Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases. > Transferring yourself out is > a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing > at ALL to hurt you, Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not. > but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at > all to really DEFEND you. Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand. > So all you've done is kingmake in favor of > your predator, So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against my predator? How is that any different? > and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me > deserves to win." That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection. Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win? Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as opposed to anyone else? > Your prey may have never taken a single Rush action > against your vampires, but instead blocked or deflected your every > bleed. Should he be screwed by his good play? What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes* appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar to the scenario you describe. But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my wrath? > There is another game consideration, too. Walling up against your > predator and conserving your resources buys you time - something which > can often help. <snip> This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the tactics I advocate less appropriate. > But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing > cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that > did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool > and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be > one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next > game to get the loose cannon off the deck. That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table. Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented than to come up with extreme examples of your own. -- John Whelan

On 19 Sep 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely > > a lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only > > strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which > > transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the > > remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during > > this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which > > might be more to your advantage. > > > > In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your predator. > > He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter how much > > you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he did. > > The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in future. > > Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways. > > Presuming that the other players also played in their own best interests, > and didn't gratuitiously screw you, means that your logic that you can't > dissuade them from doing the same thing again applies just as much to them > as to your predator. You are right that non-game considerations are all > that are left once you are in a hopelessly lost position. I disagree that > there is then no point in screwing with your predator, though. I believe my position was that their is "usually" no point in doing so, and that it "rarely" makes sense to try to punish him. > If your > predator is playing a type of deck that you despise (weenie dominate > tap-and-bleed comes to mind, YMMV) you certainly shouldn't make it as easy > as possible for them to oust you by tapping out and attacking someone > across the table, just because that person may have marginally worsened > your position. Sure. That is a good example. You might want to discourage a certain deck style by making it as difficult as possible for players who play such decks. Another example might be if your predator broke a deal (ie. promising not to bleed for a turn, as in the Legbiter's example). Another situation I mentioned in another post would be where you have received aid from other players to keep you in the game, and you wish to reward their efforts. In this case, though, you are not really trying to punish your predator, except as a side effect of trying to reward someone else. Cross-table aid is not something you want to discourage by self-ousting tactics. > If someone screws with you and it's not in their best interest, that's > different. Obviously, it's better to try to dissuade them as it happens, > rather than after the fact, but no one would then blame you in that case > if you metaphorically "gave them the finger" as you exited the game. Keep in mind, however, that their best interest depends on your behavior. Your prey, who fatally cripples you with his rush deck, is hoping that you will just sit there for a while as a helpless and disabled buffer. It is clearly in his interest to do so, if he knows you will cooperate with the scheme. If he knows that you will behave differently, however, then he may think twice. Why would he spend too much energy rushing your vampires, if he knows he will only replace a weak predator with a strong one? He might think it wiser to focus on his prey, and attack your vampires only so much as to give himself a chance, without necessarily denying you of all hope. -- John Whelan

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:52:41 -0400, John Whelan > <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > >It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I > >won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If > >you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from > >getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think > >twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory." When you're on 2 pool, who in their right mind is going to burn actions to cross-table you anyway? But I want to see if I've got this right. Are you saying that you'de just sit there, in a precarious situation, and hope that another player's going to bail you out so you've got enough untapped minions to inflict damage on your prey? Fair enough. It'll be in your grand-predator's best interests to help you...except that IMHO and at the level we all normally play at, it just doesn't happen that way... > HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to > one player's actions - your predator's. Transferring yourself out is > a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing > at ALL to hurt you, but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at > all to really DEFEND you. ...and that's why. The aim of the game is to thrash/stealth-bleed/vote/ToGP your prey to a pulp, and if you've applied reverse beatdown in your pred's turn and done as much as you can in your own...then your grand-predator might just top-deck something and take out your pred's BFMinion. Congratulations. You just did yourself a favour. > But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing > cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that > did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool > and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be > one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next > game to get the loose cannon off the deck. I had to re-read John's post before I was sure he'd actually said this. But he did, and I agree with Derek whole-heartedly here. The only time this would _ever_ be justified is if said AE was proposed by someone planning to take 2VPs in one turn. (No names, no packdrill, you know who you are...) But said player's probably up to dealing with most of what you chuck at them, simply because they had the skill and talent to be on 6+ pool at this point and you haven't. BUT. And it's a big one...I'm still essentially a rookie. And I'm very aware that, in certain situations, especially tournament games...well, "common sense" could fly out of the window. (Anyone want to come up with a "Defenestration" pot card, BTW?) So I'm not flaming you, JW...I just can't see it at the moment. Dan Howell. In VTES, that which kills you always makes you stronger.

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely > a lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only > strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which > transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the > remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during > this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which > might be more to your advantage. > > In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your predator. > He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter how much > you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he did. > The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in future. > Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways. Presuming that the other players also played in their own best interests, and didn't gratuitiously screw you, means that your logic that you can't dissuade them from doing the same thing again applies just as much to them as to your predator. You are right that non-game considerations are all that are left once you are in a hopelessly lost position. I disagree that there is then no point in screwing with your predator, though. If your predator is playing a type of deck that you despise (weenie dominate tap-and-bleed comes to mind, YMMV) you certainly shouldn't make it as easy as possible for them to oust you by tapping out and attacking someone across the table, just because that person may have marginally worsened your position. If someone screws with you and it's not in their best interest, that's different. Obviously, it's better to try to dissuade them as it happens, rather than after the fact, but no one would then blame you in that case if you metaphorically "gave them the finger" as you exited the game. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:04:34 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of >ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against >my predator? How is that any different? I think that a methuselah has two defined parts in the game : predator and prey. When I play, I try to do my best in both parts. If, sometimes, I become a too easy prey for my predator, I try to reduce my actions as predator to make a balance. My first task, if I want to have a chance to win, is to stay alive. So, when I`m too weak to survive, my only chance is to transfer all my energy on the defensive mode (so I can maybe survive a little more and, you know, good things happen sometimes...). This strategy is not a way to punish my predator, it`s a way of giving me all the chances I can and all the time I can. Time can get you killed, time can give you rebirth ; you never know. To survive is the first task of a prey. When the deer succeed in surviving the wolf`s attack, it don`t thinks : "Screw you Mr Wolf !" It was all for itself, not against anything. Remy ra...@vampirethemasquerade.com ra...@videotron.ca

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:04:34 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you >have no chance of a victory point. > >Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those >tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you. No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you claim I've misstated yours. But if you're going to come cross-table at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of caution, or I am being careless. >are attacking someone who is already dead and could not care less. You >are expending energies to attack the weakest player in the game and making >his predator stronger faster. If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him, then I want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas. If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and basically played kingmaker frequently, and so I may not be inclined to let you have your way - I may just deny you your last set of actions you thought you'd be getting, and deal with the situation under MY terms instead of yours. >> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to >> one player's actions - your predator's. > >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases. Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however. Rolling over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut it here with humans. You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he got me! OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out - you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me next turn!" >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game. >factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the >game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such >efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is >no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not. "might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question, if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride. >> but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at >> all to really DEFEND you. > >Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he If you can't figure out what his deck does by the time you're ousted, you are in a world of hurt in this game. If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right. >actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my >ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less >consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have >absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand. You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever. You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST be staying alive. Rolling over fails this test miserably. I have seen DI's played cross-table on a bleed mod, just to maintain the existing table balance. The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your position, instead of just giving up. >> So all you've done is kingmake in favor of >> your predator, > >So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of >ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against >my predator? How is that any different? You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide. >> and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me >> deserves to win." > >That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection. >Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win? >Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as >opposed to anyone else? Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed to anyone else? -- The converse of your statement is ALSO true. You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your prey, and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator. Picking one and "going out" that way is generally acceptable. Transferring yourself out is the mark of a fish. >What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes* >appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of >when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar >to the scenario you describe. Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or vote actions. Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though. >But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for >his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator >for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my >prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my >wrath? Your task involves OUSTING your prey. Handing him over to your predator after you've turned him into a soggy cat toy is not ousting your prey - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator. >This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly >hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the >tactics I advocate less appropriate. Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is FACT, not opinion. People will do crazy shit, and you might well get another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1. >> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing >> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that >> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool >> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be >> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next >> game to get the loose cannon off the deck. > >That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose >cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You, too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment. >own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table. If someone performed the actions I described above, I would consider it lame, childish, and spiteful in the utmost degree. I would also take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with Machiavelli's famous quotation. (i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is possible.") >Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES >appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented >than to come up with extreme examples of your own. Then you should provide specific ones? Yours were quite vague. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:20:38 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >Perhaps you would prefer that no player was ever allowed to interact >with any other player? Should we all play V:TES wearing masks, or via a >web based form, so that people can't work out who we are? I usde to play lots of postal or email games such as Diplomacy and Starweb. A common and popular format for these was to play them anonymously. Players were only known to the organiser and could only communicate publically or via a system of canned, standard messages. If a World Championship for this game were to be held online then I would indeed advocate that it be run anonymously in this way. As well as reducing the possibility of collusion, it would also cut out secret negotiation. Playing face-to-face with masks would be quite amusing and appropriate I feel. Still, I'm not sure what most of you look like anyway. And is this the reason that "legbiter" is so careful to hide his real name? And note that top-level bridge tournaments require their players to sit behind screens and bid with cards rather than by voice. They have found that when games are played for high stakes then cheating is commonplace. The World Series of Poker takes no such precautions and is reputed to be dominated by a cartel of professional players who routinely collude with each other to squeeze out the amateurs. Andrew

<snip stuff> > > Playing face-to-face with masks would be quite amusing and appropriate > I feel. Still, I'm not sure what most of you look like anyway. And > is this the reason that "legbiter" is so careful to hide his real > name? > My real name is James McClellan, i work as a molecular biologist at the University of Portsmouth, and a fair number of people know what i look like. There are even some pictures of me and other Pompey miscreants on james Coupe's Web Site. http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk/images/thumbpage.htm i think we're just going to have to agree to differ about whether or not sticking to a deal you've made, and expecting others to do the same, is or isn't legal in VTES. However, i'm not saying your position isn't logical, merely that it's absurd. In philosophy the reductio ad absurdum is traditionally used to test the truth or falsity of one's starting assumptions. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > It's simple logic. LSJ tells us that the practical test or definition > of collusion is "taking measures to increase another player's position > in a way that her own position suffers". He further tells us that > this is a hard rule - "Collusion is not allowed. There is no > "in-character" allowance for any rules violation." > > The consequence is that if you have made a deal which turns out to put > you in such a position then you must break it or be in breach of the > rules. ? No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable. Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach of the rules however. > For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as > part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate > ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against > regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is > that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not > allowed to put another player first. You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your commitments first. -- 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/

>> For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as >> part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate >> ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against >> regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is >> that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not >> allowed to put another player first. > >You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your >commitments first. Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for anyone to honor a deal that would get them ousted. Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to lose, even if they did make a deal. Eric Nawrotzki Pontifex of New Jersey "Live Now. Make Now the most precious time. Now will never come again."

In article <51156646DFE22620.D536CE18...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I usde to play lots of postal or email games such as Diplomacy and >Starweb. Real-life tournaments preclude this, utterly. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you > >have no chance of a victory point. > > > >Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those > >tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you. > > No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you > claim I've misstated yours. I did not state *your* position at all. I complained about your misrepresentation of my position, which you seem to have conceded. > But if you're going to come cross-table > at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a > just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of > caution, or I am being careless. Call me clueless, but I am just not following your logic. How does me coming across-table "at all" (which I presume means no matter the circumstances) eventually lead you to the conclusion that you must preemtively attack me (cross table, presumably) in the next game? If that is not the conclusion you are heading for, then I cannot see the point of anything you have said. > If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him, What the hell makes you think he is likely to come after you? Because he played a cross-table attack "at all" in a previous game? > then I > want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas. What bright ideas? Why should the specific circumstances of a previous game apply to this one? > If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all > depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as > you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and > basically played kingmaker frequently, Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I have played (though there may have been other examples in distant memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are extremely rare. You are clearly allowing your imagination to run away with you to come up with a negative portrait of me which goes far beyond being based on anything I have said. May I ask why the hostility? > and so I may not be inclined to > let you have your way - I may just deny you your last set of actions > you thought you'd be getting, and deal with the situation under MY > terms instead of yours. If you are talking about me, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. > >> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to > >> one player's actions - your predator's. > > > >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his > >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases. > > Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however. Right, and a chess game isn't over until you are checkmated. > Rolling over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut > it here with humans. Oh how witty! Do you have any other clever over-generalizations to substutute for rational argument? > You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he got me! Who is asking for a "bonus"? I have already indicated why one might have motives to end your game in a certain manner. Are these witticisms supposed to substutute for a rebuttal? > OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out - > you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of > taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me > next turn!" Appart from the sarcasm, yes, that is essentially correct. I believe that there can be circumstances when it can be appropriate to do that, and have presented my reasons why. Do you believe that repeating my position in a sarcastic manner is a substitute for rational argument? > >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually > >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious > > Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game. Right, and as I have already explained, that is worth neither reward nor punishment because it is not an aspect of his behavior that I have the power to influence. It is his task as defined by the rules, and I need make no effort to persuade nor dissuade him, because such would be a useless gesture. Predators *will* go after their prey. It is as pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me trying to reward his behavior with my final actions. > >factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the > >game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such > >efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is > >no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not. > > "might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question, > if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend > myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to > smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to > need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride. ? > >> but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at > >> all to really DEFEND you. > > > >Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he > > If you can't figure out what his deck does by the time you're ousted, > you are in a world of hurt in this game. <sigh> > If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop > a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make > a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of > survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your > predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every > turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall > up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right. If there isn't shit he can do to help me, then there is absolutely no reason I owe him any loyalty, now is there? What do you want me to do, reward him for his good will? Now that really *would* smack of collusion. If a dealer tells me he really wants to give me a car, but is just plain out of stock, then I do not owe him $20,000 for his kind thoughts. > >actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my > >ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less > >consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have > >absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand. > > You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever. Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator. > You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST > be staying alive. I cannot gain any VP's at all! That is the starting consideration for the scenario under discussion. I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the premise, because it means that I am discussing apples, and you are discussing oranges. > Rolling over fails this test miserably. I have seen > DI's played cross-table on a bleed mod, just to maintain the existing > table balance. Would not have saved me. There was no hope for me (as the entire table agreed when I defended my actions -- they had plenty of opportunity to talk me out of it). > The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to > happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your > position, instead of just giving up. I didn't just give up. I made the most of my position to screw the one who had screwed me. And yes, I did "know" (for all practical purposes) that there was no hope for me. Theoretically, all things are possible, but some things are just too whoppingly improbably to base behavior upon. > >> So all you've done is kingmake in favor of > >> your predator, > > > >So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of > >ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against > >my predator? How is that any different? > > You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most > amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a > result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang > in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide. Dude, there was no hope for me. I had no vampires on the table, because my sole IC member had been stolen by my prey (BEFORE the minion tap) and I had inadequate pool to bring anyone else out. My predator could do 6 bleed per turn without modifiers. I discussed the move before I did it, and none of the other players offered me any hope. There was none to be had. Dramatic upheaval would not have helped me. > >> and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me > >> deserves to win." > > > >That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection. > >Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win? > >Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as > >opposed to anyone else? > > Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed > to anyone else? -- Derek, this is absurd! I have already stated why I might have reasons to prevent someone else from winning. > The converse of your statement is ALSO true. No it isn't. Not in situation I am describing. The situation I am describing is one where my statement is true and the converse of my statement is false. That is how I defined the situation from the beginning. > You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your > prey, More precisely, the purpose is to gain vicory points. We are discussing a hopeless situation, in which gaining a victory point is no longer possible. > and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator. No. That is not the purpose of the game at all. In fact, if I could gain a victory point by being ousted (and that was my best option) that is precisely what I would do. > Picking one and > "going out" that way is generally acceptable. Transferring yourself > out is the mark of a fish. Appart from hurling insults at me, can you make any rational arguments why I should not use such tactics in the defined circumstances? > >What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes* > >appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of > >when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar > >to the scenario you describe. > > Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your > vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that > he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or > vote actions. He certainly does have his reasons. IF those reasons are completely overwhelming (as in that is his only way of pursuing a victory point), then there is no point in showing him other reasons why he should not. However, his reasons might not be so completely overwhelming. In such cases it may be in my interest to behave in a manner that makes his attacks on me less beneficial than they otherwise might have been. > Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though. Spite has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am merely trying to behave in a manner that makes destroying me a less attractive option than it might otherwise be. There is nothing personal about this at all. > >But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for > >his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator > >for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my > >prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my > >wrath? > > Your task involves OUSTING your prey. Oh. I'm sorry Derek. Did I forget to tell you that I was discussing a lost position where there is no hope of ousting your prey? That must be why you are so confused about all this. > Handing him over to your > predator after you've turned him into a soggy cat toy is not ousting > your prey Right, because that is no longer an option. > - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator. You got it, bub. Playing "kingmaker" was all I had left. What's the problem? > >This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly > >hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the > >tactics I advocate less appropriate. > > Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is > FACT, not opinion. And a chess position is never hopeless until you are checkmated (theoretically). This is FACT, not opinion. But, for all practical purposes, you do face hopeless positions. That is why chess-players resign before checkmate, even in high stakes tournaments. > People will do crazy shit, True, and this is certainly a factor to consider before deciding if your position is truly hopeless. > and you might well get > another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well > that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent > all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1. Whatever. > >> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing > >> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that > >> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool > >> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be > >> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next > >> game to get the loose cannon off the deck. > > > >That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose > >cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your > > blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of > vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You, > too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to > screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment. I shouldn't need to provide actual examples. I have provided a set of not impossible circumstances, which any number of examples might fit. I have provided first one hypothetical example and now one real one, which are at least as specific as those you provided. The examples you provided were designed specifically NOT to meet the specifications I defined. > >own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table. > > If someone performed the actions I described above, I would consider > it lame, childish, and spiteful in the utmost degree. Are you describing your actions or mine? Spite certainly had nothing to do with the situations and examples I provided. > I would also > take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that > might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful > revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with > Machiavelli's famous quotation. > > (i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will > revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an > injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is > possible.") I don't see the applicability. > >Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES > >appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented > >than to come up with extreme examples of your own. > > Then you should provide specific ones? Yours were quite vague. See below for a specific one. However, the circumstances were clearly defined. With a good will, you ought to be able to come up with your own hypothetical examples that fit the criteria. -- No hope of victory point -- No special "grievance" (as defined) against predator. -- Special "grievance" agains Prey or someone else at table. OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can recall using such tacitics. I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them. The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected. The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my deflections were directed to my grand-predator. I start by bringing out Leandro. My predator was a fast bleeder, but I had hopes of keeping him at bay with the minion tap in my hand, as well as some deflections and also had the dramatic upheaval ready to go (with good chances of passing it). Had I pulled it off, I would have ousted him rather than the other way round. However, my prey is playing a dominate gangrel deck, whose plan it is to torporize other vampires, and then grave rob them. Even though I am leaving him alone entirely, he decides to target Leandro. My combat defenses fail under multiple presses, and he grave robs Leandro with 11 pool still on him, as well a a spying mission directed at my predator. A minion tap that I was planning to use next round sits useless in my hand. This totally dooms me. No hope at all. By the time my predator has finished bleeeding my defenseless ass, I have 5 pool left, and 5 blood on the next IC member. I have no hope of bringing out another vampire. If I had wanted to sit there and just act as a buffer for the player who just totally screwed me, I could have transfered 2 pool back, and delayed my predator for another round. Instead, I chose to put all 4 transfers on my next IC member, leaving myself at one pool. In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in fact replaced a benign predator for one that was far more dangerous. Having nothing else to do, I facilitated the situation to emphasize the point. I discussed the situation with other players before making the move, and they agreed that my position was hopeless. I bore no spite against him whatseover. His attack on Leandro was by no means personal towards me -- its just that Leandro was such a tempting target. Neither were my measures against him personal. I merely wished to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable. -- John Whelan

Ignore this message. It is simply an "unread bookmark" that will show up next time in my unread messages to remind me to respond to your previous message with a REAL message, instead of a bookmark, when I have the time to properly address it - which isn't right now, as I am already supposed to be somewhere else. =) On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:21:52 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: (stuff) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <20000919140825...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, damo...@aol.com (Deviant One) writes: >>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your >>commitments first. > >Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described >above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that >will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for >anyone to honor a deal that would get them ousted. Call me a fool then, because I always honor my deals. Once my foolishness is clearly established to other players, then it will no longer be foolish for other players to expect me to foolishly honor my deals. In my foolishness, I expect this to work to my advantage and enhance my negotiating options. >Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is >to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to >lose, even if they did make a deal. No-one should expect that, no ... unless, of course, the expectation is justified in light of the habitual behavior of a particular player. This works to that particular player's advantage, because he/she has negotiating options not available to others. -- John Whelan

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:18:43 -0400, LSJ wrote: >No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable. > >Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach >of the rules however. Hark, I hear the sound of galloping hooves. Apart from specific card effects such as Succubus Club, the rules don't define any such thing as a deal, losing or otherwise. How is one supposed to recognise when a deal is being done? And having determined that a deal is being enacted, how is one supposed to decide whether it is losing or not? This doesn't seem practical. As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they say they made a deal. What happens next? Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance. They are also prone to dramatic gestures when piqued and I have already had cause to have words with one of them on this subject. Peer pressure has always been enough to settle such matters in the past but, when officiating in one of our regular tournaments, I would have little hesitation in striking down an overt attempt to throw the game for whatever reason. >You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your >commitments first. Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment. Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win, he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and it shouldn't be allowed. Andrew

On 19 Sep 2000, Deviant One wrote: > >> For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as > >> part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate > >> ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against > >> regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is > >> that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not > >> allowed to put another player first. > > > >You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your > >commitments first. > > Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described > above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that > will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for anyone > to honor a deal that would get them ousted. > Not by the current rules. It's now perfectly acceptable if, when the game goes down to 1 vs 1, one of them decides to withdraw. It seems I'm the only one to disapprove this, since apparently this is done in virtually every duelling game and isn't given any sanction. I personally think it stinks. > Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is > to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to > lose, even if they did make a deal. > I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. But imagine Legbiter's situation where he is stronger his other two opponents, and they decide to gang up on him. His predator (in this case Sarah, James' lovely wife) his eager for this, since she's got every reason to oust him. But his prey (Michael, in this case) should only agree on this deal as long as James (Legbiter) isn't actually ousted, if possible. Sometimes it isn't possible to reduce a predator's effectiveness to harmless level, and one must agree to actually oust him from the game. This might seal Michael's fate, since now his mother has 6 more pool, but at least there's a chance that he might fare better against her deck than his dad's. But how do you separate this event from the actual collusion? How can you identify the two players who gang up on a third with collusion in mind? IMO, the answer is 'play to win'. If in any event it can be argued that said player is acting against his interest to win, then another can bring the judge's attention and he should check for collusion. In the event of the final 1on1 it's more difficult, but this can be achieved if one of the ousted players stays and watches the game. Does this seem too fascist? :) Opinions are welcome. David Pontes

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:18:43 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable. > > > >Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach > >of the rules however. > > How is one supposed to recognise when > a deal is being done? And having determined that a deal is being > enacted, how is one supposed to decide whether it is losing or not? > This doesn't seem practical. > It's not, and it's entirely subjective. The judge is naturally bound to intervene blatant attempts only, and any resourceful player is able to make something up on the spot so he can get away with it. But if all the players are aware of this rule, that prevents most collusive deals from happening since people are aware of the problem. Newbies are screwed, of course, but they always are, let's face it. > As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred > spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player > likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much > attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn > out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the > game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they > say they made a deal. What happens next? > This is why you're bound by VEKN rules to "make deals in a fashion that is clear and visible to all players and in a language an manner that leaves no doubts as to the nature of the deal". Where does it say that? It doesn't. Apparently it was left out. From talks with LSJ, this was supposed to be in the VEKN rules and are due to be present on the next revision. I'd appreciate if LSJ confirmed this, so I wont't look silly right now :) This serves to defend you from collusion in foreign coutries, BTW. > Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment. > Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by > their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which > will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win, > he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and > it shouldn't be allowed. > Again, all we should enforce is the 'play to win' attitude. Unfortunately not all people share this ideal, and things like 'I said I wouldn't bleed him this turn and just because I have Revelations in play and knowing that he can't wake or deflect is no reason I should oust him and break the deal' are going to take place as often as people want. Is that bad? Maybe. Is the opposite good (ruling on every deal)? That's the question. David Pontes

On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Dan Howell wrote: > > But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing > > cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that > > did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool > > and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be > > one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next > > game to get the loose cannon off the deck. > > I had to re-read John's post before I was sure he'd actually said this. > But he did, <snip> Ahem. What? Quote please! I believe your memory is faulty if you think Derek's example resembles anything I said. I never mentioned Ancilla Empowerment. In Derek's example, it is clear that the behavior of the AE caller is simply part of his deck's strategy for ousting his prey, and any damage to others at the table is incidental. In this situation, attempting to punish the AE caller for his actions is every bit as pointless as trying (in a no-hope situation) to punish my predator for having tried to oust me. Such retaliations are directly contrary to the principles of retaliation that I outlined. Retaliation is ineffective unless you are addressing a situation where the offender might reasonably have been expected to behave otherwise. Demanding that someone not play the cards his deck was designed to play, just because the results don't work to my benefit, is silly. Also, I do not recall every mentioning transferring myself out in the aftermath of a cross-table attack. Any mention I made of transferring myself out was in connection with retaliatory measures against my prey, not against someone cross-table. If my prey targets me to an excessive and unwise extent, and costs me all hope in the process, I merely act to emphasize what may in fact be already true: that by destroying me, he has merely replaced me with a stronger predator. Of course, if the situation is such that my prey could not reasonably have acted otherwise, then there is no point in taking such measures. (All of this, once again, only applies to no-hope scenarios). -- John Whelan

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:12:31 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:18:43 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable. >> >>Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach >>of the rules however. > >As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred >spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player >likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much >attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn This amuses me, since such a general "deal" is in neither player's best interests at all. But two people working together at a dumb deal is still permitted. >out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the >game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they >say they made a deal. What happens next? >Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players >in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance. Not in V:TES they wouldn't be able to. How do you convey "get my guy out of torpor and i'll Rush your predator's vampire" with a glance? Answer... you don't. Also, anyone agreeing to a vague, non-specific deals in V:TES such as "you wanna ally?" is being foolish - I would not hesitate to break such a deal whenever it was good for me, and I would take advantage of it as long as I could. Essentially, you have no deal in this case - so yes, if someone decided to throw the game to his 'ally', I would penalize the "thrower". (the "throwee" has committed a successful con job, and doesn't deserve a penalty, since everything was arranged in-game.) >They are also prone to dramatic gestures when piqued and I have >already had cause to have words with one of them on this subject. >Peer pressure has always been enough to settle such matters in the >past but, when officiating in one of our regular tournaments, I would >have little hesitation in striking down an overt attempt to throw the >game for whatever reason. And it wouldn't be much of a problem in this instance either. >>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your >>commitments first. > >Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment. "I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment. Someone holding to that commitment should not be penalized, even if it would take his only untapped vampire and would result in his own predator probably ousting him. "You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment. >Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by >their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which >will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win, >he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and >it shouldn't be allowed. I would be personally astonished if anyone actually held up their end of a deal when it would result in their personal oust, UNLESS they also gained a VP from it themselves. Assume this situation: you are playing a Toreador vote deck. your prey has a weenie horde. Your grandprey has a Gangrel untap-and-block monster. your grand-predator has a donal/constanza/don cruez Brujah vote-and-pummel deck. Earlier, you and your grand-predator made a deal that unless you supported ALL his votes, that he was going to torporize/diablerize enough of your voting minions right then, so that he wouldn't have to WORRY about it. This is a good deal for both of you to make, considering your seating position, right? OK, so this deal is in force, and your grand-predator ousts your predator. Now he attempts to call an Ancilla Empowerment that will oust you, AND will also oust your prey. Do you keep the deal and vote with him? In this instance, I would not blame you for either keeping the deal (you do gain a VP, after all), or for breaking the deal - the one instance in which I won't blame someone for breaking a specific deal. If your prey WEREN'T going to be ousted, I would be very surprised if you kept the deal, but to some people honor is more important. At least in this instance, it is a specific deal and the terms can be quoted - so I would not penalize the player, but I would point out to him that MOST people will not be surprised if the deal suddenly gets broken. (In your position, I would have added to the terms "i'll support all your votes as long as no damage comes my way", giving myself an "out" of the deal in both above examples.) [ quoted text not captured ]

OK. Now that I have a little time to do this up properly... On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:21:52 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >> No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you >> claim I've misstated yours. > >I did not state *your* position at all. I complained about your >misrepresentation of my position, which you seem to have conceded. note above phrase "as you CLAIM i've misstated yours." I concede nothing. Frankly and IMO, you appear to be backpedaling furiously in the face of counterexamples. I could go back to your message and quote the relevant bits, but it's really not that important - what's being said in THIS message is much clearer and easier to work with. >> But if you're going to come cross-table >> at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a >> just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of >> caution, or I am being careless. > >Call me clueless, but I am just not following your logic. How does me >coming across-table "at all" (which I presume means no matter the >circumstances) eventually lead you to the conclusion that you must >preemtively attack me (cross table, presumably) in the next game? If that >is not the conclusion you are heading for, then I cannot see the point of >anything you have said. See below. >> If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him, > >What the hell makes you think he is likely to come after you? Because he >played a cross-table attack "at all" in a previous game? Well, I would certainly be WORRIED that he might come after me if he went cross-table for no reason in a previous game. All of my examples assume that I've played several games with the person and have SOME idea what he plays like. A person whom I've never seen play before I will ignore and totally deal with in-game on the basis of their in-game actions. But I will remember what their decision-making process is like, so that in future games I can have some warning. >> then I >> want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas. > >What bright ideas? Why should the specific circumstances of a previous >game apply to this one? Because I'm not a moron? Someone who performed an unwarranted cross-table action in the previous game is just as likely to perform one in this game. I doubt I'd ever strike out on turn 1 bashing into him, but it's very situational. If I am playing a Tremere vote deck and calling Con. Boons, and my grandprey happens to be Tremere, and you happen to be HIS prey and be having a hard go of things as a result... I would begin to worry that you might come across and start potting my voters. Does it help you? Yes, to a very small degree. Is it the best play? Absolutely not, and that's what would worry me - someone who cannot judge the REAL cause of his problems and will take irrational actions. With any luck, I'd have some warning (via grumbling, a failed Rush action, or whatever) that you were actually going to DO something, so I could start smacking you down ahead of time. But yes, I will keep in mind what people have done in the past. To do otherwise would be folly. >> If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all >> depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as >> you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and >> basically played kingmaker frequently, > >Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I >have played (though there may have been other examples in distant >memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are >extremely rare. But didn't you say before that these tactics were appropriate? Only once in your entire career tends to show otherwise, doesn't it? And now you're saying the circumstances are extremely rare. Hmmm. >You are clearly allowing your imagination to run away with you to come up >with a negative portrait of me which goes far beyond being based on >anything I have said. May I ask why the hostility? "A player such as you", in other words referring to a fictional player who I *have* played multiple games with and would therefore be able to KNOW this sort of stuff about. I use you as a basis to build that character upon based on what you are advocating. >> >> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to >> >> one player's actions - your predator's. >> > >> >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his >> >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases. >> >> Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however. > >Right, and a chess game isn't over until you are checkmated. There is no luck in chess, and nobody else is able to step in and save you. It is you v. him. In V:TES, it is quite different. 2 other players have something to gain from you remaining at the table - your grandpredator, who doesn't want his prey to gain 6 pool, and your grandprey, who wants you to live and put pressure on HIS predator. Possibly your prey as well, who might rather have you alive than your predator. (I've "saved" predators before.) Your analogy is flawed and therefore not relevant. >> Rolling over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut >> it here with humans. > >Oh how witty! Do you have any other clever over-generalizations to >substutute for rational argument? Humor puts things in perspective. Here, you clearly needed some, since you were missing out on the big picture. >> You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he got me! > >Who is asking for a "bonus"? I have already indicated why one might have >motives to end your game in a certain manner. Are these witticisms >supposed to substutute for a rebuttal? la, la, la, la. Of course, I notice that you don't read the whole thing and gain the perspective, resulting in your answer below. >> OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out - >> you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of >> taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me >> next turn!" > >Appart from the sarcasm, yes, that is essentially correct. I believe that >there can be circumstances when it can be appropriate to do that, and have >presented my reasons why. Do you believe that repeating my position in a >sarcastic manner is a substitute for rational argument? Well, it's SUPPOSED to show you how dumb your position looks when it's restated from another point of view. I guess that is asking too much insight from you. Kingmaking is generally viewed as "bad" in any multiplayer game, and that's what you're doing in the example above - because of your "roll over" action, you screw up your prey and your grand-predator sharply. Specifically, you screw your grand-predator BADLY, who could possibly have ousted your predator before you HANDED HIM SIX EXTRA POOL ON YOUR TURN. Would it have mattered to you? No. Did it fuck up the table dynamic? YES. Is it unsportsmanlike? YES. >> >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually >> >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious >> >> Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game. > >Right, and as I have already explained, that is worth neither reward nor >punishment because it is not an aspect of his behavior that I have the >power to influence. It is his task as defined by the rules, and I need >make no effort to persuade nor dissuade him, because such would be a >useless gesture. Predators *will* go after their prey. It is as A grandpredator with a Rush deck has two options: Rush vampires, or bleed for 1 (or more, possibly). If you are about to die, you ought to turn around and persuade him that Rushing vampires would be more beneficial to him than bleeding for 4, even if your predator is only at 6 pool, because if your predator has no vampires, he cannot oust you and your grandpredator can bleed him for 4 NEXT turn just as easily. However, if he bleeds for 4 and your predator ousts you, it is a net loss to your grandpredator of 2 points of forward progress. Most grandpredators will realize this. Some need to have it pointed out to them. >pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own >predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is >designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me >trying to reward his behavior with my final actions. Nobody is suggesting that you "reward" him - but just that you not SCREW him. >> "might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question, >> if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend >> myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to >> smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to >> need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride. > >? If you, my grandprey, are just going to curl up and die, then I will not expend finite resources such as my Anarch Troublemaker, Alacrity cards, etc. in an attempt to put my prey on the edge when he's just going to get 6 pool back quickly. I will wait until you are out, and THEN I will begin expending those resources. In the meantime, it just serves to put my prey into "panic defense" mode quicker than it normally would. Stated otherwise: Assume I can do 7 points of pool damage to my prey, and you are about to oust yourself. If my prey has 8 pool and gains 6, he will likely transfer out a new minion. Excellent! My 7 pool will bring him down to 2 or 3, then, and I will have good, solid forward pressure for awhile. If, however, I wind up and pound hell out of him for 7, and he then gains 6, he will NOT try to get a new minion out, and will probably just sit on that pool as a buffer. Bad play on my part - now I have expended my finite resources to make almost no progress. >> If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop >> a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make >> a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of >> survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your >> predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every >> turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall >> up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right. > >If there isn't shit he can do to help me, then there is absolutely no >reason I owe him any loyalty, now is there? What do you want me to do, >reward him for his good will? Now that really *would* smack of collusion. Wall up a little bit and make him take other actions. Animalism has intercept, but it can't stop bleeds that aren't directed at IT. If you let your predator do nothing but bleed you over and over, an ANI/PRO deck is forced to just sit there and watch. If your predator has to take a couple hunt actions, or a couple equip actions, though, the guy with Animalism might cough up a Raven Spy or Cat's Guidance... and then use that Protean to put a vampire in torpor. See how you can help yourself by just trying to stay alive? >> You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever. > >Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all >cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there >is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator. There is no reason to go out in a way that FAVORS your predator, either. Again, the converse of your argument is ALSO true. >> You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST >> be staying alive. > >I cannot gain any VP's at all! That is the starting consideration for >the scenario under discussion. I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the >premise, because it means that I am discussing apples, and you are >discussing oranges. Your starting consideration is so rare as to be an incredibly odd case. Since you have finally posted your example below, I can see that yes, you are screwed and can gain no VPs in that game. But it is VERY, VERY RARE to be in this position, which is something you appear to fail to understand yourself. You ALWAYS have some potential to come back as long as you have one vampire on the table and some pool. >> The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to >> happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your >> position, instead of just giving up. > >I didn't just give up. I made the most of my position to screw the one >who had screwed me. And yes, I did "know" (for all practical I will address THIS statement further down, now that you have posted a concrete example. Suffice it to say, you were screwed, but your own actions were nothing but spite. >> You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most >> amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a >> result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang >> in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide. > >Dude, there was no hope for me. I had no vampires on the table, because >my sole IC member had been stolen by my prey (BEFORE the minion tap) and I >had inadequate pool to bring anyone else out. My predator could do 6 >bleed per turn without modifiers. I discussed the move before I did it, >and none of the other players offered me any hope. There was none to be >had. Dramatic upheaval would not have helped me. Ah... the story begins to come out! See how much easier it is when you post concrete examples in the first place? Without those, I am forced to deal with the usual situation in a game, which is a position that looks totally hopeless but is potentially salvageable with a little luck. >> Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed >> to anyone else? -- > >Derek, this is absurd! I have already stated why I might have reasons to >prevent someone else from winning. IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMPLES, I MUST USE GENERALITIES. Why can't you understand that? You didn't post the situation, so I either have to create my own examples, or try to guess yours, or deal with non-specifics. >> The converse of your statement is ALSO true. > >No it isn't. Not in situation I am describing. The situation I am >describing is one where my statement is true and the converse of my >statement is false. That is how I defined the situation from the >beginning. Actually, the converse of your statement is STILL true in the situation you are describing - you were just feeling angry and spiteful. See below. >> You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your >> prey, > >More precisely, the purpose is to gain vicory points. We are discussing a And ousting your prey is the first step in that process. >> and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator. > >No. That is not the purpose of the game at all. In fact, if I could gain >a victory point by being ousted (and that was my best option) that is >precisely what I would do. The example you state (gaining a VP while being ousted) is extremely rare and can only be pulled off by a few votes. It will not happen often, and I have not personally seen it happen in many, many months. I will stand by my accurate statement that yes, you are intended to attempt to not be ousted by your predator. If you notice, I ordered those statements very carefully - first, oust prey. second, don't get ousted. If you can't do #1 on your turn, you had better do #2. >Appart from hurling insults at me, can you make any rational arguments why >I should not use such tactics in the defined circumstances? Now that you have FULLY DEFINED the circumstances, yes, I can. See below. >> Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your >> vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that >> he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or >> vote actions. > >He certainly does have his reasons. IF those reasons are completely >overwhelming (as in that is his only way of pursuing a victory point), >then there is no point in showing him other reasons why he should not. "only" is not an appropriate word here and should be removed from the sentence. anyone should be free to gain VPs in any manner they can manage, and I'll NEVER rule against anyone who is taking actions that will gain them VPs. >However, his reasons might not be so completely overwhelming. In such >cases it may be in my interest to behave in a manner that makes his >attacks on me less beneficial than they otherwise might have been. Spite. Also, "locking the barn door after the horse is gone." Threats such as "if you do X, i'll transfer myself out" are spite, pure and simple. It is a poor way to apply pressure to someone, and it is one that I will generally completely and totally ignore - if you can't come up with good reasons, please don't proffer bad ones. >> Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though. > >Spite has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am merely trying to behave >in a manner that makes destroying me a less attractive option than it >might otherwise be. There is nothing personal about this at all. Spite doesn't have to be personal. >> - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator. > >You got it, bub. Playing "kingmaker" was all I had left. What's the >problem? If you don't see the problems with playing kingmaker, I don't ever want to play in a game with you. Kingmaking is generally considered one of the biggest problems in multiplayer games where players can all affect each other, and as such is normally avoided like the plague by most people. >> Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is >> FACT, not opinion. > >And a chess position is never hopeless until you are checkmated >(theoretically). This is FACT, not opinion. But, for all practical >purposes, you do face hopeless positions. That is why chess-players >resign before checkmate, even in high stakes tournaments. This is because there is NO luck in chess, and because nobody else can come out of the woods and save you. If you know your opponent has the knowledge to make all the correct moves and mate you, you have no reason to assume that he will make a stupid move and NOT mate you. Again, this analogy is not appropriate. >> People will do crazy shit, > >True, and this is certainly a factor to consider before deciding if your >position is truly hopeless. > >> and you might well get >> another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well >> that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent >> all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1. > >Whatever. *snort* I've conned someone into doing that before. I had two pool, a tapped-out Gangrel combat deck, and he had two vampires. I told him "I can't let you bleed me at all anymore. The first vampire you send over here is going to torpor." Since I had been showing plenty of Guard Dogs previously, he believed me - although my hand was completely pants at the time with two claws, a maneuver, and four Master cards. You may say "whatever", but you shouldn't scoff. A little fast talk can work wonders. So can a little intimidation. >> blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of >> vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You, >> too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to >> screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment. > >I shouldn't need to provide actual examples. I have provided a set of not >impossible circumstances, which any number of examples might fit. I have You have provided a set of extremely rare circumstances, which only a very few specific examples might fit. Saying "i shouldn't need to provide actual examples" is just silly. >provided first one hypothetical example and now one real one, which are at >least as specific as those you provided. The examples you provided were >designed specifically NOT to meet the specifications I defined. It isn't difficult to not meet your specs. Far fewer games are hopeless than you think, which is what I keep trying to point out to you. >> I would also >> take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that >> might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful >> revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with >> Machiavelli's famous quotation. >> >> (i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will >> revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an >> injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is >> possible.") > >I don't see the applicability. If I am looking at a Domain Challenge in my hand and no additional damage votes, and my prey has 3 tapped vampires and 4 pool, and you are cross-table with your tapped-out Rush deck, this is a small injustice to you. What I do on my turn is directly going to relate to how crazy you are likely to be, and whether I think I'll draw up another damage vote. If I think you're going to be crazy and come after me cross-table, then if I draw up a KRC, I can assure you that the 3 extra is going to come YOUR way, so hopefully your predator will get rid of you and I won't have to deal with a Rush. Or if I don't draw up a KRC until the end of my turn, and you *DO* Rush me on your turn, then it'll definitely land on you as well. Revenge-oriented players are something to either step cautiously around, or to step heavily on. >OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can >recall using such tacitics. > >I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC >members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them. >The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by >spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a >single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected. OK, this is a problem already - you can't stack Spying Missions, and you MUST burn the Spying Mission on the "next" bleed. When you do the second Night Moves, the first Spying Mission is burned, and due to card text on Night Moves ("If more than 1 pool is bled with this action, ignore the excess"), the bleed is still for only 1. You can play Dominate modifiers on a Night Moves bleed, and the bleed will still be for only 1. So you can never have more than one Spying Mission in play for any given vampire/Methuselah combination. If you have three vampires, they can all have a Spying Mission out on a Methuselah, but they will all have to take bleed actions to make use of all the SMs. This is a side issue, but still, it needed to be pointed out. >The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of >the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my >deflections were directed to my grand-predator. Which will make him VERY disinclined to do any work for you. Faced with a grandprey bouncing bleeds to me, I would leave my OWN prey alone completely in hopes of getting rid of the strange player taking random actions. Your bounces should still go to your prey, because after you swap with your predator and oust him, your prey will be... your prey! How logical. >I start by bringing out Leandro. My predator was a fast bleeder, but I >had hopes of keeping him at bay with the minion tap in my hand, as well as >some deflections and also had the dramatic upheaval ready to go (with good >chances of passing it). Had I pulled it off, I would have ousted him >rather than the other way round. No, per card text on Night Moves, but go on. >However, my prey is playing a dominate gangrel deck, whose plan it is to >torporize other vampires, and then grave rob them. Even though I am >leaving him alone entirely, he decides to target Leandro. My combat Leandro automatically affects your prey, by his special ability and his very existence. And early in the game, Leandro's special is a real bitch to deal with. Also, Leandro is your first vampire! How does your prey know that you're going to leave him alone in the future? Take your word for it? Of course you've been leaving him alone up 'til now - you've had no vampires! You had no option! =) >defenses fail under multiple presses, and he grave robs Leandro with 11 >pool still on him, as well a a spying mission directed at my predator. A >minion tap that I was planning to use next round sits useless in my hand. > >This totally dooms me. No hope at all. Yep. You're pretty much screwed. Chalk that up to "bad seating position" and "bad crypt draw". >By the time my predator has finished bleeeding my defenseless ass, I have >5 pool left, and 5 blood on the next IC member. I have no hope of >bringing out another vampire. If I had wanted to sit there and just act >as a buffer for the player who just totally screwed me, I could have >transfered 2 pool back, and delayed my predator for another >round. Instead, I chose to put all 4 transfers on my next IC member, >leaving myself at one pool. I have been in situations where I had absolutely no vampires and no way of getting more. I have previously, and would in this situation, taken the 2 pool back and made him actually take the actions to bleed me out, just to maintain the table balance as best I could and NOT attempt to be a kingmaker. Although I doubt you really affected your prey significantly, in this instance. >In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit >too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in Absolutely not. Your prey made an EXCELLENT play by snagging Leandro. A bit too far? Not by a long shot! Your actions, on the other hand, were nothing more than spite. Sure, you were screwed, but it was EASILY his best play in that situation to take Leandro. Why? Leandro has Dominate, so fits into the deck perfectly. A Gangrel DOM deck probably has skill cards, so even Leandro's inferior DOM isn't a big deal. Leandro had 11 blood on him - that's FIVE Grave Robbings at superior that his own vampires don't have to pay for OR take the action to do. Leandro has 4 votes - a Gangrel deck doesn't normally have vote influence, so now he has some. Leandro has an inherent +2 bleed - something that's often a problem for Gangrel as well. And to top it all off, Leandro's special is now a BENEFIT for him, instead of a constant nuisance as before. Plus, you end up with no vampires and can't take any actions to damage him. How can this be wrong for him? >fact replaced a benign predator for one that was far more >dangerous. Having nothing else to do, I facilitated the situation to >emphasize the point. I discussed the situation with other players before >making the move, and they agreed that my position was hopeless. Your position was hopeless, but still spiteful, sorry. "emphasize the point"? In his situation, I would take the same action every single time, even if a weenie Dominate tap-n-bleed horde were your predator. His deck already assumes that he'll have a hostile predator, so if he gets a hostile predator but has a free Leandro on top of it all, he is easily ahead of the game. >target. Neither were my measures against him personal. I merely wished "Sorry I stabbed you. It wasn't anything personal." >to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is >that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options >available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable. See... this kind of thinking just worries me. All it does is screw up the table dynamic, although frankly I doubt your prey cared, he was in such good shape. Nor will it affect my decisions to screw with you in the future, if it's in my own best interest - although I will probably make sure that you get -very- dead if I do screw with you, to minimize the effects of any spiteful retaliations. If you're going to retaliate against someone for making the best play he can in the situation he was in... (shakes head) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > >I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC > >members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them. > >The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by > >spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a > >single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected. > > OK, this is a problem already - you can't stack Spying Missions, and > you MUST burn the Spying Mission on the "next" bleed. When you do the > second Night Moves, the first Spying Mission is burned, and due to > card text on Night Moves ("If more than 1 pool is bled with this > action, ignore the excess"), the bleed is still for only 1. Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed, and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.) [RTR 30-MAY-1995] You can "stack" them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 14:14:17 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed, >and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't >get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.) >[RTR 30-MAY-1995] > >You can "stack" them. Hmm. i had thought that the card text "next time this vampire bleeds"... although I suppose that since Spying Missions get burned at the END of the action, after Deflections and the like, that makes sense. oops. we've been playing backwards for quite a while then. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <39C8FE79...@white-wolf.com>... >Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed, >and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't >get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.) >[RTR 30-MAY-1995] > >You can "stack" them. That is so awesome...and so wrong <a smile so evil my cat ran from the room in sheer terror>!!! Wait 'till the Malks at Malk & Kookies get a hold of this idea...

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:55:53 +0100, David Pontes wrote: > This is why you're bound by VEKN rules to "make deals in a fashion >that is clear and visible to all players and in a language an manner that >leaves no doubts as to the nature of the deal". Where does it say that? It >doesn't. Apparently it was left out. From talks with LSJ, this was >supposed to be in the VEKN rules and are due to be present on the next >revision. That's something to look forward to. Take a look at the legal fine print associated with something like a software licence. It takes an immense amount of verbiage to eliminate uncertainty from a contract and even then, this rests upon an unstated body of statute and common law. Most people don't bother to read such stuff but this would force all players to confront the issue any time they wanted to deal. I was sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament play but this would more than make up for it. Andrew

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:17:17 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >>As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred >>spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player >>likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much >>attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn > >This amuses me, since such a general "deal" is in neither player's >best interests at all. How so? The effectiveness of an alliance is in proportion to the degree of trust between the parties. The more you spell out your obligations, the more that suspicion is aroused and trust is lost. >>Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players >>in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance. > >Not in V:TES they wouldn't be able to. How do you convey "get my guy >out of torpor and i'll Rush your predator's vampire" with a glance? I don't speak their body language but believe their claims. >>Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment. > >"I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes >my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment. You've written this out and even so it is riddled with ambiguity. VEKN rules forbid the taking of notes and so there wouldn't even be this much to go on. A verbal contract is worth the paper that it's written on. >"You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment. Marriage vows are equally open-ended but I don't recommend telling your spouse that they are not a commitment. In this case, I understand more clearly what is meant than your "bleed-bouncer" gibberish. The fact that we don't understand each other is no surprise - this newsgroup is testament to the extent to which folk are able to misunderstand and disagree with each other. The game should not try to make sense of players' utterances - that way lies madness. Andrew

> >Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed, > >and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't > >get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.) > >[RTR 30-MAY-1995] > That is so awesome...and so wrong <a smile so evil my cat ran from the room > in sheer terror>!!! Wait 'till the Malks at Malk & Kookies get a hold of > this idea... The only problem with this is that it takes X turns to stack them and X+1 turns to actually use them all. During that time, your prey won't be losing any pool for all those actions and could be using the pool she didn't lose for other, better things. Plus, all those Spying Missions are a great big bulls eye on the vamp like it's just saying "Rush me, please. Pretty please? Oh, come on, you know you want to...". Lastly, what happens if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole* lot if it cannot be blocked. As I'm sure you can tell, I don't really use Spying Missions... Sorrow

In article <EC46F38BE5E7CA7F.1E159D5B...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I was >sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament >play Why do you wish to penalise players whose natural tongue is not that of the majority of players at the tournament? Also, define "rhyming sentences". Does that count half-rhymes? Eye- rhymes? Internal rhymes? All of those are forms of rhyme. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:22:02 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:17:17 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >How so? The effectiveness of an alliance is in proportion to the >degree of trust between the parties. The more you spell out your >obligations, the more that suspicion is aroused and trust is lost. You are, eventually, trying to oust that person. Your interests involve removing him from the table, at such a time as it will gain you a VP. Trusting any other player implicity is stupid and will get you dead. The game is NOT about happy touchy feely, it's about ancient Methuselahs manipulating younger vampires. As such, "trust" is really just not a part of the game. Making a deal with the devil that involves "You wanna ally?" is just ridiculous on the face of it - the devil will honor the contract when he feels it appropriate, and break it when he feels it appropriate to do THAT, and point out that you didn't say he couldn't do that. Anyone offering or agreeing to such a deal is asking to be screwed with a telephone pole. >>>Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment. >> >>"I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes >>my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment. > >You've written this out and even so it is riddled with ambiguity. No, not especially. As long as the letter of the commitment is satisfied, then nobody should be frosted. Yes, you could Rush any untapped vampire who had the capacity to play bleed bounce cards and say "I rushed your bouncer." Yes, you could Rush and fail. You could Rush and deliberately fail. All of this is to be expected. The devil, is, INDEED, in the details, and this is part of the richness of the game. >VEKN rules forbid the taking of notes and so there wouldn't even be >this much to go on. A verbal contract is worth the paper that it's >written on. Attempting to deny that you made such a deal, with three witnesses and the other deal-maker all saying "He certainly DID make such a deal!", is absurd on the face of it. In any case it doesn't matter - the point is not under debate before a court of law, the point is under debate in front of real live human beings, and rules lawyers tend to get ruled AGAINST these days, just for trying to be rules lawyers. If you choose to claim you didn't make such a deal, and violate the terms of it, you only have to deal with the person you broke your deal with - there are no rules against breaking a deal. The victim can appeal to the tournament judge all he likes, and the judge will just shrug at him, even if he has a written contract notarized by God himself. >>"You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment. > >Marriage vows are equally open-ended but I don't recommend telling >your spouse that they are not a commitment. In this case, I >understand more clearly what is meant than your "bleed-bouncer" >gibberish. The fact that we don't understand each other is no Please do tell me what is not understood about my example? It is excruciatingly specific, and while holes are left in it, they're not very wide. Certainly not enough to qualify as "gibberish". And since nothing specific is said in "you wanna ally", I would pay lip service to it until it no longer served my interests. >surprise - this newsgroup is testament to the extent to which folk are >able to misunderstand and disagree with each other. The game should >not try to make sense of players' utterances - that way lies madness. It doesn't. It lets humans (the judge) do that, which humans are EASILY qualified to do. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:52:21 -0500, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >please? Oh, come on, you know you want to...". Lastly, what happens >if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you >have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole* >lot if it cannot be blocked. Spying Missions don't get burned if the bleed is deflected. They are burned as the VERY last part of the action, as if you are deflected, then you are no longer bleeding that Methuselah and the Spying Mission card text doesn't apply. So you bleed for 1. If your prey deflects, you bleed your grandprey for 1. If your prey DOESN'T deflect, you bleed him for 1+(# of spying missions x 2). > -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Sorrow wrote: > The only problem with this is that it takes X turns to stack them and X+1 > turns to actually use them all. True. > During that time, your prey won't be > losing any pool for all those actions and could be using the pool she didn't > lose for other, better things. This is also true, but what you don't seem to realize is that it works to your advantage. No matter how many times I play Spying Mission decks, my prey seems to have trouble realizing that the pool he is spending is pool he cannot afford, and that he is spending himself within range of me ousting him with my accumulated spying missions. > Plus, all those Spying Missions are a great > big bulls eye on the vamp like it's just saying "Rush me, please. Pretty > please? Oh, come on, you know you want to...". Indeed they are. One thing you don't seem to realize, though, is that Superior Obfuscate (which is required for such a strategy) is pretty good at combat defence. Behind You is either a maneuver or a dodge, depending on what you need, and Swallowed by the Night is either stealth or a maneuver. Zip Guns can provide additional maneuvers just in case, and one of your vamps can get Secure Haven. > Lastly, what happens > if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you > have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole* > lot if it cannot be blocked. Usually, you will have another spying mission, which is one of the great things about a Spying Mission-based S&B deck: Your prey can't use deflections to help him bleed out HIS predator -- the bleed gets reduced to nothing after it gets through. But that's not the best part: Even if I cannot negate the bleed, I am still in good shape, because the deflected bleed will only be for 1, or 2, or whatever the base bleed is. The Spying Missions do not burn unless you successfully bleed the SAME Methuselah as you originally played it on. If the bleed is deflected to ANOTHER methuselah, then the conditions for burning the Spying Missions are not met. I keep my spying missions and get to try again next turn. It gets better: My victem cannot play Archon Investigation when I burn the multiple spying missions. AI is played during the bleed *attempt*, and the Spying Missions are only burned when the bleed is successful. > As I'm sure you can tell, I don't really use Spying Missions... Heh Heh. You are missing out! I'm doing the Nossie Newsletter now, so I'll be giving you an example of a good Spying Mission deck sooner or later.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:09:53 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Attempting to deny that you made such a deal, with three witnesses and >the other deal-maker all saying "He certainly DID make such a deal!", >is absurd on the face of it. In any case it doesn't matter - the >point is not under debate before a court of law, the point is under >debate in front of real live human beings, and rules lawyers tend to >get ruled AGAINST these days, just for trying to be rules lawyers. If >you choose to claim you didn't make such a deal, and violate the terms >of it, you only have to deal with the person you broke your deal with >- there are no rules against breaking a deal. The victim can appeal >to the tournament judge all he likes, and the judge will just shrug at >him, even if he has a written contract notarized by God himself. We are at cross-purposes. My point is that a deal can be used to sanctify collusion. In this case, all the parties to the deal will claim that their behaviour is sanctioned by the deal. They will be quite happy with a loose interpretation of what a deal such as "you wanna ally?" might mean. The theory according to LSJ is that the other players are supposed to nip this in the bud by spotting "losing deals" as they are made. This is impractical. And consider this. There's a five player final for the World Championship or some other big deal. Three of the players decide to improve their chances by forming an alliance. They will draw lots and then arrange matters so that the chap who draws the short straw gets the title. Their plan seems clear enough and, with the majority of players behind it, seems achievable. It is not a losing deal a priori because it improves their winning chances from 20% to 33%. The question is, is this collusion? I would say that it is because, it must rest upon such out-of-game considerations as "honouring your commitments" and "reputation". But it's no good trying to argue that at the outset - maybe one of the players is insincere. The only practical test is to see what players actually do. If they take actions which are not in their own interest then you know that there's something fishy going on. Andrew

> >if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you > >have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole* > >lot if it cannot be blocked. > Spying Missions don't get burned if the bleed is deflected. They are > burned as the VERY last part of the action, as if you are deflected, > then you are no longer bleeding that Methuselah and the Spying Mission > card text doesn't apply. > So you bleed for 1. If your prey deflects, you bleed your grandprey > for 1. If your prey DOESN'T deflect, you bleed him for 1+(# of spying > missions x 2). Re-reading the card, I see that you are correct. However, the first two points remain valid and to me are the main reasons not to use the card (especially point one). Sorrow

> > The only problem with this is that it takes X turns to stack them and X+1 > > turns to actually use them all. > True. To me, this is the more prohibitive factor. I'd much rather be doing actual pool loss to my prey for my bleeding actions. > > During that time, your prey won't be > > losing any pool for all those actions and could be using the pool she didn't > > lose for other, better things. > This is also true, but what you don't seem to realize is that it works to > your advantage. No matter how many times I play Spying Mission decks, my > prey seems to have trouble realizing that the pool he is spending is pool > he cannot afford, and that he is spending himself within range of me > ousting him with my accumulated spying missions. Unless he's got a pretty decent blood machine going... Plus, while you are building up your Spying Missions, your prey is busy ousting her prey - something you are not currently doing. > > Plus, all those Spying Missions are a great > > big bulls eye on the vamp like it's just saying "Rush me, please. Pretty > > please? Oh, come on, you know you want to...". > Indeed they are. One thing you don't seem to realize, though, is that > Superior Obfuscate (which is required for such a strategy) is pretty good > at combat defence. Behind You is either a maneuver or a dodge, depending > on what you need, and Swallowed by the Night is either stealth or a > maneuver. Zip Guns can provide additional maneuvers just in case, All true. But a dedicated combat deck should be able to easily set range to their liking against a light maneuver deck. > and one of your vamps can get Secure Haven. An exception, of course. Can you pull the Secure Haven (probably the only one in your deck) before you pull all those Spying Missions? > > Lastly, what happens > > if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you > > have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole* > > lot if it cannot be blocked. > Usually, you will have another spying mission, which is one of the great > things about a Spying Mission-based S&B deck: Your prey can't use > deflections to help him bleed out HIS predator -- the bleed gets reduced > to nothing after it gets through. Indeed. By why waste it? You still have at least 1 turn to go before you can use your others and who knows how many turns to actually oust your prey and use the one (or more) left on the vamp against your grand prey. > But that's not the best part: Even if I cannot negate the bleed, I am > still in good shape, because the deflected bleed will only be for 1, or 2, > or whatever the base bleed is. The Spying Missions do not burn unless you > successfully bleed the SAME Methuselah as you originally played it on. > If the bleed is deflected to ANOTHER methuselah, then the conditions for > burning the Spying Missions are not met. I keep my spying missions and > get to try again next turn. I conceeded this point to Derek. > It gets better: My victem cannot play Archon Investigation when I burn > the multiple spying missions. AI is played during the bleed *attempt*, > and the Spying Missions are only burned when the bleed is successful. I'm certain this is not true. By the above logic, my vamp can attempt to bleed you for 1 and when you say you'll take it, play SUP Conditioning to make it a bleed of 4 and you cannot play AI. AI, I'm sure, uses the final total of the bleed that you are going to take (or modify) for it's requirement. LSJ? > > As I'm sure you can tell, I don't really use Spying Missions... > Heh Heh. You are missing out! No, I don't think so. I don't seem to have much problem ousting my prey w/o them. > I'm doing the Nossie Newsletter now, so I'll be giving you an example of a > good Spying Mission deck sooner or later. I'll be looking for it. Sorrow

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:55:32 -0500, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> So you bleed for 1. If your prey deflects, you bleed your grandprey >> for 1. If your prey DOESN'T deflect, you bleed him for 1+(# of spying >> missions x 2). > >Re-reading the card, I see that you are correct. However, the first two >points remain valid and to me are the main reasons not to use the card >(especially point one). Well, stacking up multiple SMs on one vampire is probably not the most effective use of the card. Having four different vampires use Night Moves in one turn and drop SMs on them, THAT is effective - since it achieves a potential bleed for 12 with those same SMs and requires that someone figure out how to block *four* OBF minions, as opposed to just Deflecting one. And it's definitely one of the best ways to increase bleeds for the Nossies, who can use it as the business end of a bruise-and-bleed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gf3kssgi97fbtbgfp...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Plus it can be used with Dirty Little Secrets with the !Nos for a change of pace. I hate when my wife plays those two cards with Steam Tunnels... BLECH! oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster V:EKN Prince of Caledon "Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste Brought death into the world, and all our woe." John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:28:04 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:09:53 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >We are at cross-purposes. My point is that a deal can be used to >sanctify collusion. In this case, all the parties to the deal will >claim that their behaviour is sanctioned by the deal. They will be >quite happy with a loose interpretation of what a deal such as "you >wanna ally?" might mean. The theory according to LSJ is that the >other players are supposed to nip this in the bud by spotting "losing >deals" as they are made. This is impractical. Actually, I'd point out very graciously to them that their "deal" is, in fact, not a deal in MY eyes, and they ought to both get more specific *and* start playing to win, or face penalties. Assuming that one of them was NOT playing to win, that is. Someone trying to rules-lawyer me and tell me that they were just honoring a deal, and then trying to tell me that "well, we agreed to 'be allies', so i'm helping him"... I would point out that assisting someone to your own visible detriment is not common in an "ally" relationship. Voting with a cross-table buddy is one thing. But taking Rush actions across table, or handing your own vote damage across table in favor of your ally... No. Not unless there was something SPECIFIC laid down in advance, much like my example about "get my guy out of torpor and i'll rush one of your predator's vampires." And the good thing about specific deals is that it's easy to spot when someone is deliberately trying to "assist". ("Get my guy out of torpor and I'll Rush all your prey's vampires for the next three turns" would draw a flag from me as just a little too obvious.) >And consider this. There's a five player final for the World >Championship or some other big deal. Three of the players decide to >improve their chances by forming an alliance. They will draw lots and >then arrange matters so that the chap who draws the short straw gets >the title. Their plan seems clear enough and, with the majority of >players behind it, seems achievable. It is not a losing deal a >priori because it improves their winning chances from 20% to 33%. This is the sort of rules-lawyering verbiage that I would just backhand across the room and say "I don't care what statistics you manufacture to support this ridiculous claim -- it's collusion, you know it, I know it, and if you continue with such an action you will all be penalized." Further whiners could be ejected. That's the trick with these sort of people. It's NOT a court of law, it's a benevolent dictatorship. There is a point in which arguing is good - and there is a point in which you must just lay the smack down. >The question is, is this collusion? I would say that it is because, >it must rest upon such out-of-game considerations as "honouring your It rests on an out-of-game consideration, 'drawing the short straw', to determine the winner. This would be enough to bag it in my sight. If three people, at the start of the game, banded together and said "OK, let's all get these two decks off the table and then we'll fight it out 3 ways from there", I'd have to let it go - it rests solely on in-game considerations, and it has potential to be beneficial for all 3 players: you only need 3 VPs to win the table, and all players left in will still have a chance to win. >practical test is to see what players actually do. If they take >actions which are not in their own interest then you know that there's >something fishy going on. Correct. Deals made in secret prior to the game are "collusion". Deals made in the open, DURING the game, could still be collusion, but have a lot better chance of getting by. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Sorrow wrote: > > > The only problem with this is that it takes X turns to stack them and > X+1 > > > turns to actually use them all. > > True. > > To me, this is the more prohibitive factor. I'd much rather be doing actual > pool loss to my prey for my bleeding actions. Perhaps, but I have found it works efficiently in decks designed around it. Weaknesses that I have encountered are not the ones that you have mentioned. Perhaps 'twould be best to save my arguments, for when I post the deck. > > This is also true, but what you don't seem to realize is that it works to > > your advantage. No matter how many times I play Spying Mission decks, my > > prey seems to have trouble realizing that the pool he is spending is pool > > he cannot afford, and that he is spending himself within range of me > > ousting him with my accumulated spying missions. > > Unless he's got a pretty decent blood machine going... Plus, while you are > building up your Spying Missions, your prey is busy ousting her prey - > something you are not currently doing. You presume too much. My deck is pretty fast at what it does, and the spying missions don't sit around that long. It's weaknesses are bleed and vote defence, not offence or combat defence. But like I said, I will post the deck, and you can critique it then. > All true. But a dedicated combat deck should be able to easily set range > to their liking against a light maneuver deck. These "light maneuvers" will be less light than usual, and the dedicated combat deck will have to be more dedicated. > > and one of your vamps can get Secure Haven. > > An exception, of course. Can you pull the Secure Haven (probably the only > one in your deck) before you pull all those Spying Missions? No, but If I don't, then there's good odds I have Elesium or lots of maneuvers/dodges instead. OBF is fare more efficient than obf DOM in this area, for several reasons that I'd prefer to save for when I post the deck (BTW, this is not the same as rather experimental deck I was discussing with Derek). > > Usually, you will have another spying mission, which is one of the great > > things about a Spying Mission-based S&B deck: Your prey can't use > > deflections to help him bleed out HIS predator -- the bleed gets reduced > > to nothing after it gets through. > > Indeed. By why waste it? You still have at least 1 turn to go before you > can use your others and who knows how many turns to actually oust > your prey and use the one (or more) left on the vamp against your grand > prey. I "waste" it because it prevents me helping my prey oust his grand-prey and getting six pool. Still, the bleed is not negated, but merely reserved for my benefit only. The card is replaced and there is plenty more where it came from. I don't have to worry about "wasting" bleed cards, because this deck design does not have the card-cycling problems that standard Malkavian S&B has. > > It gets better: My victem cannot play Archon Investigation when I burn > > the multiple spying missions. AI is played during the bleed *attempt*, > > and the Spying Missions are only burned when the bleed is successful. > > I'm certain this is not true. By the above logic, my vamp can attempt to > bleed you for 1 and when you say you'll take it, play SUP Conditioning > to make it a bleed of 4 and you cannot play AI. AI, I'm sure, uses the > final total of the bleed that you are going to take (or modify) for it's > requirement. Spying Missions are *only* burned on a *successful* bleed (on the *same* methuselah). AI'd bleeds are not successful -- so AI-ing a bunch of burned spying missions creates a contradiction in which the necessary conditions of neither card have been met: SMs are either burned on an unsuccessful bleed, or, since the SMs could not have burned, an AI played an a bleed of 3 or less. The timing is different than Conditioning, which is why it is too late to deflect as well. The nature of the card ensurese that it must be the last effect played. Similarly, you cannot play Telepathic Counter after a spying mission burns. You could play it beforehand, or course, in which case the SM most likely will not burn. Check out the rulings. It was all still there last time I checked. > > > As I'm sure you can tell, I don't really use Spying Missions... > > Heh Heh. You are missing out! > > No, I don't think so. I don't seem to have much problem ousting my > prey w/o them. Perhaps you'll humor my and try the deck anyway. > > I'm doing the Nossie Newsletter now, so I'll be giving you an example of a > > good Spying Mission deck sooner or later. > > I'll be looking for it. Til then. -- John Whelan

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:54:01 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >>sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament >>play > >Why do you wish to penalise players whose natural tongue is not that of >the majority of players at the tournament? In my experience, most players will be tongue-tied when such a card is in play. Their native language is a minor consideration. The players who are most handicapped are those who never stop talking. I always liked the Silencer power in Cosmic Encounter too. >Also, define "rhyming sentences". Does that count half-rhymes? Eye- >rhymes? Internal rhymes? All of those are forms of rhyme. Clearly a judgement call is required. It is easier to make this call than to decide whether a deal is losing or not. Andrew

In article < 2CD84752DE2D3A53.49410A0C...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:18:30 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >This year ... i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them > >not to make deals with him. > > This is collusion. > > Andrew > A bit late in the day, but this is from the official rules: "161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion Definition: A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the results of a game. Philosophy: 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 outside incentives such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prize money would be acceptable.) All players involved in all affected matches agree on the outcome. Penalty: Disqualification without Prize." i actually couldn't find anything about pre-game fixing being cheating, though i'm pretty sure that most cases of it would fall under unsportspersonlike conduct. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

David Pontes wrote: > This is why you're bound by VEKN rules to "make deals in a fashion > that is clear and visible to all players and in a language an manner that > leaves no doubts as to the nature of the deal". Where does it say that? It > doesn't. Apparently it was left out. From talks with LSJ, this was > supposed to be in the VEKN rules and are due to be present on the next > revision. I'd appreciate if LSJ confirmed this, so I wont't look silly > right now :) Secret signs/signals/deals are unsportsmanlike, by most definitions. This would include speaking in a language that is not understood by all players at the table. It would be up to the judge, of course. There are still no plans to spell out everything that is "unsportsmanlike" - that's what the judge is for. -- 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/

In article <47265233DEB867E0.E9698321...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:54:01 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > >>>sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament >>>play >> >>Why do you wish to penalise players whose natural tongue is not that of >>the majority of players at the tournament? > >In my experience, most players will be tongue-tied when such a card is >in play. Their native language is a minor consideration. Bollocks. It might take a fluent English speaker some time to think up a very crap rhyme, but almost all can do it, especially since they often have some time before their turn. I have enough French that I could go to a French-speaking tournament and just about get by. Could I even begin to think of a rhyme in French? No, I don't know the French language well enough. Are we to enforce all players to be utterly and completely fluent in the language of the tournament before they're allowed to play? I would also note that nothing in the game ever requires you to speak, to the best of my knowledge. Writing things down, for the whole table to see, is not prohibited and is not speaking. Such might be the only way for a player with speech difficulties to play the game. Is your written <insert foreign language here> good enough to write things down? It is not uncommon for people to be able to get by in a language orally but to have no ability to write the language. Again, the fluent and literate player gets by. > The players >who are most handicapped are those who never stop talking. I've often found that those who "need" to talk simply take (D) actions to get rid of it. >I always >liked the Silencer power in Cosmic Encounter too. You're quite welcome to play with it in friendlies, but in a V:EKN tournament, anyone can turn up and be entitled to play. GenCon '97 had two German players. Their English was good, though one notably better than the other. This year, we had David Pontes and Xavier Abad, who are not from English-speaking countries and, at times, as almost all of us do in foreign languages, struggled for a few words here and there. There's no problem with that, at all - unless you are putting arbitrary constraints on the manner in which they are allowed to speak. >>Also, define "rhyming sentences". Does that count half-rhymes? Eye- >>rhymes? Internal rhymes? All of those are forms of rhyme. > >Clearly a judgement call is required. Indeed, and an interesting evasion of the question. But define some constraints for it, just try. Does each sentence have to rhyme internally e.g. I play this card, Which wasn't very hard. Or do we allow: I play this card called Whispers from the Dead. I fetch back Undead Strength , to pound your head. How about: Player: I play Majesty so combat will end. Judge (watching): You didn't rhyme your sentence, so burn a pool. Player: What do you mean? I did, my hasty friend. Or: Player: I zoom passed you to get some pool. Would the following extract from Pope work? Here thou, great ANNA! whom three realms obey, Dost sometimes counsel take -- and sometimes Tea. In modern English pronunciation, it's a half-rhyme. In the original pronunciation, as Pope intended, one of my supervisors maintains there is a very good chance it was a real rhyme. Do we allow it? And do our sentences have to scan? If not, making them rhyming does become mostly a mockery - and requiring them to scan would require errata to the card. >It is easier to make this call >than to decide whether a deal is losing or not. The making of a judgement call on the card is *not* the pertinent issue. It is, however, an additional, difficult issue. Also, would you prefer that a judge is required to ignore all forms of collusion, no matter how blatant? e.g. 10 players turn up from one playgroup and continually back each other up, no matter how stupid the deal, just so that one of them can get the prize (an original piece of artwork, for instance, or a cache of rare cards, as some tournaments use)? Many judges, myself included, will use a laissez-faire form of judgement on such issues - but the ability to enforce such a judgement, when required, is absolutely necessary. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail) "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why it's possible I could get by."

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:40:22 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >A bit late in the day, but this is from the official rules: > >"161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion Which official rules? This is not what I found on the WW web site. Andrew

In article <04B50E27B5C7A52D.35FD7D3B...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>A bit late in the day, but this is from the official rules: >> >>"161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion > >Which official rules? This is not what I found on the WW web site. Then you need to look harder. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <v1mIVoCj...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <47265233DEB867E0.E9698321...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:54:01 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > > > >>>sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament > >>>play > >> > >>Why do you wish to penalise players whose natural tongue is not that of > >>the majority of players at the tournament? > > > >In my experience, most players will be tongue-tied when such a card is > >in play. Their native language is a minor consideration. > > Bollocks. It might take a fluent English speaker some time to think up > a very crap rhyme, but almost all can do it, especially since they often > have some time before their turn. I always use the echovalley defense to MotBard. You say everything twice, with different timing and inflection. I'm bleeding you for THREE. I'm bleeding YOU for three. Conditioning, that's now six. conditioning, that's NOW SIX. Gets booring as somthing that's really booring, possibly why I've seen the card twice. Should see the MotBard player trying to argue, that's not a rhyme while rhymeing and not using the echovalley defense. -- Michael F. Tomkins Sure, when... m.to...@student.canberra.edu.au OINK FLAP OINK FLAP... University of Canberra, Australia. Well I'll be damned! http://student.canberra.edu.au/~u964617/

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:29:47 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >>>A bit late in the day, but this is from the official rules: >>> >>>"161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion >> >>Which official rules? This is not what I found on the WW web site. > >Then you need to look harder. I looked harder - it's still not in the VEKN rules on the WW site. I assume that he's quoting an old version. Andrew

In article <266D6E66D07DD9FF.76223D45...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I looked harder - it's still not in the VEKN rules on the WW site. I >assume that he's quoting an old version. No, he wasn't. Look harder. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknPenalty.html Now you have proved yourself utterly incapable of performing the simplest search, can you please stop parading round as though you actually understand the rules of the game when, quite clearly, you do not? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:24:57 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >Look harder. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknPenalty.html Thanks. >Now you have proved yourself utterly incapable of performing the >simplest search... There's no link to this document on the main VTES page and the site's search function didn't work when I tried it. Andrew

In article <6085C5B5CF9C662A.0F893BA0...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>Now you have proved yourself utterly incapable of performing the >>simplest search... > >There's no link to this document on the main VTES page and the site's >search function didn't work when I tried it. It is one level of links deep. Had you read the tournament rules, you would have found the link to the guidelines. This suggests you have never thoroughly read the tournament rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39BF6F05...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > stubby wrote: > > > the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup > > > delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final. > > > > I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like > > it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament > > rules. Each player is expected to play for his own benefit, not for > > anyone elses. > > Quite right. If any of the members of a playgroup (or anyone at all, for that > matter) plays to aid another player *instead* of herself (i.e., taking > measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position > suffers), that is collusion, and it is against the V:EKN rules. One question about that, I don't have time right now to read the 50+ messages in the thread so apologies if it's already been asked. If I've been backstabbed in an earlier round of the tournament, and in the current game I know I'm about to die but I want to cause a bit of carnage on the way out, can I attack the backstabber even though he's not my prey or predator? Matt -- "We're all mad, you see. I'm mad, you're mad, we're all of us quite insane. Who wouldn't be, after all this time doing this crap?" "Why do you think I'm mad?" "Why, of course you're mad. If you weren't mad, you wouldn't be here." - Jack L Chalker, "The Hot-Wired Dodo"

In article <psycho_bunny-2...@g27mac14.anu.edu.au>, Matt <psycho...@freemail.com.au> writes >If I've been >backstabbed in an earlier round of the tournament, and in the current game I >know I'm about to die but I want to cause a bit of carnage on the way out, >can I attack the backstabber even though he's not my prey or predator? Assuming no-one else were to be involved in your decision, it would be difficult to rule this as collusion. At a very long shot, someone might try you for unsportsmanlike conduct. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:40:22 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: >A bit late in the day, but this is from the official rules: > >"161. Cheating - Bribery/Collusion >Definition: A player attempts to bribe an opponent into changing the >results of a game. >... >i actually couldn't find anything about pre-game fixing being cheating, >though i'm pretty sure that most cases of it would fall under >unsportspersonlike conduct. Now I've found these rules, it does indeed appear that pre-game fixing is not collusion, as defined here, so long as there is no bribe. Unsportsmanlike Conduct can be stretched to cover anything the Judge likes but it seems pretty clear from the examples given that it is not intended to cover this. So if players want to conspire against their personal enemies, throw games in a spiteful manner and so forth, they appear to be free to do so. I had thought that Garfield had designed Jyhad to be largely free of player politics but now think that it's worse in this respect than other multi-player CCG. Tsk. Andrew

On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:17:59 +1100, Michael F. Tomkins wrote: >I always use the echovalley defense to MotBard. You say everything >twice, with different timing and inflection. > >I'm bleeding you for THREE. >I'm bleeding YOU for three. > >Conditioning, that's now six. >conditioning, that's NOW SIX. > >Gets booring as somthing that's really booring, possibly why I've seen >the card twice. Should see the MotBard player trying to argue, that's >not a rhyme while rhymeing and not using the echovalley defense. I'm not sure why you change the emphasis but it sounds quite artistic. Another formula would be to use a chorus or noise-word like EIEIO in Old MacDonald. The rhyming requirement is not difficult to fudge but the card's purpose is not to generate great poetry. What is does is: * discomfit tight-asses * penalise those who forget about it * entertain Andrew

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:55:47 +0100, James Coupe wrote: >Writing things down, for the whole table >to see, is not prohibited and is not speaking. That reminds me. Writing things down is, in fact, prohibited by rule 1.4 of the VEKN tournament rules. In particular, you wouldn't be allowed to write down the terms of a deal which some players, like Derek, think need to be very specific. A verbal deal is worth the paper that it is written on. Andrew

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 05:43:10 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:55:47 +0100, James Coupe wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] *sigh* My goodness, Andrew, you CAN be so silly sometimes. A person who breaks a deal is a person who breaks a deal - it is only relevant to the person who was screwed, and the person doing the screwing. A verbal deal may not be enforceable in a court of law, but V:TES has no courts of law in the first place, and no penalty for breaking a deal to your own benefit, so that solves THAT problem... and not incidentally renders that cliche' you've used quite moot. Rest assured that if you make a deal with me, it will be verbal and -very- specific. If you violate the specific terms of the deal, I will attempt to zotz you for it in that game, and I will not likely make deals with you at ALL from anything but a position of strength for several games in the future. I might well make one and break it, actually, just as an incentive to not do that to me again. Since it is not unsportsmanlike to refuse to make any deals, and it is not unsportsmanlike nor against the rules to break a deal for my own benefit, I don't see how there's much of a problem here. If you violate the spirit of the deal by recourse to a means I didn't specify, well, bad luck for me. I won't hold it as a broken deal. For example, suppose I get you to agree that you won't bleed me with your Malkavians, and I won't Rush them and blow their heads off. Then you drop a Malk Rider Clause on my prey's vote, and a KRC on your next turn. I have shot myself in the foot and am going to have to break the deal MYSELF, leaving you open to bleed me silly in retaliation. (Of course, I would avoid making a deal with such a gaping hole in it in the first place. =) You keep missing that I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and I don't care what you might provide as your excuse for breaking the deal. You might claim you forgot. Too bad - learn to remember better! Since the deal will have been made in the open, there will be 3 OTHER players handy to remember for you. You might claim the terms are other than what we agreed on - that's fine, you may claim that all you want. I'll contradict you once to see if you back off of that stance, and simply keep in mind that you're THAT sort, in the future. Are you likely to end up having a bad turn done to you in the future because of this? Most likely. Will I do it in a foolish manner, such as Rushing cross-table gratuitously? No, of course not. I am -very- careful to take actions that are directly to my own benefit in some way, because acting in this manner gives me my best chance of winning. Of course, if the seating situation is appropriate, I might attempt to solicit favors for ME from your predator in exchange for Rushing one of your vampires, perhaps him calling a vote to damage my prey... and that will be your problem. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

a...@csi.com wrote: > That reminds me. Writing things down is, in fact, prohibited by rule > 1.4 of the VEKN tournament rules. In particular, you wouldn't be > allowed to write down the terms of a deal which some players, like > Derek, think need to be very specific. A verbal deal is worth the > paper that it is written on. That "player 1" and "player 2" have made a deal is part of the status of the game, clearly, as are the terms of the deal made. As such, they could be written down by the section you cite. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Rafid Armani wrote: > >So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of > >ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against > >my predator? How is that any different? > > I think that a methuselah has two defined parts in the game : predator > and prey. That is a truism. > When I play, I try to do my best in both parts. I presume that means that you try to oust your pey, and avoid being ousted by your predator. The first takes priority, of course, with the second applying primarily as a means by which the first can be achieved. > If, > sometimes, I become a too easy prey for my predator, I try to reduce > my actions as predator to make a balance. Your strategy to oust your prey is a poor one if you see that you will yourself be ousted before you succeed. You are therefore forced to pick a new strategy. The ultimate goal is still the same ... oust your prey. Any damage you are forced to inflict on your predator is regrettable, as you do not really want to help anyone but yourself gain victory points, but it may be a necessary means to acheiving your ultimate end. > My first task, if I want to > have a chance to win, is to stay alive. So, when I`m too weak to > survive, If you are really too weak to survive, your remaining arguments become moot. > my only chance is to transfer all my energy on the defensive > mode (so I can maybe survive a little more and, you know, good things > happen sometimes...). So this is a situation where you still have hope of victory points, yes? > This strategy is not a way to punish my > predator, it`s a way of giving me all the chances I can and all the > time I can. Clearly not, since you still have hope of victory points. One wonders, though, since you are into desperate hopes, why not start transferring a minion out? If you are hoping for a miracle, why not hope for additional pool via multiple Parity Shifts that will get this minion out for you? After all, you need minions to play the game ... to have any real hope of victory. Without minions, any "miracle" that keeps you alive only serves the interest of other players. > Time can get you killed, time can give you rebirth ; you > never know. Since, as you say, you "never know", why not try to get a minion in play? This way, any miracles that happen may actually give you a chance. > To survive is the first task of a prey. No. Victory points are the first task. If survival was the first task, then a player who was ousted with no victory points after 3 hours of play would beat a player who was ousted with 2 victory points after 20 minutes. > When the deer succeed in > surviving the wolf`s attack, it don`t thinks : "Screw you Mr Wolf !" > It was all for itself, not against anything. Neither does a dying deer, in the process of being eaten, have any motive to prolong the agony in the hopes of being eaten by a different predator. -- John Whelan

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Frankly and IMO, you appear to be backpedaling furiously in the face > of counterexamples. To the best of my knowledge, I have not backpedalled at all, much less "furiously", and have consistently presented the same viewpoint. At most I have added a few nuances to a position that was at first stated only in brief. Nor was my original, briefly stated, position presented in absolute terms. From the start, I chose my words carefully so as to leave plenty of room for later qualification. I realize of course that you would prefer that I cooperate with your efforts to apply to all my words the worst possible interpretation, but that does not make me a "backpedalar". The "counterexamples" you provided clearly failed to meet the criteria I initially discussed. How is pointing this out "backpedaling"? > I could go back to your message and quote the > relevant bits, but it's really not that important - what's being said > in THIS message is much clearer and easier to work with. The criteria described in the original post were well defined enough. You just were unable to grasp that such things were possible without concrete examples. Until I provided concrete examples, you kept claiming that my criteria were impossible to meet. Amazingly, you are still doing that. <snip> > >> If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him, > > > >What the hell makes you think he is likely to come after you? Because he > >played a cross-table attack "at all" in a previous game? > > Well, I would certainly be WORRIED that he might come after me if he > went cross-table for no reason in a previous game. What is this "no reason" crap. Once again, I am discussing apples, and you are discussing oranges. The circumstances, as I defined them from the beginning, are A) No hope of a victory point, and B) a reason to retaliate against a specific player. You seem determined to give the most negative possible interpretation to any statement I make. When I suggest a situation where there is a motivation to come cross-table, you assume it is a bad reason, apparently with no other logic than that Derek Ray despises John Whelan, and therfore assumes that all John Whelan's reasons must be bad. But when you discuss yourself coming cross-table, one is supposed to assume your reasons are good. You have even advocated retaliatory deterrance against deal-breakers -- hardly much different from the sort fo retaliatory deterrance I am advocating, except that I have the additional excuse that I am discussing a no-hope situation. You complain that my examples were not specific enough. Was I supposed to know that you were going to have it in for me? Was I supposed to know you were going to give them the worst possible interpretation, then demand I prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? This debate with you is really becoming surreal. > >> then I > >> want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas. > > > >What bright ideas? Why should the specific circumstances of a previous > >game apply to this one? > > Because I'm not a moron? Someone who performed an unwarranted > cross-table action in the previous game is just as likely to perform > one in this game. How did you assume, from what I said, that the cross-table attacks I was discussing were "unwarranted"? > I doubt I'd ever strike out on turn 1 bashing into > him, but it's very situational. If cross-table attacks are "very situational", then why, again, did you assume that the ones I was discussing were unwarranted? Or are cross-table attacks only warranted when you do them? <snip Tremere example> > >> If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all > >> depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as > >> you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and > >> basically played kingmaker frequently, > > > >Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I > >have played (though there may have been other examples in distant > >memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are > >extremely rare. > > But didn't you say before that these tactics were appropriate? I said they were sometimes appropriate under the defined circumstances. I never discussed the frequencey of the defined circumstances. That issue was raised by you later, when you began accusing me of advocating habitual behavior of this nature outside of the defined circumstances. > Only > once in your entire career tends to show otherwise, doesn't it? And > now you're saying the circumstances are extremely rare. Hmmm. Yes, I am now saying that, because the issue has been raised. Initially, I did not discuss the frequency of the defined circumstances at all. I had no idea anyone would try to make an issue out of it. And I never said "once in my entire career". I said only once in recent memory ... such that it may be recalled. Despite your overwrought attitude, I did not experience these as traumatice events that seared themselves in guilt on my soul forever. I remembered a single event only because it was recent. These are not things that anyone thought remarkable enough to make a fuss over. <snip> > >> >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his > >> >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases. > >> > >> Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however. > > > >Right, and a chess game isn't over until you are checkmated. > > There is no luck in chess, and nobody else is able to step in and save > you. It is you v. him. In V:TES, it is quite different. 2 other > players have something to gain from you remaining at the table - your > grandpredator, who doesn't want his prey to gain 6 pool, and your > grandprey, who wants you to live and put pressure on HIS predator. > Possibly your prey as well, who might rather have you alive than your > predator. (I've "saved" predators before.) > > Your analogy is flawed and therefore not relevant. It is relevant as far as it goes. If you want to claim that there is no such thing as a lost position in Jyhad (or Chess), then you need to do more than just shout truisms like "Jyhad isn't over until your out of pool" (or "a Chess game isn't over til you are checkmated"). That was my only point, and you seem to have taken it since you are now producing actual arguments that apply to the individual games. However all this may be moot, since you seem to concede (below) that there *can* in fact be such a thing as a lost position in Jyhad, however "rare" that may be. <snip> > Kingmaking is generally viewed as "bad" in any > multiplayer game, As far as I know, this is not true at all. I guess that depends on what you mean by "Kingmaking". As I understand it, the Kingmaker dynamic signifies the extent to which any one player may effect the balance of power between remaining players. As just defined, the Kingmaker effect operates in many real life situations involving multiple parties, and it is only right and proper that many games (ie. Risk, Diplomacy) provide a forum to simulate this dynamic. A typical feature of such games is that everyone will tend to gang up on the player who appears strongest at the time, which will tend to eliminate him from play. It is therefore important to avoid appearing as too great a threat, and diplomacy becomes more important than the quantity and quality of observable resources you have in play. In collectible card games like Jyhad, which are designed to reward skillful deck construction, there are good reasons why the Kingmaker effect needs to be limited or minimized, (though not necessarily eliminated entirely). Some people will start out with better decks than others, and it is better that they not be punished for it. The other problem with the Kingmaker dynamic is that the stronger it is, the greater the opportunity for "collusion" in any competition where the stakes are high. Collusion is regarded as unsportsmanlike. In other words, "Kingmaking" is unsportsmanlike when it becomes a goal that is placed ahead of pursuing victory. But even if everyone plays to win, the kingmaker dynamic inevitably operates to the extent that the game design allows it. > and that's what you're doing in the example above - [kingmaking] Really? How do you know I am not retaliating for "Kingmaker" tactics taken against me? Perhaps my strategies work as a deterrent to "Kingmaker" tactics. Best as I can tell, that is what they would tend to do. Sure, my actions have an effect on the balance of power between the remaining players. That is hardly unusual, and there is no way to avoid it while playing V:tES. If that's all you are saying, then fine, I am a "kingmaker." > because of your "roll over" action, you screw up your prey and your > grand-predator sharply. Specifically, you screw your grand-predator > BADLY, who could possibly have ousted your predator before you HANDED > HIM SIX EXTRA POOL ON YOUR TURN. So instead, you suggest that I screw my predator and grand-grand predator just as sharply by going the other way. I just don't get it. If I am faced with two alternatives, one which favors my prey, another which favors my predator, and neither which help me, then it would seem to me that I am entitled to make a choice. For all your exaggerated outrage and contempt, I cannot for the life of me understand why you regard one alternative as morally superior to the other, or why I should prefer to screw my predator than screw my prey. Also, I think you should leave out such adverbial flourishes as "sharply" and "BADLY" from the discussion. None of my examples defined how sharp a difference my choice would have on the table dynamic, nor how catestrophic any particular choice would be for any particular player. All this depends very much on precise circumstances that were never defined. > Would it have mattered to you? No. A choice must be made. I make my choice for whatever reasons seem to me most appropriate. In this case I have clearly stated the nature of the motives. The point was to perform a retaliatory deterrent which I hoped would improve my chances of victory in future games. A less hostile debater would probably have been satisfied with trying to convince me that I was mistaken in believing my tactics would be of any help in future games. This might have been an interesting debate, and would have rendered unecessary all this ad hominem crap you are hurling concerning my presumed motives. > Did it fuck up the table dynamic? YES. It altered the table dynamic. Either choice alters the table dynamic equally, when compared with the other choice. > Is it unsportsmanlike? YES. You have yet to make a coherent argument why it is unsportsmanlike. In particular, why is it less sportsmanlike than the alternative: transferring back to your pool in order to make life difficult for you predator? I don't regard either choice as unsportmanlike, but if I were to choose one over the other, I would say that transferring down is the least sportsmanlike option. To pursue the object the game, you need to have vampires in play. If you don't have a vampire in play, you need to try to get one out. Even if there is no real hope of succeeding, that still seems to me the most normal and least "spiteful" thing to do. The only alternative is to pursue a screw-your-predator strategy that will do absolutely nothing to improve your chances of victory, neither in this game nor in future games. It is *this* that to me seems more likely to be motivated by "spite". > >> >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually > >> >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious > >> > >> Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game. > > > >Right, and as I have already explained, that is worth neither reward nor > >punishment because it is not an aspect of his behavior that I have the > >power to influence. It is his task as defined by the rules, and I need > >make no effort to persuade nor dissuade him, because such would be a > >useless gesture. Predators *will* go after their prey. It is as > > A grandpredator with a Rush deck has two options: Rush vampires, or > bleed for 1 (or more, possibly). If you are about to die, you ought > to turn around and persuade him that Rushing vampires would be more > beneficial to him than bleeding for 4, even if your predator is only > at 6 pool, because if your predator has no vampires, he cannot oust > you and your grandpredator can bleed him for 4 NEXT turn just as > easily. However, if he bleeds for 4 and your predator ousts you, it > is a net loss to your grandpredator of 2 points of forward progress. > Most grandpredators will realize this. Some need to have it pointed > out to them. This is all very amusing, but it still does not explain why I owe my Grand-Predator any special favors if he has not done me any. > >pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own > >predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is > >designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me > >trying to reward his behavior with my final actions. > > Nobody is suggesting that you "reward" him - but just that you not > SCREW him. Your problem is that you have designated one choice as being somehow neutral and normal, and the other as altering the table dynamic. As far as I can tell, this decision of yours is entirly arbitrary. Why are you demanding that I not screw my prey, and screw my predator instead? <snip> > >Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all > >cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there > >is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator. > > There is no reason to go out in a way that FAVORS your predator, > either. Again, the converse of your argument is ALSO true. Firstly, that is a very weak argument to justify the claim that one alternative is unsportsmanlike and the other is A-OK. You'll have to do better than that in making distinctions. Secondly, there *is* a reason. The reason is that because my prey royally screwed me, I wish to go out in a way that disfavors hims (rather than go out in a way which favors him -- my only other choice). That this incidentally disfavors my grand-predator is of no concern to me, unless I owe him some loyalty, which, we are assuming, I do not in this particular case. > >> You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST > >> be staying alive. > > > >I cannot gain any VP's at all! That is the starting consideration for > >the scenario under discussion. I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the > >premise, because it means that I am discussing apples, and you are > >discussing oranges. > > Your starting consideration is so rare as to be an incredibly odd > case. Regardless of how rare it is (and words like "incredible" are clearly going too far), that does not explain why you refused to accept the starting considerations as a basis of discussion, when that starting consideration was repeatedly defined. > Since you have finally posted your example below, I can see > that yes, you are screwed and can gain no VPs in that game. Why thank you. I find it frankly rather absurd that I had to expend such incredible energies convincing you that such was actually possible. > But it is > VERY, VERY RARE to be in this position, which is something you appear > to fail to understand yourself. Why are you accusing me of failing to understand this? When have I ever said anything that implied the contrary? > You ALWAYS have some potential to > come back as long as you have one vampire on the table and some pool. That may be debatable, but it does not matter. It is up to the individual player to make such determinations to the best of his ability, and it may be that he may err. In any event, if I have one vampire on the table, and I perceive that there is still hope, then the strategies I outlined would not be appropriate to these circumstances. <snip> > Ah... the story begins to come out! See how much easier it is when > you post concrete examples in the first place? Without those, I am > forced to deal with the usual situation in a game, which is a position > that looks totally hopeless but is potentially salvageable with a > little luck. Nonsense. I presented a hypothetical situation. No matter how unusual that hypothetical situation was, nobody "forced" you to substitute a different, more usual, situation of your own devising, and falsely present it as the one I had discussed. > >> Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed > >> to anyone else? -- > > > >Derek, this is absurd! I have already stated why I might have reasons to > >prevent someone else from winning. > > IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMPLES, I MUST USE GENERALITIES. Why can't you > understand that? You didn't post the situation, so I either have to > create my own examples, or try to guess yours, or deal with > non-specifics. Derek, the circumstances were defined as follows: A) No hope of victory, B) No special reason to retaliate against predator, C) a special reason to want to retaliate against someone else at the table. Specific examples are beside the point. Why did you keep insisting that the conditions were directly opposite to what I said, if you had no specific examples on which to base such a claim? Why did you keep insisting that there was hope of victory? Why did you keep insisting I had no reason to want to retaliate against someone else? Why bother discussing any hypothetical situation, however vague, if you are going to pretend that situation is its direct opposite. It is clearly not because you oppose retaliation in all circumstances. In another thread, you indicate that you would retaliate against someone who broke a deal. Let me remind you that deal-breaking is perfectly legal, and can be quite advantageous to the deal-breaker (just as stealing Leandro was for my prey). So why is retaliatory deterrance appropriate for you, but not for me? > >> The converse of your statement is ALSO true. > > > >No it isn't. Not in situation I am describing. The situation I am > >describing is one where my statement is true and the converse of my > >statement is false. That is how I defined the situation from the > >beginning. > > Actually, the converse of your statement is STILL true in the > situation you are describing - you were just feeling angry and > spiteful. See below. Excuse me, Derek. Do you know me personally? Were you present when the events I was describing occurred? What right do you have to tell me what my motives were? What right to you have to tell me what I was or was not feeling? Why do you insist on making this discussion an occasion for ad hominem and personal attacks? > >> You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your > >> prey, > > > >More precisely, the purpose is to gain vicory points. We are discussing a > > And ousting your prey is the first step in that process. We are discussing a situation where that is no longer possible. If one is to continue to act as though pursuing victory, even though it is not possible, then I would say that the first step is to attempt to bring vampire into play (assuming you don't have any). > >> and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator. > > > >No. That is not the purpose of the game at all. In fact, if I could gain > >a victory point by being ousted (and that was my best option) that is > >precisely what I would do. > > The example you state (gaining a VP while being ousted) is extremely > rare and can only be pulled off by a few votes. It will not happen > often, and I have not personally seen it happen in many, many months. > I will stand by my accurate statement that yes, you are intended to > attempt to not be ousted by your predator. If you notice, I ordered > those statements very carefully - first, oust prey. second, don't get > ousted. If you can't do #1 on your turn, you had better do #2. The goal of the game is to gain victory points. And yes, in order to do this, one must keep oneself from being ousted (usually). But the second goal is entirely subsidiary to the first. If the primary goal no longer applies (because it is no longer possible) then the subsidiary goal is no longer applicable either. Take one player who gains a victory point and gets ousted after 15 minutes, as opposed to another who stays for 2 hours, and is the last in play after a successful withdrawal. Both gain 1 victory point. As you might say, you don't get any "bonus" for the length of time you stay in the game. > >Appart from hurling insults at me, can you make any rational arguments why > >I should not use such tactics in the defined circumstances? > > Now that you have FULLY DEFINED the circumstances, yes, I can. See > below. I fully defined the circumstances from the beginning. I merely failed to provide a concrete example. The only problem was that you refused to acknowledge the defined circumstances, and kept insisting I was talking about something else. > >> Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your > >> vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that > >> he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or > >> vote actions. > > > >He certainly does have his reasons. IF those reasons are completely > >overwhelming (as in that is his only way of pursuing a victory point), > >then there is no point in showing him other reasons why he should not. > > "only" is not an appropriate word here and should be removed from the > sentence. No. It is supposed to be there. > anyone should be free to gain VPs in any manner they can manage, Of course they are. I never said otherwise. My strategy is merely to apply a retaliatory deterrent to those options that target me specifically. My idea is that if I can make it less profitable for others to target me, they are more likely to pick other targets or other options. Naturally, such strategies do not work on my predator, indeed they do not work on anyone who has no other feasable options. Your statement also applies to deal-breaking. Anyone should be free to break a deal if they feel it will gain them victory points. It is a legitimate option in the game. I also feel, however, that players should be permitted to attempt retaliatory deterrance against deal-breakers, if they feel that that will protect them against such tactics in later games. As far as I can tell, you agree with this. What I am advocating is no different in principle (except that there is the additional excuse of no hope of victory in the current game). > and I'll NEVER rule against anyone who is taking actions that will > gain them VPs. Who is asking you to? I am not "ruling" against anybody. I am merely attempting to apply a retaliatory deterrent where it is most likely to be effective. > >However, his reasons might not be so completely overwhelming. In such > >cases it may be in my interest to behave in a manner that makes his > >attacks on me less beneficial than they otherwise might have been. > > Spite. Also, "locking the barn door after the horse is gone." > Threats such as "if you do X, i'll transfer myself out" are spite, > pure and simple. It is a poor way to apply pressure to someone, and > it is one that I will generally completely and totally ignore - if you > can't come up with good reasons, please don't proffer bad ones. OK. Now we are onto a related subject, which is keeping one's word, including threats. If a person expects his threats and promises to be taken seriously, he must keep them. Clearly such tactics must be used sparingly. One must only make threats when one is prepared to back it up, and only when you reasonably hope to gain something by the treat. Clearly a well-timed threat can save you in the right circumstances, provided the recipient believes that you really mean it. If I make a threat under such circumstances, my motive is clearly not "spite". I am merely trying a gamble that I hope will save my ass. If the gamble fails, and the threat is ignored, then my original motivation no longer applies. My ass has already been toasted, and is probably beyond saving. Now I implement the retaliatory action, to the extent that I am able. But the motivation is still not "spite". I am merely trying to preserve the value of my word, so that my threats and promises are not regarded as mere empty words. I would this, even though it may actually reduce my (presumably minimal) remaining chances of victory in the current game. You indicated that you always ignore threats. That is interesting. It might be even wise. If a person knows that you always ignore threats, then they will not bother making threats against you, because they know it will serve no purpose but to commit them to a course of action that will not benefit them in any way. On the other hand, if another player is the sort of person who habitually takes threats seriously, then making threats against him can be beneficial. It is all part of the give and take of game strategy and second guessing your opponents. There is nothing moral or immoral about any of it. It's all part of the game. From your other posts, I gather that you are not averse to retaliation against deal-breakers. This being your position, I suppose you would not be averse to letting him know about this ahead of time as a deterrent to breaking the deal in the first place. That is no different in principle to what is being discussed here. To define all forms of retaliatory deterrence as "spite" is ludicrous. Is a parent necessarily being spiteful when she punishes a child for some wrongdoing? Is the government motivated by spite when it applies set penalties for specific offences? According to your logic, yes, because (with respect to each specific instance of offence) they are merely "locking the barn door after the horse is gone". > >> Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though. > > > >Spite has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am merely trying to behave > >in a manner that makes destroying me a less attractive option than it > >might otherwise be. There is nothing personal about this at all. > > Spite doesn't have to be personal. Since you are the one using the term, then perhaps you should define it. I checked several dictionaries myself, and the usual meaning seems plenty personal to me. It involves bad feeling and ill will. > >> - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator. > > > >You got it, bub. Playing "kingmaker" was all I had left. What's the > >problem? > > If you don't see the problems with playing kingmaker, I don't ever > want to play in a game with you. Kingmaking is generally considered > one of the biggest problems in multiplayer games where players can all > affect each other, and as such is normally avoided like the plague by > most people. Not as I understant the term (see above). Kingmaking is a normal part of any game to the extent that the structure of the game permits it. Every good Diplomacy player, and every good Risk player, understands the kingmaker effect, tries to use it to his advantage, and takes measures to avoid becoming its victem. Richard Garfield, when he designed Jyhad, designed it so as to limit (but not eliminate) the Kingmaker dynamic. This was because he understood that if too pronounced, the Kingmaker dynamic would tend to punish those players who designed the best decks, as everyone else at the table would gang up on them and knock them out (this is not a concern for games like Risk or Diplomacy, as everyone starts out on an equal footing). He did not eliminate it completely, of course, and there is still plenty of room for cross-table interaction. The behaviors of one player still can, and do, affect the balance of power between remaining players. There is no way this can be avoided. "Kingmaking" becomes bad when it becomes an end in itself, rather than a means in your own quest for kingship. > >> Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is > >> FACT, not opinion. > > > >And a chess position is never hopeless until you are checkmated > >(theoretically). This is FACT, not opinion. But, for all practical > >purposes, you do face hopeless positions. That is why chess-players > >resign before checkmate, even in high stakes tournaments. > > This is because there is NO luck in chess, and because nobody else can > come out of the woods and save you. If you know your opponent has the > knowledge to make all the correct moves and mate you, you have no > reason to assume that he will make a stupid move and NOT mate you. > Again, this analogy is not appropriate. Moot. You have already conceded that there are (for all practical purposes) such things as hopeless Jyhad positions. The "FACT" you cited is evidently false. <snip> > >I shouldn't need to provide actual examples. I have provided a set of not > >impossible circumstances, which any number of examples might fit. I have > > You have provided a set of extremely rare circumstances, which only a > very few specific examples might fit. Saying "i shouldn't need to > provide actual examples" is just silly. I never though I would have to provide examples to "prove" there are such things as hopeless Jyhad positions. I never thought I would have to "prove" that it was conceivable that under some such circumstances, one might have a motive to inflict a retaliatory deterrent on an other player, especially to someone who boasts about inflicting retaliation on deal-breakers. > >provided first one hypothetical example and now one real one, which are at > >least as specific as those you provided. The examples you provided were > >designed specifically NOT to meet the specifications I defined. > > It isn't difficult to not meet your specs. Far fewer games are > hopeless than you think, which is what I keep trying to point out to > you. Why do you keep trying to point it out to me? I never made any claims regarding the frequency of hopeless games? How many games do you think I think are hopeless, and why do you think this? <snip> > If I am looking at a Domain Challenge in my hand and no additional > damage votes, and my prey has 3 tapped vampires and 4 pool, and you > are cross-table with your tapped-out Rush deck, this is a small > injustice to you. What I do on my turn is directly going to relate to > how crazy you are likely to be, and whether I think I'll draw up > another damage vote. If I think you're going to be crazy and come > after me cross-table, then if I draw up a KRC, I can assure you that > the 3 extra is going to come YOUR way, so hopefully your predator will > get rid of you and I won't have to deal with a Rush. Or if I don't > draw up a KRC until the end of my turn, and you *DO* Rush me on your > turn, then it'll definitely land on you as well. Revenge-oriented > players are something to either step cautiously around, or to step > heavily on. You are discussing irrational and unpredictable behavior that runs directly counter to wise principles of retaliatory deterrence. In order for a players retaliatory behavior to have a deterrent effect, it must be designed to serve that purpose. I have never advocated chaotic and irrational vengeance. In the specific situation described above, cross table retaliation would have been totally pointless for the rush-deck in question. > >OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can > >recall using such tacitics. > > > >I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC > >members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them. > >The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by > >spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a > >single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected. <snip can't stack SM comments> > >The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of > >the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my > >deflections were directed to my grand-predator. > > Which will make him VERY disinclined to do any work for you. I was not asking him to do any "work" for me. > Faced > with a grandprey bouncing bleeds to me, I would leave my OWN prey > alone completely in hopes of getting rid of the strange player taking > random actions. His was not a rush deck, or a vote deck. That was what I took into consideration when I bounced the bleed to him. His was an intercept combat deck. By bouncing the bleed to him I have him an opportunity to damage his prey ... who was also my intended target according to my unconventional strategy. Unfortunately, I was unable to bounce bleeds to my intended target, because he was also the bleed source. That, I realized, was one of the weaknesses of using deflections for bleed defence in this particular deck. But it is a new deck design, and I am still tweaking it. > Your bounces should still go to your prey, because after you swap with > your predator and oust him, your prey will be... your prey! How > logical. No. After I swap places with my predator and oust him, my next target will be my new predator. You are not getting with the logic of the deck .. the idea is to go around the table backwards. (I still have not got it to work, but that is the idea). > >I start by bringing out Leandro. My predator was a fast bleeder, but I > >had hopes of keeping him at bay with the minion tap in my hand, as well as > >some deflections and also had the dramatic upheaval ready to go (with good > >chances of passing it). Had I pulled it off, I would have ousted him > >rather than the other way round. > > No, per card text on Night Moves, but go on. What are you talking about? > >However, my prey is playing a dominate gangrel deck, whose plan it is to > >torporize other vampires, and then grave rob them. Even though I am > >leaving him alone entirely, he decides to target Leandro. My combat > > Leandro automatically affects your prey, by his special ability and > his very existence. And early in the game, Leandro's special is a > real bitch to deal with. It effects his prey as much as himself. Since I was offering to leave him alone entirely, I thought I was giving him a pretty good deal. Having a predator who puts no pressure on you at all is worth quite a bit. > Also, Leandro is your first vampire! How does your prey know that > you're going to leave him alone in the future? Take your word for it? That's the idea. I always keep my word, in part because it gives me the option of exploring wierd strategies and concepts. I need people to trust me so I can get my prey to leave me alone when I explore wierd options like backbleed decks. > Of course you've been leaving him alone up 'til now - you've had no > vampires! You had no option! =) That wasn't the issue. He believed me well enough. He just wanted Leandro. > >defenses fail under multiple presses, and he grave robs Leandro with 11 > >pool still on him, as well a a spying mission directed at my predator. A > >minion tap that I was planning to use next round sits useless in my hand. > > > >This totally dooms me. No hope at all. > > Yep. You're pretty much screwed. Chalk that up to "bad seating > position" and "bad crypt draw". In this case it can be fairly chalked up to the actions of my prey, as the primary cause. This does not mean I am "blaming" him. Neither would I "blame" anyone who gained advantage by breaking a deal with me. I might try to retaliate, however, as part of a policy for minimizing/eliminating advantages gained at my expense -- in the hope of discouraging such behavior in future. > >By the time my predator has finished bleeeding my defenseless ass, I have > >5 pool left, and 5 blood on the next IC member. I have no hope of > >bringing out another vampire. If I had wanted to sit there and just act > >as a buffer for the player who just totally screwed me, I could have > >transfered 2 pool back, and delayed my predator for another > >round. Instead, I chose to put all 4 transfers on my next IC member, > >leaving myself at one pool. > > I have been in situations where I had absolutely no vampires and no > way of getting more. I have previously, and would in this situation, > taken the 2 pool back and made him actually take the actions to bleed > me out, just to maintain the table balance as best I could and NOT > attempt to be a kingmaker. Although I doubt you really affected your > prey significantly, in this instance. This is wierd, since you are playing "kingmaker" every bit as much as I am. Like me, you are choosing between alternatives that benefit one set of players, as oppose to those that benefit another set of players. Neither of these options can possibly benefit yourself, so that can no longer be used as a criterion for judgment. > >In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit > >too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in > > Absolutely not. Your prey made an EXCELLENT play by snagging Leandro. > A bit too far? Not by a long shot! Perhaps, but it is not my job to cooperate with such plays. Rather, it behooves me to make them as expensive as possible. Nothing personal against him and his wonderful play (which was quite funny, actually), but when someone is going to target me, I am going to try to make it less beneficial for him, not more so. > Your actions, on the other hand, were nothing more than spite. Sure, > you were screwed, but it was EASILY his best play in that situation to > take Leandro. That's what he thought, when we discussed it afterwards. He believes that he gained far more from Leandro than he lost, and that it was a good play regardless. He may well be right! I take no position on the matter. But he certainly did not argue that I was obliged to act to maximize his profit after he had just knocked me from the game. He simply was proud that he had got the better of me in spite of my retaliatory counter-measures. So be it. > Why? Leandro has Dominate, so fits into the deck perfectly. Actually, Leandro got knocked out pretty quick because he had no protean for combat defence. Still, he got off 6 bleed prior to this, which is one of the reasons my prey felt he got the better of the deal -- despite the pressure put on him by his prey. > A > Gangrel DOM deck probably has skill cards, so even Leandro's inferior > DOM isn't a big deal. Leandro had 11 blood on him - that's FIVE Grave > Robbings at superior that his own vampires don't have to pay for OR > take the action to do. Leandro has 4 votes - a Gangrel deck doesn't > normally have vote influence, so now he has some. Leandro has an > inherent +2 bleed - something that's often a problem for Gangrel as > well. And to top it all off, Leandro's special is now a BENEFIT for > him, instead of a constant nuisance as before. Plus, you end up with > no vampires and can't take any actions to damage him. How can this be > wrong for him? These are all serious advantages, but not cut and dried. If he had taken the same two actions to steal a vampire of his prey, he would have weakened his prey, gained a gangrel with protean for combat defence, slowed down his prey's blood-doll machine, AND kept a predator who was following a policy of leaving him alone entirely. Is this as good? I don't know. But my policy is to behave in such a manner that targetting me less attractive in the hopes that alternative policies will be more attractive. It certainly makes more sense than trying to deter my predator from trying to oust me. > >fact replaced a benign predator for one that was far more > >dangerous. Having nothing else to do, I facilitated the situation to > >emphasize the point. I discussed the situation with other players before > >making the move, and they agreed that my position was hopeless. > > Your position was hopeless, but still spiteful, sorry. So you prefer that I be "spiteful" towards my predator instead of my prey? > "emphasize the > point"? In his situation, I would take the same action every single > time, even if a weenie Dominate tap-n-bleed horde were your predator. I'm not so sure you would have. It is certainly a decision to give pause. He handed a victory point to another player -- which is certainly not something you do lightly. > His deck already assumes that he'll have a hostile predator, so if he > gets a hostile predator but has a free Leandro on top of it all, he is > easily ahead of the game. His alternative, in this scenario, was not a non-hostile predator. Even if I was (or if he believed I was) hostile, it is still not a light decision to hand a victory point to another player. > >target. Neither were my measures against him personal. I merely wished > > "Sorry I stabbed you. It wasn't anything personal." Of course not. Nor was it personal when he stabbed me with his "wolf claws". We were playing a game about evil bloodsucking vampires. We are entitled to screw with each other. I notice you snipped the part where I remarked that his "stabbing" of me was not personal either. I guess you realized that this would have made your witty little retort even more obviously absurd than it already is. > >to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is > >that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options > >available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable. > > See... this kind of thinking just worries me. All it does is screw up > the table dynamic, You seem quite fuzzy on how exactly it does this. If anything, it was my prey who "screwed up the table dynamic" (and I myself would not put it that way -- it was a perfectly legitimate play) by knocking me out of the game. Faced with this situation, I had 2 choices: 1) Let my predator have the victory point that my prey has now guaranteed will go either to my predator or grand-predator, or 2) delay my predator, and potentially give the victory point to my grand predator. > although frankly I doubt your prey cared, he was in > such good shape. You are right, he didn't care. The only person making a federal issue out of it is you. > Nor will it affect my decisions to screw with you in > the future, if it's in my own best interest - although I will probably > make sure that you get -very- dead if I do screw with you, to minimize > the effects of any spiteful retaliations. If you're going to > retaliate against someone for making the best play he can in the > situation he was in... (shakes head) Shake it hard. Maybe you will stimulate a few brain cells. Why not retaliate? 1) he is my prey, and 2) his wonderful play was a play made against me, and 3) I had absolutely nothing better to do. Trivial? Perhaps. But my only alternative was to give my own predator a hard time, which, under the circumstances, was even more pointless. Why is one choice more "spiteful" than the other? I chose between the only options available to me. It is not exactly a matter I had strong feelings about. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 09:20:01 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: [lots of crap snipped, as it is addressed by one simple statement you make later on further down] >> Well, I would certainly be WORRIED that he might come after me if he >> went cross-table for no reason in a previous game. > >What is this "no reason" crap. Once again, I am discussing apples, and >you are discussing oranges. The circumstances, as I defined them from the >beginning, are A) No hope of a victory point, and B) a reason to retaliate >against a specific player. [also addressed further down] >You seem determined to give the most negative possible interpretation to >any statement I make. When I suggest a situation where there is a >motivation to come cross-table, you assume it is a bad reason, apparently >with no other logic than that Derek Ray despises John Whelan, and therfore No, silly. It is because of (again) some things I quoted further down, since you forced me to go back and throw your words in your teeth - something I normally dislike doing. >assumes that all John Whelan's reasons must be bad. But when you discuss >yourself coming cross-table, one is supposed to assume your reasons are >good. You have even advocated retaliatory deterrance against >deal-breakers -- hardly much different from the sort fo retaliatory >deterrance I am advocating, except that I have the additional excuse that >I am discussing a no-hope situation. Which, I have repeatedly pointed out, is excruciatingly rare to be in. >You complain that my examples were not specific enough. Was I supposed to >know that you were going to have it in for me? Was I supposed to know you >were going to give them the worst possible interpretation, then demand I >prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? This debate with you is >really becoming surreal. Largely because you insist on dragging it there and attempting to hew to your solitary rare example. If you wanted to post a story about how you tried to screw up your prey for stealing your vampire and leaving you with none, why not phrase it that way? Instead, you posted: "...Your only strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during this game,..." and also: "...Save your vengeance for elsewhere. Look around the table. Is there anyone else you can hold to blame for your current lost position? Did the other players at the table give you inadequate support? ..." and even: "...Is your position lost because your prey torpored too many of your vampires with his rush deck? If so, then why would you spend your last final turns protecting him? That was exactly what he was hoping for when he rushed you. He was hoping you would just leave him alone, and spend all your remaining energies acting as a buffer for his grand-predator. Well, screw that! Show him that he made a mistake. Show him that he went too far. Show him that all he did was replace one predator with an even stronger one. Tap yourself out doing him as much damage as possible, and then transfer your pool as low as possible..." Now tell me, John Whelan, do these appear to be the statements of a person who is dealing with one specific set of circumstances and one example? No. These are the statements of a demagogue, attempting to influence the opinions of everyone who reads them, and dealing with MANY, if not all, sets of circumstances in which one has a "lost position" - although those circumstances are, in actuality, so rare as to be seen VERY infrequently. Also tell me, John Whelan, do these appear to be the statements of a calm player? NO. They are the statements of someone who appears to be a revenge-oriented pill, and who is determined to not realize that it is probably just bad luck, or his own poor play, that caused his oust. Now you tell me what I or anyone else am supposed to read into those statements, phrased the way they are? (By the way, those are taken from PRIOR to my entry into this thread.) >> Because I'm not a moron? Someone who performed an unwarranted >> cross-table action in the previous game is just as likely to perform >> one in this game. > >How did you assume, from what I said, that the cross-table attacks I was >discussing were "unwarranted"? See your own words, above? You don't look like a person who is liable to take only warranted actions, frankly. >> I doubt I'd ever strike out on turn 1 bashing into >> him, but it's very situational. > >If cross-table attacks are "very situational", then why, again, did you >assume that the ones I was discussing were unwarranted? Or are >cross-table attacks only warranted when you do them? See your own words, above? ><snip Tremere example> >> >> If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all >> >> depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as >> >> you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and >> >> basically played kingmaker frequently, From your own words, it is safe to assume that what you are advocating is your own style of play, by the way. Do you understand now? >> >Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I >> >have played (though there may have been other examples in distant >> >memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are >> >extremely rare. >> >> But didn't you say before that these tactics were appropriate? > >I said they were sometimes appropriate under the defined circumstances. I >never discussed the frequencey of the defined circumstances. That issue >was raised by you later, when you began accusing me of advocating habitual >behavior of this nature outside of the defined circumstances. AH! Now we come to the final, most important bit, that I refer to above and here we finally see. John finally admits that "I NEVER DISCUSSED THE FREQUENCY OF THE DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES." Instead, John used language that implied that the circumstances were very frequent, almost as if there was a point in EVERY game where one could determine that one had a 100% lost position. And you were certainly advocating something in the paragraphs above, John. What could it have been? >> Only >> once in your entire career tends to show otherwise, doesn't it? And >> now you're saying the circumstances are extremely rare. Hmmm. > >Yes, I am now saying that, because the issue has been raised. Initially, >I did not discuss the frequency of the defined circumstances at all. I >had no idea anyone would try to make an issue out of it. When you post stuff like the above, John, people are going to sit up, take note, and go "Geez. This guy's saying i ought to WHAT?" >However all this may be moot, since you seem to concede (below) that there >*can* in fact be such a thing as a lost position in Jyhad, however "rare" >that may be. It is extremely rare. I myself have never seen a position like the one you describe so early on in the game. I have been in the situation before near the very end of a long game where I have five vampires in torpor, five pool, and a 10-cap in my uncontrolled region, but at these times I have also been one of two players left in the game - and I concede the game then, because nobody else is available to save me and it would be ridiculous to assume that my opponent would rescue one of my vampires, since he just spent multiple actions PUTTING them in torpor. ><snip> >> Kingmaking is generally viewed as "bad" in any >> multiplayer game, > >As far as I know, this is not true at all. I guess that depends on what >you mean by "Kingmaking". As I understand it, the Kingmaker dynamic >signifies the extent to which any one player may effect the balance of >power between remaining players. Andrew Davidson has some quite strong views on the subject. He might well be the best person with whom to discuss whether kingmaking is "bad". I, myself, define "kingmaking" as just what it sounds like - throwing your support to one specific person when you are in a losing position, thereby ensuring that while you will not be the winner of the game, you at least got to determine who would be. For multi-player games, this is terrible - the individuals' own play should decide it. >As just defined, the Kingmaker effect operates in many real life >situations involving multiple parties, and it is only right and proper >that many games (ie. Risk, Diplomacy) provide a forum to simulate this >dynamic. A typical feature of such games is that everyone will tend to >gang up on the player who appears strongest at the time, which will tend >to eliminate him from play. It is therefore important to avoid appearing >as too great a threat, and diplomacy becomes more important than the >quantity and quality of observable resources you have in play. Yes - see the broken-wing/Q-ship thread that Rob Treasure is loud and vocal in. =) Note that this does NOT qualify as king-making, as the unspoken agreement among the ganger-uppers-on is that everyone will remove the largest threat, and then hash it out amongst themselves later as to who gets to win. It is still self-interest, it is just cooperating with others in your own self-interest. [various kingmaking bits snipped] >> and that's what you're doing in the example above - >[kingmaking] > >Really? How do you know I am not retaliating for "Kingmaker" tactics >taken against me? Perhaps my strategies work as a deterrent to >"Kingmaker" tactics. Best as I can tell, that is what they would tend to >do. If you want the real truth, I am unlikely to NOT take any actions based on whether someone is going to transfer themselves out and hand me a new predator, slap me cross-table for something I did, or whatever. If you are my predator, and if I determine that it is in my long-term and/or short-term best interests to make all your vampires dead, thereby effectively ousting you, then your threatening to transfer yourself out and give me a "strong" predator is simply not going to have a damned bit of effect on whether or not I do it. I do not see how "vengeance" strategies deter kingmaking, as a kingmaker by definition has nothing to gain himself. Taking vengeance upon a kingmaker is almost impossible, as they have already decided to lose. In your example, the tactics taken against you were certainly not those of someone playing "kingmaker". You are the 5th VP that your prey can gain at the table, barring Dramatic Upheaval. Winning a game 4-1 and winning a game 5-0 are not significantly different - so making your initial predator dead is definitely not handing the table to your grand-predator, since you are undoubtedly assuming that you can defend against him satisfactorily. >Sure, my actions have an effect on the balance of power between the >remaining players. That is hardly unusual, and there is no way to avoid >it while playing V:tES. If that's all you are saying, then fine, I am a >"kingmaker." In your situation, you are deliberately significantly affecting the balance of power in favor of your predator, while not attempting to win. Granted, you can no longer win, but this does, indeed, qualify as kingmaking. >> because of your "roll over" action, you screw up your prey and your >> grand-predator sharply. Specifically, you screw your grand-predator >> BADLY, who could possibly have ousted your predator before you HANDED >> HIM SIX EXTRA POOL ON YOUR TURN. > >So instead, you suggest that I screw my predator and grand-grand predator >just as sharply by going the other way. I just don't get it. If I am No. Despite what the tree-huggers will tell you, taking no actions is NOT the same thing as taking action. If your predator is a fast stealth bleed deck, and you have neither sufficient intercept nor bleed bounce available to you, you are also effectively helpless. He will, however, need to spend the actions to oust you. If you have no vampires, you are effectively JUST as helpless - to your predator, the situation has not changed at all. Why should he no longer need to spend the actions to oust you? By deliberately taking actions to transfer yourself out, you SHARPLY affect the table balance. By sitting there and being a speed bump, you affect it no more or less than if you were still capable of taking actions, but everyone sitting near you happened to have the perfect counters to those actions. Think of it this way. Everyone needs to remove 30 pool from their prey, an equitable beginning. When you transfer yourself out, you are effectively saying "Well, OK, my predator only needed to remove 26 pool from me to win" - creating an advantage for him where no advantage for ANYONE existed before. >faced with two alternatives, one which favors my prey, another which >favors my predator, and neither which help me, then it would seem to me >that I am entitled to make a choice. For all your exaggerated outrage and >contempt, I cannot for the life of me understand why you regard one >alternative as morally superior to the other, or why I should prefer to >screw my predator than screw my prey. Your predator was going to have to bleed you for all that pool ANYWAY. He is not screwed at all by you just sitting there and saying "ok, take the actions to bleed me out - since I have no vampires, it shouldn't be difficult." >Also, I think you should leave out such adverbial flourishes as >"sharply" and "BADLY" from the discussion. None of my examples defined >how sharp a difference my choice would have on the table dynamic, nor how >catestrophic any particular choice would be for any particular >player. All this depends very much on precise circumstances that were >never defined. In this instance, your predator is a fast bleed deck. You have five pool, and can transfer two back to make it 7, remain at 5, or transfer to 1. If you transfer yourself down to one, you guarantee that your predator must expend a very small amount of his resources (his smallest vampire must take a cardless bleed action for 1) to oust you. If you remain at 5, your predator must decide whether to use his bleed cards on a defenseless you in order to get his 6 pool quicker, or whether to save his bleed cards and risk being ousted before he ousts you. He also is unable to immediately rush forth bleeding into his new prey with his other vamps - something he would not have been able to do in the first place if you had not transferred yourself out. If you cannot see that your transfers do, in fact, affect table balance SHARPLY, then I wonder who you're playing with. >> Would it have mattered to you? No. > >A choice must be made. I make my choice for whatever reasons seem to me >most appropriate. In this case I have clearly stated the nature of the >motives. The point was to perform a retaliatory deterrent which I hoped >would improve my chances of victory in future games. *sigh* vengeance and spite, a terrible way to win future allies. >A less hostile debater would probably have been satisfied with trying to >convince me that I was mistaken in believing my tactics would be of any >help in future games. This might have been an interesting debate, and >would have rendered unecessary all this ad hominem crap you are hurling >concerning my presumed motives. > >> Did it fuck up the table dynamic? YES. > >It altered the table dynamic. Either choice alters the table dynamic >equally, when compared with the other choice. totally, absolutely, posiTIVELY incorrect. Your predator was going to have to bleed you out whether or not you had vampires on the table. This is the crucial difference. In no other type of situation would you EVER deliberately reduce your pool in such a manner, especially knowing that you would be ousted. >> Is it unsportsmanlike? YES. > >You have yet to make a coherent argument why it is unsportsmanlike. In >particular, why is it less sportsmanlike than the alternative: >transferring back to your pool in order to make life difficult for you >predator? Kingmaking, by definition unsportsmanlike. You even admitted it was kingmaking earlier. (shrug) This argument is not coherent enough for you? Taking NO actions is not kingmaking. Not transferring back to your pool and leaving yourself at 5 would be the actual best "non-action" you could take, really - a decision to simply be a speed bump. >I don't regard either choice as unsportmanlike, but if I were to choose >one over the other, I would say that transferring down is the least >sportsmanlike option. To pursue the object the game, you need to have I would agree, although I don't think "least sportsmanlike" is the phrase you were intending to use. I think you meant to say "most sportsmanlike." >vampires in play. If you don't have a vampire in play, you need to try to >get one out. Even if there is no real hope of succeeding, that still >seems to me the most normal and least "spiteful" thing to do. The only This is a facetious argument. In your example, you *know* that you have no hope of succeeding, as it is mathematically impossible for you to do so. Attempting to convince anyone that you were just trying to get a vampire out will fool nobody, and is an effort to rationalise your actions via semantics. If you had 10 pool, no vampires, and a 6-cap in your uncontrolled region, THEN transferring 4 to him and claiming the above would hold water, even though your predator is likely to bleed you for 4 or more on his turn and so you still have no real hope of getting that 6-cap. >alternative is to pursue a screw-your-predator strategy that will do >absolutely nothing to improve your chances of victory, neither in this >game nor in future games. It is *this* that to me seems more likely to be >motivated by "spite". Remaining at 5 pool is, in fact, motivated by apathy more than anything. "Fine, since y'all (prey/predator) went and divided me up, I'll sit here and let whoever can get to me first get me." >> >pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own >> >predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is >> >designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me >> >trying to reward his behavior with my final actions. >> >> Nobody is suggesting that you "reward" him - but just that you not >> SCREW him. > >Your problem is that you have designated one choice as being somehow >neutral and normal, and the other as altering the table dynamic. As far >as I can tell, this decision of yours is entirly arbitrary. Why are you >demanding that I not screw my prey, and screw my predator instead? It's mathematical, not arbitrary. It's also, frankly, quite obvious. Not voluntarily reducing your pool (to no benefit to yourself) is not screwing your predator, it's something he EXPECTS you to do whether or not you have vampires. Transferring yourself out is a significant advantage to your predator - it removes pool from you and it doesn't cost him any actions. And contrary to your belief, it doesn't screw your prey very much, if at all - he was expecting to have a predator anyway, and it shouldn't matter to his deck whether it was a fast bleeder or a backwards Night Moves deck. If it does matter, then chalk it up to a flaw, deliberate or otherwise, in deck design. Does being a speed bump benefit your prey? To some degree, although it IS a situation he caused himself... and unless his hand is clogged up with defensive cards that he hasn't been able to use due to lack of a predator. If you think that's rare, you've never seen what happens to a Ventrue bleed/vote deck with an intercept deck as its predator. After about six turns, it gets wedged up on Deflections and Wakes and can't even move anymore. Or, more to the point for this instance... what about a Gangrel/Dominate deck with Rat's Warnings and Deflections? =) You sitting there and being a non-predator could very likely have screwed him up even more. ><snip> >> >Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all >> >cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there >> >is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator. >> >> There is no reason to go out in a way that FAVORS your predator, >> either. Again, the converse of your argument is ALSO true. > >Firstly, that is a very weak argument to justify the claim that one >alternative is unsportsmanlike and the other is A-OK. You'll have to do >better than that in making distinctions. Did above, thanks. >Secondly, there *is* a reason. The reason is that because my prey royally >screwed me, I wish to go out in a way that disfavors hims (rather than go >out in a way which favors him -- my only other choice). That this >incidentally disfavors my grand-predator is of no concern to me, unless I >owe him some loyalty, which, we are assuming, I do not in this particular >case. however, what actually happens is that you end up kingmaking for your predator. Bad. >> Your starting consideration is so rare as to be an incredibly odd >> case. > >Regardless of how rare it is (and words like "incredible" are clearly >going too far), that does not explain why you refused to accept the >starting considerations as a basis of discussion, when that starting >consideration was repeatedly defined. If vague definitions are offered for discussion, I will create specific examples, as vague definitions end up being "I meant THIS" and "I meant THAT", which is exactly what is happening right now, and which is exactly what STOPPED happening when you posted your specific example. "incredible" is not going too far. I have never personally seen someone screwed this badly before. It is very rare to be at 5 pool, with no vampires and no hope of getting one, on turn 5. And frankly, from the way you phrased everything, it very much appeared that your definition of "lost position" left something to be desired, since a lost position with more than 2 players left on the table is extremely rare itself. >> Since you have finally posted your example below, I can see >> that yes, you are screwed and can gain no VPs in that game. > >Why thank you. I find it frankly rather absurd that I had to expend such >incredible energies convincing you that such was actually possible. Yeah, it's a darn shame that anyone should have to put forth effort to post the specifics of anything, instead of just vague generalities to support their soapboxing. >> You ALWAYS have some potential to >> come back as long as you have one vampire on the table and some pool. > >That may be debatable, but it does not matter. It is up to the individual >player to make such determinations to the best of his ability, and it may >be that he may err. In any event, if I have one vampire on the table, and >I perceive that there is still hope, then the strategies I outlined would >not be appropriate to these circumstances. Which is something that was not, shall we say, crystal-clear from your original posts on the subject. >> understand that? You didn't post the situation, so I either have to >> create my own examples, or try to guess yours, or deal with >> non-specifics. > >Derek, the circumstances were defined as follows: A) No hope of >victory, B) No special reason to retaliate against predator, C) a special >reason to want to retaliate against someone else at the table. John, these are hideously vague! How am I to know what your definition of "No hope of victory" is? People have claimed, in my presence, that they have no hope of victory even though they have 3 vampires out and 4 pool - just because their predator happened to draw all 5 bleed modifiers that were in his deck in the first 4 turns! I was the predator in that situation. I kept my flippin' mouth shut (damned if I'll tell him I can't bleed for any more than 1 all rest of the game), but it gave me GREAT insight into just how badly people can misread a position - and further experience has shown me that people do it VERY OFTEN! >had no reason to want to retaliate against someone else? Why bother >discussing any hypothetical situation, however vague, if you are going to >pretend that situation is its direct opposite. Exactly. Discuss hypothetical SPECIFIC situations, not real or hypothetical vague ones, and then you won't have this problem! Sheesh. See paragraph above. >It is clearly not because you oppose retaliation in all circumstances. >In another thread, you indicate that you would retaliate against someone >who broke a deal. Let me remind you that deal-breaking is perfectly >legal, and can be quite advantageous to the deal-breaker (just as stealing >Leandro was for my prey). So why is retaliatory deterrance appropriate >for you, but not for me? because as I said in the other thread, when I do swat back, I'm going to make sure that it holds a benefit for me in the current game as well? >> Actually, the converse of your statement is STILL true in the >> situation you are describing - you were just feeling angry and >> spiteful. See below. > >Excuse me, Derek. Do you know me personally? Were you present when the >events I was describing occurred? What right do you have to tell me what >my motives were? What right to you have to tell me what I was or was not >feeling? Why do you insist on making this discussion an occasion for ad >hominem and personal attacks? John, I'm actually laughing now. You're flipping your wig here, but you fail to realize that you've described yourself as "how my prey royally screwed me", and how you've advocated "vengeance", etc. etc. What right do I have? Well, other than YOU'VE MADE IT OBVIOUS BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS what you were feeling at the time, I suppose I have no right at all. *chuckle* >> And ousting your prey is the first step in that process. > >We are discussing a situation where that is no longer possible. If one is >to continue to act as though pursuing victory, even though it is not >possible, then I would say that the first step is to attempt to bring >vampire into play (assuming you don't have any). The same facetious argument which is dismissed above with the total lack of respect that it deserves. [snipped "oust prey first, don't die second" sideline] >> Now that you have FULLY DEFINED the circumstances, yes, I can. See >> below. > >I fully defined the circumstances from the beginning. I merely failed to Your definitions used excessively subjective phrasing. You never posted anything more than "I was in a hopeless/lost position", which in my experience is usually an inaccurate statement when there are 5 players on the table. Given the irrational actions which you were advocating, I had very little reason to believe that you would be able to assess your position correctly, although as it turns out, it was a position which NOBODY could assess incorrectly. >> anyone should be free to gain VPs in any manner they can manage, > >Of course they are. I never said otherwise. My strategy is merely to >apply a retaliatory deterrent to those options that target me >specifically. My idea is that if I can make it less profitable for others >to target me, they are more likely to pick other targets or other >options. Naturally, such strategies do not work on my predator, indeed >they do not work on anyone who has no other feasable options. And the type of actions you specify are not likely to work on anyone as a deterrent. The problem is that your actions are of the "once i'm almost dead, i'm going to kick someone on the way out" variety. Good players will just make sure you can't kick them, or that if you can, that your kicks have minimal to no effect. And since your kicks do not benefit yourself, you will not garner much support from around the table for the future - people will just note that you are likely to kick on the way out, so they should actually go ahead and OUST you if they're going to screw you up in some way. Machiavelli, again - when faced with a man who will revenge himself for a small injury, do him instead a large injury so that he is incapable of revenge. Conniving little bugger, Machiavelli, but very, very bright. >Your statement also applies to deal-breaking. Anyone should be free to >break a deal if they feel it will gain them victory points. It is a >legitimate option in the game. I also feel, however, that players should >be permitted to attempt retaliatory deterrance against deal-breakers, if >they feel that that will protect them against such tactics in later >games. As far as I can tell, you agree with this. What I am advocating >is no different in principle (except that there is the additional excuse >of no hope of victory in the current game). except that by breaking a deal, you are kingmaking in your OWN favor (which really isn't kingmaking, it's called "playing to win.") By kicking someone on the way out, you are kingmaking in someone else's favor. >> and I'll NEVER rule against anyone who is taking actions that will >> gain them VPs. > >Who is asking you to? I am not "ruling" against anybody. I am merely >attempting to apply a retaliatory deterrent where it is most likely to be >effective. And being a kingmaker. >> Spite. Also, "locking the barn door after the horse is gone." >> Threats such as "if you do X, i'll transfer myself out" are spite, >> pure and simple. It is a poor way to apply pressure to someone, and >> it is one that I will generally completely and totally ignore - if you >> can't come up with good reasons, please don't proffer bad ones. > >OK. Now we are onto a related subject, which is keeping one's word, >including threats. If a person expects his threats and promises to be >taken seriously, he must keep them. Yes. If you make that threat, you had better transfer yourself out, or you look EXTREMELY weak. But it is worth noting that in your example, you did not (or at least you didn't say, and i'll assume you didn't since it would have been sort of silly) make that threat when your prey decided to Rush you. I'm curious as to what you tried to do to dissuade your prey from Rushing, actually - you should've been able to do a LOT of fast-talking in your situation. Not that it might have fooled him, of course. >Clearly such tactics must be used sparingly. One must only make threats One must only use such tactics as I mentioned above only as a last resort. One must really come up with some better tactics first, because a good opponent will ignore one's weak pressure. >when one is prepared to back it up, and only when you reasonably hope to >gain something by the treat. Clearly a well-timed threat can save you in >the right circumstances, provided the recipient believes that you really >mean it. If I make a threat under such circumstances, my motive is >clearly not "spite". I am merely trying a gamble that I hope will save my >ass. Had you made the threat, it would have, in fact, been a gamble. A poor one, but sometimes a poor option is the only one. >If the gamble fails, and the threat is ignored, then my original >motivation no longer applies. My ass has already been toasted, and is >probably beyond saving. Now I implement the retaliatory action, to the >extent that I am able. But the motivation is still not "spite". I am >merely trying to preserve the value of my word, so that my threats and >promises are not regarded as mere empty words. I would this, even though >it may actually reduce my (presumably minimal) remaining chances of >victory in the current game. > >You indicated that you always ignore threats. That is interesting. It Actually, I indicated that I always ignore threats "such as" the one I mentioned. Some threats are more valid than others, and are not to be ignored. "I'll Rush any vampire that bleeds me" is one that had better have some attention paid to it, and gives you a nice warning to have lots of combat defense in your hand when you DO choose to flout the threat. >might be even wise. If a person knows that you always ignore threats, >then they will not bother making threats against you, because they know it >will serve no purpose but to commit them to a course of action that will >not benefit them in any way. On the other hand, if another player is the >sort of person who habitually takes threats seriously, then making threats >against him can be beneficial. It is all part of the give and take of >game strategy and second guessing your opponents. There is nothing moral >or immoral about any of it. It's all part of the game. > >From your other posts, I gather that you are not averse to retaliation >against deal-breakers. This being your position, I suppose you would not >be averse to letting him know about this ahead of time as a deterrent to >breaking the deal in the first place. That is no different in principle >to what is being discussed here. It is much different in principle. I will not undertake retaliation against deal-breakers that is not in my immediate best interests, as I said in my post. I will, in fact, find ways to make sure that it IS in my best interests when I do take a potshot back. Ousting yourself is never in your own best interests. *sigh* From everything you've told me, you didn't warn him ahead of time, and indeed i don't think it OCCURRED to you ahead of time to make such a threat, since you hadn't been nuked down to where you couldn't get out a vampire yet. In your prey's position, I would have ignored the threat and done it anyway, but that's me. Your prey might have viewed it differently. (I would have viewed it as "threat to be spiteful if you hose me when it's a good thing for you to do so.") Instead, the idea of "transfer self out" only appears to have occurred to you AFTER the dust had settled and it was obvious that you were screwed. >To define all forms of retaliatory deterrence as "spite" is ludicrous. Is Nor do I, and nor have I ever, despite your efforts to draw a link between the two. Deliberately transferring yourself out is the one I was referring to. >> Spite doesn't have to be personal. > >Since you are the one using the term, then perhaps you should define >it. I checked several dictionaries myself, and the usual meaning seems >plenty personal to me. It involves bad feeling and ill will. It is generally INDIVIDUAL, but not personal. Make more sense that way? (It can be directed at an INDIVIDUAL group of people). However, just because you take spiteful actions against one individual, to wit, your prey, doesn't mean that you have anything against him personally, as Joe-Bob Clinton or whoever he really is. [miscellaneous risk/diplomacy/etc. snipped] >avoided. "Kingmaking" becomes bad when it becomes an end in itself, >rather than a means in your own quest for kingship. This is where our definition of "kingmaker" differs. It never involves your own quest for kingship - that is "playing to win". Ganging up on someone else and avoiding being ganged up on involve the table political dynamic - something entirely different from kingmaking. Webster sez: "Main Entry: king搶ak搪r, Pronunciation: 'ki[ng]-"mA-k&r Function: noun, Date: 1599 one having great influence over the choice of candidates for political office" Boy, Webster is so helpful here. (That's the entirety of the offered definition, by the way. Sigh.) However, it's worth noting that what often what was happening right around 1599 (and later) was that someone would use their influence to bypass the normal system and edge the people they wanted into a political position, in return for external, later favors - something not permissible in V:TES. >> You have provided a set of extremely rare circumstances, which only a >> very few specific examples might fit. Saying "i shouldn't need to >> provide actual examples" is just silly. > >I never though I would have to provide examples to "prove" there are such >things as hopeless Jyhad positions. I never thought I would have to See above. A hopeless V:TES position is much rarer than a hopeless chess position. >"prove" that it was conceivable that under some such circumstances, one >might have a motive to inflict a retaliatory deterrent on an other player, >especially to someone who boasts about inflicting retaliation on >deal-breakers. Interestingly enough, something which you didn't know when you posted your original message (and indeed, something you didn't know before last night, when I posted my own message). In fact, you didn't even address your original message to me, so why are you trying to bring that up? Smoke and mirrors? >> It isn't difficult to not meet your specs. Far fewer games are >> hopeless than you think, which is what I keep trying to point out to >> you. > >Why do you keep trying to point it out to me? I never made any claims >regarding the frequency of hopeless games? How many games do you think I >think are hopeless, and why do you think this? See above. >> turn, then it'll definitely land on you as well. Revenge-oriented >> players are something to either step cautiously around, or to step >> heavily on. > >You are discussing irrational and unpredictable behavior that runs >directly counter to wise principles of retaliatory deterrence. In order You didn't look rational or predictable in your original message, John. Did you realize just what you said? >> >OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can >> >recall using such tacitics. (snip basic description and oopsed can't stack SM thing) >> >The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of >> >the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my >> >deflections were directed to my grand-predator. >> >> Which will make him VERY disinclined to do any work for you. > >I was not asking him to do any "work" for me. John, do you realize what you just said? In the paragraph above, you say "The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of the work for you." Then you say that you weren't asking him to do any work for you. HUH? John, are you actually reading everything that's said here? If you bounce bleeds to your grand-predator, he is going to look at you and ask "WHAT ARE YOU DOING? SEND THOSE TO YOUR PREY!" You are going to have to answer him. If you answer honestly ("I'm attempting to oust my predator and move in front of him just before he gets ousted, stealing the VP!"), he's going to probably quit helping you out at all, and will wait for you to move and then just try to oust YOU. >> Faced >> with a grandprey bouncing bleeds to me, I would leave my OWN prey >> alone completely in hopes of getting rid of the strange player taking >> random actions. > >His was not a rush deck, or a vote deck. That was what I took into >consideration when I bounced the bleed to him. His was an intercept >combat deck. By bouncing the bleed to him I have him an opportunity to >damage his prey ... who was also my intended target according to my >unconventional strategy. Ah, another vital specific that was conveniently left out. John, are you starting to realize how important it is to be specific in this sort of thing, and why vagueness is bad? Personally, I will suspect ANYONE of ulterior motives who is not bouncing bleeds to their prey, as it's usually a no-brainer. It -is- a reasonable decision to say "Because you'll beat him up and he'll quit bleeding me since he won't have any vampires", but as soon as you Night Moves backwards I'm going to start saving Eagle's Sight to be able to step on you when you go for the Dramatic Upheaval. =) >> Your bounces should still go to your prey, because after you swap with >> your predator and oust him, your prey will be... your prey! How >> logical. > >No. After I swap places with my predator and oust him, my next target >will be my new predator. You are not getting with the logic of the deck >.. the idea is to go around the table backwards. (I still have not got it >to work, but that is the idea). Yes, but as soon as you Night Moves backwards, the table gets clued in as to what you're doing and begins to lean on you a little. This is the biggest problem with the "go backwards!" type of deck - it relies on keeping itself secret until it strikes. But once it strikes the first time, your new predator will be quite prepared for you, and your grand-predator will not be helping you out at ALL - he'll sit back and let you do the work and try to oust his prey HIMSELF while you're not looking. The best way to run this type of deck, IMO, is to bounce bleeds to your prey so that he becomes weak. Call damage votes 2/2 on your prey/predator. You look very irrational, but your grand-predator should just shrug it off and keep smacking his prey, figuring he's getting help from a crazy person. THEN, you leap behind your original predator, oust him, and oust your original prey shortly thereafter - 2 quick VPs, with assistance from your grand-predator. With 12 extra pool in such a short time, you should be in excellent shape for a full sweep and won't need to hide anything anymore. [more of the Spying Mission screwup, here referred to as 'night moves' for reasons known only to my fingers, snipped] >> Leandro automatically affects your prey, by his special ability and >> his very existence. And early in the game, Leandro's special is a >> real bitch to deal with. > >It effects his prey as much as himself. Since I was offering to leave him >alone entirely, I thought I was giving him a pretty good deal. Having a >predator who puts no pressure on you at all is worth quite a bit. Not with +2 bleed, superior OBF, and DOM it doesn't affect his prey as much, unless he has a good chunk of Deflections in his hand. =) Besides, if he owns Leandro, it still affects his prey, but HE gets to use that +2 bleed and Dominate - and the special doesn't affect him at all! I consider that having a free IC member in a Dominate deck is worth MUCH more, by several orders of magnitude, than having no predator. >> Of course you've been leaving him alone up 'til now - you've had no >> vampires! You had no option! =) > >That wasn't the issue. He believed me well enough. He just wanted >Leandro. Can't say I blame him, frankly. [big snip of details] >> I have been in situations where I had absolutely no vampires and no >> way of getting more. I have previously, and would in this situation, >> taken the 2 pool back and made him actually take the actions to bleed >> me out, just to maintain the table balance as best I could and NOT >> attempt to be a kingmaker. Although I doubt you really affected your >> prey significantly, in this instance. > >This is wierd, since you are playing "kingmaker" every bit as much as I >am. Like me, you are choosing between alternatives that benefit one set >of players, as oppose to those that benefit another set of players. >Neither of these options can possibly benefit yourself, so that can no >longer be used as a criterion for judgment. Actually, I'm curious why I said that here. I appear to have posted this at ... 1:47pm. Nope, not a late-night beer post.. hmm. Anyway, strike that off - the least kingmakery action here, as I mention earlier in this message, is the "non-action" action, remaining at 5 pool as a speed bump. The NEXT least obnoxious action is to start hauling pool back, or to spend 1 pool for another vampire (although since your crypt has IC members in it, I doubt you have any vampires who are small enough to get out.) >> >In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit >> >too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in >> >> Absolutely not. Your prey made an EXCELLENT play by snagging Leandro. >> A bit too far? Not by a long shot! > >Perhaps, but it is not my job to cooperate with such plays. Rather, it >behooves me to make them as expensive as possible. Nothing personal >against him and his wonderful play (which was quite funny, actually), but >when someone is going to target me, I am going to try to make it less >beneficial for him, not more so. *sigh* You describe a revenge-at-all-costs mentality. Not a good way to gain allies for the future, and not a good deterrent, actually. Back to the Machiavelli mention of before. >> Your actions, on the other hand, were nothing more than spite. Sure, >> you were screwed, but it was EASILY his best play in that situation to >> take Leandro. > >That's what he thought, when we discussed it afterwards. He believes that >he gained far more from Leandro than he lost, and that it was a good play >regardless. He may well be right! I take no position on the matter. Oh, now come on. You obviously do, as shown from all your previous posts. Or at least you DID - you may be backing off of that some now. >> Why? Leandro has Dominate, so fits into the deck perfectly. > >Actually, Leandro got knocked out pretty quick because he had no protean >for combat defence. Still, he got off 6 bleed prior to this, which is one >of the reasons my prey felt he got the better of the deal -- despite the >pressure put on him by his prey. Of course he got the better of the deal. No matter how quickly Leandro died, he was FREE. And just because Leandro was in torpor doesn't mean he can't come back, sit there, and be 4 votes in favor of diablerie - something that is not bad for combat decks. Not to mention that his prey was forced to turn around and fight backwards instead of trying to oust his own prey, which is only a problem if you aren't a combat deck yourself. =) >These are all serious advantages, but not cut and dried. If he had taken >the same two actions to steal a vampire of his prey, he would have >weakened his prey, gained a gangrel with protean for combat defence, >slowed down his prey's blood-doll machine, AND kept a predator who was >following a policy of leaving him alone entirely. They're sufficiently cut-and-dried that I wouldn't think twice about doing it. I might alter what I did with Leandro afterwards, but roll the words around in your mouth: "FREE IC MEMBER" and "HOW CAN THIS BE WRONG?" >> "emphasize the >> point"? In his situation, I would take the same action every single >> time, even if a weenie Dominate tap-n-bleed horde were your predator. > >I'm not so sure you would have. It is certainly a decision to give >pause. He handed a victory point to another player -- which is certainly >not something you do lightly. If it's my initial predator,... yes, I do. As I said earlier, 4-1 and 5-0 both still come in as "Good, Solid Win" under my books. I have several intercept decks that, in addition to trying to abuse my prey mercilessly, just ASSUME that my predator will end up ousted through his inability to take any action that I don't like. See, to gain credit for my predator's oust, I have to oust 3 other people first and THEN him. If my predator does not exist, I still have to oust... the same 3 people as I would've before. Hmm. >> >to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is >> >that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options >> >available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable. >> >> See... this kind of thinking just worries me. All it does is screw up >> the table dynamic, > >You seem quite fuzzy on how exactly it does this. If anything, it was my I explained it in more detail further up in this post. >> Nor will it affect my decisions to screw with you in >> the future, if it's in my own best interest - although I will probably >> make sure that you get -very- dead if I do screw with you, to minimize >> the effects of any spiteful retaliations. If you're going to >> retaliate against someone for making the best play he can in the >> situation he was in... (shakes head) > >Shake it hard. Maybe you will stimulate a few brain cells. *laugh* And you complain about ad hominem and personal attacks? =) Now, now, John. You can't be swerving all over the road like this! =) >Why not retaliate? 1) he is my prey, and 2) his wonderful play was a play >made against me, and 3) I had absolutely nothing better to do. new THA card: Burst of Whimsy. Not usable during first round. Remove X blood from your own pool and give it to your predator. The opposing vampire takes X points of unpreventable aggravated damage during strike resolution. Don't like my wit? DON'T READ IT! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 04:23:39 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >You keep missing that I don't need to prove anything to anyone It has been asserted that deals _must_ be clearly stated and _must_ not be "losing". If this were so, then it might, on occasion, be necessary to prove it. Andrew

In article <8E30E10972189D6D.4BCD0659...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:55:47 +0100, James Coupe wrote: > >>Writing things down, for the whole table >>to see, is not prohibited and is not speaking. > >That reminds me. Writing things down is, in fact, prohibited by rule >1.4 of the VEKN tournament rules. That prohibits taking notes, which is a very different thing. Here, have some eggs. Perhaps you can teach your grandmother how to suck them. [ quoted text not captured ]

It is rather pointless to attempt to continue this debate. I thought I was engaging in an abstract discussion of certain metastrategic concepts (including retaliation), but this has become an argument about the content of my character, which I am sure is of no interest to anyone. If anyone would like to second Derek's views on this issue, after reading my original posts in their original contexts, please feel free to do so. Be careful what you say, though, for I am extremely vengeful. :) Someone just asked about Cryptic Mission decks, so I think I will go and post mine. -- John Whelan [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:18:03 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > >It is rather pointless to attempt to continue this debate. I thought I >was engaging in an abstract discussion of certain metastrategic concepts >(including retaliation), but this has become an argument about the content >of my character, which I am sure is of no interest to anyone. My, but you take everything SO personally. If you read carefully (i'm not sure you do), you'll find plenty of abstract responses. If you hadn't completely lost your marbles about producing some sort of "defense" of your character, you might have been able to see that. Instead, you've assumed that I'm attempting to nail you to a tree, film it for the 11 o'clock news, and smear your name forever in the minds of mortals or something. Sheesh. As if anyone else gave a flip. Here's a hint: how you play the game of V:TES doesn't even remotely define who you are or what sort of person you are, and nobody with any clue will actually see it that way. The people with no clue are not people you need to associate with. Maybe you don't make the distinction in your life... I *HAVE* to, because I move through several different worlds. I'm an aggressive combat thug in V:TES. I'm a precise, cautious pool player. I'm a fiery hothead of a USENET poster. And in a social setting, I'm a talkative, good-natured, twisted-humored bugger (and if you met me at DragonCon, you can add "sodden drunk" to that.) None of these have any effect on who I actually *AM*, or any effect on each other at all - and there's no reason they should. (1000+ lines snipped, thank god) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:21:58 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >And in a social setting, I'm a >talkative, good-natured, twisted-humored bugger (and if you met me at >DragonCon, you can add "sodden drunk" to that.) Agreed. ; ) Rémy

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Now tell me, John Whelan, do these appear to be the statements of a > person who is dealing with one specific set of circumstances and one > example? Clearly not, since you snipped the part where I specify the specific circumstances. -- John Whelan

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >Shake it hard. Maybe you will stimulate a few brain cells. > *laugh* And you complain about ad hominem and personal attacks? =) > Now, now, John. You can't be swerving all over the road like this! > =) In this case you are correct. I should have edited that before I hit the send button. -- John Whelan

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:57:17 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >> Now tell me, John Whelan, do these appear to be the statements of a >> person who is dealing with one specific set of circumstances and one >> example? > >Clearly not, since you snipped the part where I specify the specific >circumstances. I didn't see any specific circumstances in the message I quoted from. Went back and re-read it just now. Still didn't. It was one of the first messages you posted, too. "Lost position" isn't specific - there are way, way too many variables involved. I quoted a specific position at one extreme to encourage you to actually quote one. You finally did, at which point I started phrasing my arguments in terms of YOUR position. I also discussed this at the bottom of that last whacking long message. [ quoted text not captured ]

My God! He just can't shut up! On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:18:03 -0400, John Whelan > <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > > > >It is rather pointless to attempt to continue this debate. I thought I > >was engaging in an abstract discussion of certain metastrategic concepts > >(including retaliation), but this has become an argument about the content > >of my character, which I am sure is of no interest to anyone. > > My, but you take everything SO personally. If you read carefully (i'm > not sure you do), you'll find plenty of abstract responses. If you > hadn't completely lost your marbles about producing some sort of > "defense" of your character, you might have been able to see that. > Instead, you've assumed that I'm attempting to nail you to a tree, > film it for the 11 o'clock news, and smear your name forever in the > minds of mortals or something. Sheesh. As if anyone else gave a > flip. > > Here's a hint: how you play the game of V:TES doesn't even remotely > define who you are or what sort of person you are, and nobody with any > clue will actually see it that way. The people with no clue are not > people you need to associate with. > > Maybe you don't make the distinction in your life... I *HAVE* to, > because I move through several different worlds. I'm an aggressive > combat thug in V:TES. I'm a precise, cautious pool player. I'm a > fiery hothead of a USENET poster. And in a social setting, I'm a > talkative, good-natured, twisted-humored bugger (and if you met me at > DragonCon, you can add "sodden drunk" to that.) None of these have > any effect on who I actually *AM*, or any effect on each other at all > - and there's no reason they should. > > (1000+ lines snipped, thank god) > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:21:47 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >My God! He just can't shut up! in the face of a person attempting to build the "moral high ground" for themselves out of twigs, spiderwebs, and string, what reason do I have to? Actually, it's mostly because I just don't care - I respond to what I wish, I say what I wish, and if someone doesn't like it, that's just TOUGH. This includes you, silly boy. Love and Kisses, [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > My God! He just can't shut up! That makes two of you. It would be nice if both of you would agree that there are numerous reasons, none of which are based on personal grudges, to stay in the game (as opposed to yielding) and attacking cross table when it is apparent that you cannot gain any further victory points. The most obvious instance that you may already have enough victory points to make a tournament finals and you want to help eliminate a deck that you'd really rather not face in the finals. Noal McDonald VEKN Prince o' Metro Detroit, MI NJL Rules Team Member -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

The Debate is Over, Derek. On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:21:47 -0400, John Whelan > <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > >My God! He just can't shut up! > > in the face of a person attempting to build the "moral high ground" > for themselves out of twigs, spiderwebs, and string, what reason do I > have to? Actually, it's mostly because I just don't care - I respond > to what I wish, I say what I wish, and if someone doesn't like it, > that's just TOUGH. This includes you, silly boy. > > Love and Kisses, [ quoted text not captured ]

Got you last. No, I got you last. No, I got *you* last. No, I got *YOU* last. No, I got *YOU* last. .... In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.000927...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > The Debate is Over, Derek. > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 01:21:47 -0400, John Whelan > > <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > > > >My God! He just can't shut up! > > > > in the face of a person attempting to build the "moral high ground" > > for themselves out of twigs, spiderwebs, and string, what reason do I > > have to? Actually, it's mostly because I just don't care - I respond > > to what I wish, I say what I wish, and if someone doesn't like it, > > that's just TOUGH. This includes you, silly boy. > > > > Love and Kisses, > > -- Derek > > > > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > > - C. Darwin, 1871 > > > > [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes: >My God! He just can't shut up! Why did you post JUST to say that? Your own comment applies to very post it appeared in to a far greater degree than to Derek's post. At least he tried to add something of value, however you may feel about it. If you want a thread to end, a good rule of thumb is to not respond to it yourself. A very *bad* rule of thumb is to tell someone who you know takes issue with your position to not respond to your latest post. That seems simple enough... Fred

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > It would be nice if both of you would agree that there are numerous > reasons, none of which are based on personal grudges, to stay in the > game (as opposed to yielding) and attacking cross table when it is > apparent that you cannot gain any further victory points. I believe I did acknowledge this. If I did not, I would like to acknowledge it now. > The most > obvious instance that you may already have enough victory points to make > a tournament finals and you want to help eliminate a deck that you'd > really rather not face in the finals. Agreed. -- John Whelan

On 27 Sep 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes: > > >My God! He just can't shut up! > > Why did you post JUST to say that? Because I was in a very bad mood, was tired, it represented how I felt at the time, and because it took no time to post, but I was too busy to cancel it. > If you want a thread to end, a good rule of thumb is to not respond > to it yourself. A very *bad* rule of thumb is to tell someone who > you know takes issue with your position to not respond to your latest > post. That seems simple enough... If you were wrong, I could argue with you. -- John Whelan