Judging question (LSJ)

Hi, in tournament finals : a Toreador Mathuselah bleeds Assamites, can kill them before these do anything to their prey. He can also kill the prey without any difficulty in a few turns. Is it legal for him to propose his prey to kill his predator, just because he wants him to get a VP for the ranking in the final ? Argument : he previously broke a deal and wanted to "make up" for that. As he already had enough VPs to be ranked 1st, can he "not play for maximum efficiency", would it be considered coalition or what ? And if he doesn't say it and just do it ? Thank you, Orpheus

Orpheus wrote: > > Hi, > > in tournament finals : a Toreador Mathuselah bleeds Assamites, can kill them > before these do anything to their prey. He can also kill the prey without > any difficulty in a few turns. Is it legal for him to propose his prey to > kill his predator, just because [reason]. If he wins that game, yes - he can win by whatever method he chooses. If not (then because the supposition is that he can win more VPs otherwise), no. > Argument : he previously broke a deal and wanted to "make up" > for that. Irrelevant. > As he already had enough VPs to be ranked 1st, can he "not play > for maximum efficiency", would it be considered coalition or what ? And if > he doesn't say it and just do it ? Irrelevant. He must play to win. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Excuse me but I fail to understand your conclusion. The first and last argument seem contradictory to me. As the case happened I prefer (but was this time solved by fair-play) I need to be sure : > > in tournament finals : a Toreador Mathuselah bleeds Assamites, can kill them > > before these do anything to their prey. He can also kill the prey without > > any difficulty in a few turns. Is it legal for him to propose his prey to > > kill his predator, just because [reason]. > > If he wins that game, yes - he can win by whatever method he chooses. > If not (then because the supposition is that he can win more VPs otherwise), no. Ok, but he already had won and didn't need to make any alliance. > > Argument : he previously broke a deal and wanted to "make up" > > for that. > > Irrelevant. Agreed. > > As he already had enough VPs to be ranked 1st, can he "not play > > for maximum efficiency", would it be considered coalition or what ? And if > > he doesn't say it and just do it ? > > Irrelevant. He must play to win. I repeat, he had won. So must he play to win every possible VP ? Thanks, Orpheus

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:18:02 +0100, "Orpheus" <orph...@free.fr> wrote: >> Irrelevant. He must play to win. >I repeat, he had won. So must he play to win every possible VP ? No. Once you have won the table, you may play in any manner you choose, as you have already achieved the goal, winning. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Orpheus wrote: > > Excuse me but I fail to understand your conclusion. The first and last > argument seem contradictory to me. As the case happened I prefer (but was > this time solved by fair-play) I need to be sure : > > > > in tournament finals : a Toreador Mathuselah bleeds Assamites, can kill > them > > > before these do anything to their prey. He can also kill the prey > without > > > any difficulty in a few turns. Is it legal for him to propose his prey > to > > > kill his predator, just because [reason]. > > > > If he wins that game, yes - he can win by whatever method he chooses. > > If not (then because the supposition is that he can win more VPs > otherwise), no. > > Ok, but he already had won and didn't need to make any alliance. He also doesn't need to make no alliance. > > > Argument : he previously broke a deal and wanted to "make up" > > > for that. > > > > Irrelevant. > > Agreed. > > > > As he already had enough VPs to be ranked 1st, can he "not play > > > for maximum efficiency", would it be considered coalition or what ? And > if > > > he doesn't say it and just do it ? > > > > Irrelevant. He must play to win. > > I repeat, he had won. So must he play to win every possible VP ? I repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he chooses, including not taking all the VPs that he can. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E343204...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm failing to understand, too. By the tournaments rules, section 5.2: "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" by the v:tes rulebook (Object of the Game): Your goal is to accumulate the *most victory points* by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. So, how can be stated that the "win game" (and not maximizing the vp) is the goal ? I was thinking that scoring the max vp available was the goal so i need some clarifications here. thanks in advance Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome

"Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> wrote in message news:52f0d87d.03020...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E343204...@white-wolf.com>... > > I repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he chooses, > > including not taking all the VPs that he can. > > I'm failing to understand, too. > By the tournaments rules, section 5.2: > > "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the > game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" > > by the v:tes rulebook (Object of the Game): > Your goal is to accumulate the *most victory points* by destroying the > influence held by rival Methuselahs. > > So, how can be stated that the "win game" (and not maximizing the vp) > is the goal ? > I was thinking that scoring the max vp available was the goal so i > need some clarifications here. The goal is to win the game. As the "Object of the Game" section reads later on in the section you quoted, the player with the most VPs is the winner. Most games don't go to the trouble of stating that the goal of the game is to "win". That's assumed. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<MMK%9.7049$ek4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... > "Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> wrote in message > news:52f0d87d.03020...@posting.google.com... > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:<3E343204...@white-wolf.com>... > > > I repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he chooses, > > > including not taking all the VPs that he can. > > > > I'm failing to understand, too. > > By the tournaments rules, section 5.2: > > > > "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the > > game as stated in the V:TES rulebook" > > > > by the v:tes rulebook (Object of the Game): > > Your goal is to accumulate the *most victory points* by destroying the > > influence held by rival Methuselahs. > > > > So, how can be stated that the "win game" (and not maximizing the vp) > > is the goal ? > > I was thinking that scoring the max vp available was the goal so i > > need some clarifications here. > > The goal is to win the game. The goal, at least in the rulebook, is what i quoted above ("to accumulate the most victory points"). The fact that scoring the most victory points leads a player to "win a game" is just consequence, IMHO. Otherwise, speaking of tournament matter,if the goal is just to "win a game" and not "to score the most victory points" there's a wide path open to potential collusion. > As the "Object of the Game" section reads later > on in the section you quoted, the player with the most VPs is the winner. Yes, that is consequence of the goal of the game ("scoring the most vps"), not the goal in itself. > Most games don't go to the trouble of stating that the goal of the game is to > "win". That's assumed. Most game don't involve such cross-table pacts,deals actions*whatever* as v:tes does :-) Emiliano

"Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:52f0d87d.03020...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] <EDIT> (my statement above should read): The fact that a player "wins a game" by scoring the most victory points is just the consequence of the goal of the game (that is "scoring the most vp"), and isn't the "goal" in itself. <end of the EDIT > any chanche to hear LSJ opinion about this? thanks Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome <snip the rest>

tetragrammaton wrote: > any chanche to hear LSJ opinion about this? http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BE2EEB2.4E935536%40white-wolf.com Google: "win goal andrew author:LSJ" The goal of any game is to win the game. This is inherent in the term. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> wrote in message news:52f0d87d.03020...@posting.google.com... > by the v:tes rulebook (Object of the Game): > Your goal is to accumulate the *most victory points* by destroying the > influence held by rival Methuselahs. I think the different possible readings of this sentence may be part of why you thought you have to try to get all the VPs. In English, getting the most victory points could mean getting as many as you possibly can. But it could also mean getting more than any other player (since if you have more than all the others, you have "the most"). The latter interpretation is what determines whether you've won the game, and it also leads you to the conclusion that if you have more VPs than anyone else, you have achieved the goal - that is, it implies that having 5 VPs is not necessarily better than having 3. In practice, having 5 does mean you've won by a larger margin. But a "won game", as in baseball, football (both kinds), etc, doesn't have to be worth more if it's won by a larger margin (and in other sports, usually isn't, except possibly in some tiebreaker stat). Josh "WINNERS DONT USE DRUGS"

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E400C4B...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > any chanche to hear LSJ opinion about this? > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BE2EEB2.4E935536%40white-wolf.com > Google: "win goal andrew author:LSJ" > > The goal of any game is to win the game. > This is inherent in the term. > Though is inherent, isn't strictly the "goal" as presented in the actual v:tes rulebook ("scoring the most Vp" as long as that is intended as "score as much vp as you can" and not "score more vp than any other player"). The "goal" is to "score the most vp", the fact that one wins the game trought that isn't relevant, speaking of "goal". You can say that the "goal" of a team is to win "the most games available" in a tournament, but that is different (though is inherent) than say the "goal" is "to win the tournament"; i hope that the difference (though small) is clear. Anyway, nitpicking apart, IMHO allowing (in v:tes tournaments) a player with 3 pv already scored (at a 5 player table) to let to do the remaining 2 to the other player, equals to lure badly the players toward collusion. With that (bad) rule in mind, i have a question: at the start of a 5 o 4 players game, "3" should be "the most vp" legally a player needs to play for "win the game", is right? Or it could even be 2 in the case one is planning to let make all the other players just 1vp, right ? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:b1p678$15cilg$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "Tetragrammaton" <vam...@usa.com> wrote in message news:52f0d87d.03020...@posting.google.com... > > > by the v:tes rulebook (Object of the Game): > > Your goal is to accumulate the *most victory points* by destroying the > > influence held by rival Methuselahs. > > I think the different possible readings of this sentence may be > part of why you thought you have to try to get all the VPs. > > In English, getting the most victory points could mean getting as > many as you possibly can. But it could also mean getting more > than any other player (since if you have more than all the others, > you have "the most"). > Ok ! I think that this ambiguity make great difference and it is the key point: if "the most vp" goal is intended as "getting as many as you possibly can", then we have a pretty tournament enviroment collusion-free (whereas, no matter what the players does, they're in a situation where they must score the max vp anyway) But if "the most vp" goal is intended as "getting more than any other player" (to win the game) then, imho, the path to collusion is wide open, whereas an already-3pv-scored-in-the-actual-round player in good shape knows that it is legal for him even letting the remaining 2 pv to its almost-dead "prey/predator". just my thought Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snipped the rest>

"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b1p94g$14oret$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Is Scott still out there? :) I still need an official answer about this: it is legal,say, for a player at the beginning of a 4 player game (round) to play just for 2 Vps, since that player is planning to let the other Methuselahs to make just 1 Vp? Similar question on a 5 player game: the legal "goal" at the beginning of a 5 players game it's to make "just" 3 Vps (that grants to be the winner of that table)? thanks again [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Is Scott still out there? :) > I still need an official answer about this: > it is legal,say, > for a player at the beginning of a 4 player game > (round) to play just for 2 Vps, > since that player is planning to let the other > Methuselahs to make just 1 Vp? Not until it is certain that the other two Methuselahs will each end the game with exactly 1 VP each (typically not until they've each won their respective VP). > Similar question on a 5 player game: > the legal "goal" at the beginning > of a 5 players game it's to make "just" 3 Vps (that grants > to be the winner of that table)? Yes. Taking 3 VP guarantees a win. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > Is Scott still out there? :) > > I still need an official answer about this: > > it is legal,say, > > for a player at the beginning of a 4 player game > > (round) to play just for 2 Vps, > > since that player is planning to let the other > > Methuselahs to make just 1 Vp? > > Not until it is certain that the other two Methuselahs > will each end the game with exactly 1 VP each (typically > not until they've each won their respective VP). Clarification: Playing for 2 VPs in the hope that two other players will get 1 VP each is not "playing to win" - it's just playing for 2 VPs (which is not a win). If, however, your activity is constructed so as to accomplish the goal of effecting the required VP distribution (the obvious example being with a mutli-oust vote like Anarchist Uprising), then that's playing to win. Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish is different than simply playing for 2 VPs in the hopes that 2 will somehow be sufficient. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E43BF2E...@white-wolf.com... > LSJ wrote: > > > Clarification: > Playing for 2 VPs in the hope that two other players will > get 1 VP each is not "playing to win" - it's just playing > for 2 VPs (which is not a win). > If, however, your activity is constructed so as to accomplish > the goal of effecting the required VP distribution (the > obvious example being with a mutli-oust vote like Anarchist > Uprising), then that's playing to win. Playing to accomplish > a 2-1-1-finish is different than simply playing for 2 VPs > in the hopes that 2 will somehow be sufficient. > Thanks for the clarifications. going further: how a judge can tell when a (questionable/collusion-like) player's behavior during a game is actually for "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" from "simply playing for 2 VPs" ? Is at that point the judge expected to stop the game, inspect that player's whole deck and current hand to tell if the player is acting/behaving by collusion with some other player at the table, to allow that other player to make, say, 3 or 4 or even 5 Vps ? Don't you feel that if players should have to play (from the very beginning) for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as *the maximum total Vps currently available* instead of *the most Vps needed to win at the table* we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment ? I'm not saying that players collude on a regular basis, of course :), just that, as v:tes grows, the tournament enviroment needs a clearer rule about "mandatory" Vps-making (here, actually, it was interpreted as "the maximum total Vps currently available" until your recent post here). thanks again Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3E43BF2E...@white-wolf.com... > >>LSJ wrote: >> > >>Clarification: >>Playing for 2 VPs in the hope that two other players will >>get 1 VP each is not "playing to win" - it's just playing >>for 2 VPs (which is not a win). >>If, however, your activity is constructed so as to accomplish >>the goal of effecting the required VP distribution (the >>obvious example being with a mutli-oust vote like Anarchist >>Uprising), then that's playing to win. Playing to accomplish >>a 2-1-1-finish is different than simply playing for 2 VPs >>in the hopes that 2 will somehow be sufficient. >> > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > going further: > how a judge can tell when a (questionable/collusion-like) > player's behavior during a game is actually for > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > from > "simply playing for 2 VPs" ? She'd have to use her judgement. > Is at that point the judge expected to stop the game, inspect > that player's whole deck and current hand to tell if the player > is acting/behaving by collusion with some other player at the table, > to allow that other player to make, say, 3 or 4 or even 5 Vps ? If the player is not playing properly, the situation should be corrected. > Don't you feel that if players should have to play > (from the very beginning) > for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as > *the maximum total Vps currently available* > instead of > *the most Vps needed to win at the table* > we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment ? Moot. There are no plans to impose an spurious goal in place of the natural one (i.e., play to win). [ quoted text not captured ]

"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b20n54$15dr9a$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de... > going further: > how a judge can tell when a (questionable/collusion-like) > player's behavior during a game is actually for > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > from "simply playing for 2 VPs" ? > > Is at that point the judge expected to stop the game, inspect > that player's whole deck and current hand to tell if the player > is acting/behaving by collusion with some other player at the table, > to allow that other player to make, say, 3 or 4 or even 5 Vps ? Well, it's always up to the judge to evaluate and give a judgement call if other players are complaining that someone at their table isn't playing to win. That's pretty much the job of the judge. :-) > Don't you feel that if players should have to play > (from the very beginning) > for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as > *the maximum total Vps currently available* > instead of > *the most Vps needed to win at the table* > we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment ? I'm not LSJ, obviously, but my feeling is that interpreting behavior and its intent with regard to gaining X number of VPs is subjective and difficult enough that there would be no practical benefit to saying "you have to try to get as many VPs as you possibly can" as compared to "you have to try to get enough VPs to win the game". That is, since there are any number of courses of action that *can* be intended to end in a player winning the game, even if they don't look especially effective just at this instant, it's usually very difficult to finding any clear evidence of collusion or game-throwing unless the person in question actually flat-out says that that's what they're doing. And so it seems to me that it would be, in practice, nearly impossible to distinguish someone "playing for 3 VPs" from someone "playing for 5 VPs" even if a rule that you had to play for 5 VPs did exist. Therefore I don't think much of anything could be gained by instituting such a rule, when the rule we already have already prohibits people from giving up their own chances of *winning* the game in favor of helping someone else win the game. Josh vekn prince of washington dc

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E43F447...@white-wolf.com>... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3E43BF2E...@white-wolf.com... > >>LSJ wrote: > >>Clarification: > >>Playing for 2 VPs in the hope that two other players will > >>get 1 VP each is not "playing to win" - it's just playing > >>for 2 VPs (which is not a win). > >>If, however, your activity is constructed so as to accomplish > >>the goal of effecting the required VP distribution (the > >>obvious example being with a mutli-oust vote like Anarchist > >>Uprising), then that's playing to win. Playing to accomplish > >>a 2-1-1-finish is different than simply playing for 2 VPs > >>in the hopes that 2 will somehow be sufficient. > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > going further: > > how a judge can tell when a (questionable/collusion-like) > > player's behavior during a game is actually for > > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > > from > > "simply playing for 2 VPs" ? > > She'd have to use her judgement. Here's a hypothetical situation at a 4 player table: W > X > Y > Z It has been a long game and time is running short. W has lots of pool and has destroyed all of X's minions. X is sitting on their meager pool waiting things out. Y is on the verge of ousting Z by stealth bleed. Z is playing politics, has no bounce and will absolutely be ousted by Y on their next turn. W and Z make a deal. Z will use their last ounce of political strength upstream to oust Y. X will get the VP and pool, but W has enough bleeding minions that it will only take a couple of turns to finish X off. In exchange, W will allow Z to withdraw from the game (after quickly cycling cards via Fragment of the Book of Nod), taking 1 VP from the table. So, on Z's next turn, he passes a couple KRCs, ousting Y. X gets the VP and pool. W then bleeds X heavily eventually ousting X. Then, even though W is now in a superior position and CAN oust Z, he honors the deal and allows Z to withdraw. The table ends with W getting the Table Win with 2 VPs, X has 1 VP and Z has 1 VP. Is this legal?

>Here's a hypothetical situation at a 4 player table: >W > X > Y > Z > >It has been a long game and time is running short. W has lots of pool >and has destroyed all of X's minions. X is sitting on their meager >pool waiting things out. Y is on the verge of ousting Z by stealth >bleed. Z is playing politics, has no bounce and will absolutely be >ousted by Y on their next turn. > >W and Z make a deal. Z will use their last ounce of political strength >upstream to oust Y. X will get the VP and pool, but W has enough >bleeding minions that it will only take a couple of turns to finish X >off. In exchange, W will allow Z to withdraw from the game (after >quickly cycling cards via Fragment of the Book of Nod), taking 1 VP >from the table. Okay. >So, on Z's next turn, he passes a couple KRCs, ousting Y. X gets the >VP and pool. W then bleeds X heavily eventually ousting X. Then, even >though W is now in a superior position and CAN oust Z, he honors the >deal and allows Z to withdraw. The table ends with W getting the Table >Win with 2 VPs, X has 1 VP and Z has 1 VP. Okay. >Is this legal? I personally don't see any problem with this. Player W got the Table Win so he/she could win through whatever manner he or she chose. Considering the fact that Z was apparantly in a no-win situation and time was running out, Player Z maximized his VP's as best he could. Of course some may argue about the presence of a no-win situation (I know some D.C. players like Josh and Trey believe that you should always fight till the end). In addition, even though W is in a superior position and cano oust Z, it has been stated before that there is nothing wrong with fulfilling deals. In addition, even if a deal hadn't been made, W could still allow Z to withdraw since W would still be getting the Table Win. At least from my point of view, the general rule that the end justifies the means. In any case, I honestly have seen lots of situations even more bizarre than that one so once again, I don't see why it would be inherently illegal. Halcyan 2

On 7 Feb 2003 16:17:14, Jeff Kuta wrote: >So, on Z's next turn, he passes a couple KRCs, ousting Y. X gets the >VP and pool. W then bleeds X heavily eventually ousting X. Then, even >though W is now in a superior position and CAN oust Z, he honors the >deal and allows Z to withdraw. The table ends with W getting the Table >Win with 2 VPs, X has 1 VP and Z has 1 VP. > >Is this legal? "Honor" is not the right word - W is a weasel while Z is a quisling. As to legality: a) Such deals are not sanctioned by the rules. If time is short, then players shouldn't be wasting it by discussing them. If W can propose such things then why can't Y propose counter-deals? Where does this process end? When the clock runs out? b) We are asked to believe that the VP which Z represents is worth something to Z but worth nothing to W. So far as winning the game is concerned, it is clearly worth nothing in the scenario described. But, if it is still worth something as a tournament tie-break or rating boost, then W should be striving as hard for it as Z. And so W should oust Z. c) In practise, the main reason that W would allow Z to walk away with a free VP is the implicit threat of what will happen in future games, if he doesn't - there will be boycotts, reprisals and so forth. Such out-of-game considerations are collusion - only available to players who know each other and make deals regularly. If you want to explore such issues in a purer form, I recommend the Survivor CCG. The mechanics are simpler and so allow you focus purely on the popularity contest - a sub-game in which it is bad to be good and it's good to be weak. In the one tournament of this that I played (for a $500 prize), the two final players were a guy and an 8 year old girl. The girl appeared to have trouble understanding the basics (like which way up to hold the cards) but had a solid alliance with the guy and, between them, saw off many players who were ostensibly good. I myself went out in the first round because I foolishly gave the impression that I knew what I was doing. In the final showdown, the little girl gave the guy a fright by pulling up level so that the result was decided by a single card but, alas, it was the guy who pocketed the $500. I don't know if he subsequently gave her or a parents a cut. Andrew

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E43F447...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3E43BF2E...@white-wolf.com... > > > >>LSJ wrote: > >> > > > >>Clarification: > >>Playing for 2 VPs in the hope that two other players will > >>get 1 VP each is not "playing to win" - it's just playing > >>for 2 VPs (which is not a win). > >>If, however, your activity is constructed so as to accomplish > >>the goal of effecting the required VP distribution (the > >>obvious example being with a mutli-oust vote like Anarchist > >>Uprising), then that's playing to win. Playing to accomplish > >>a 2-1-1-finish is different than simply playing for 2 VPs > >>in the hopes that 2 will somehow be sufficient. > >> > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. > > > > going further: > > how a judge can tell when a (questionable/collusion-like) > > player's behavior during a game is actually for > > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > > from > > "simply playing for 2 VPs" ? > > She'd have to use her judgement. > Yes,that is granted. However, what i'm trying to say that is pretty difficult to tell, as you said, when a player is playing (from the beginning) for "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" from "simply playing for 2 VPs". IMHO, it's a questionable and argueable assumption, (legal, from the beginning "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" not legal "simply playing for 2 VPs" ) that lets enough space to a (bad) player for eventual collusion-like behaviors. That's all. Personally, if questioned as a judge, i would be in doubt if would judge such situation ("no, you're not playing to accomplish a 2-1-1 finish but just to get 2 Pv...")... <snip> > > Don't you feel that if players should have to play > > (from the very beginning) > > for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as > > *the maximum total Vps currently available* > > instead of > > *the most Vps needed to win at the table* > > we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment ? > > Moot. > There are no plans to impose an spurious goal in place > of the natural one (i.e., play to win). > Why "spurious" ? The goal "to win" it's not altered if "scoring the most Vps" is interpreted as "scoring the maximum Vp available" instead of "scoring more Vps than any other player at the current table". The key difference is, imho, that a (collusionary-Like) player can't hide behind "...but this way i'm playing to make 2 Vp and have to others two just 1.." that is far more un-questionable than to demonstrate (for the same player) "...but his way i'm playing to get the max Vps available..." (originated with that different rule interpretation) just mu thought Emiliano, v:ken prince of Rome

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:b211ep$16j3c6$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b20n54$15dr9a$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > Is at that point the judge expected to stop the game, inspect > > that player's whole deck and current hand to tell if the player > > is acting/behaving by collusion with some other player at the table, > > to allow that other player to make, say, 3 or 4 or even 5 Vps ? > > Well, it's always up to the judge to evaluate and give a > judgement call if other players are complaining that someone > at their table isn't playing to win. That's pretty much > the job of the judge. :-) > Yes, that's granted :-) However, that judge job can be more or less easy depending how the set of current rules it's clear or less-clear. > > Don't you feel that if players should have to play > > (from the very beginning) > > for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as > > *the maximum total Vps currently available* > > instead of > > *the most Vps needed to win at the table* > > we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment ? > > I'm not LSJ, obviously, but my feeling is that interpreting > behavior and its intent with regard to gaining X number of > VPs is subjective and difficult enough that there would be > no practical benefit to saying "you have to try to get as > many VPs as you possibly can" as compared to "you have to > try to get enough VPs to win the game". Well, so far, the former was the current assumption here (originated by the language-ambiguity you pointed early on this thread). Realizing the latter interpretation, me (along other italian players) are feeling that's more space open to collusion, above all for the second (in a 2+F tournament) round (i'm giving an example below) > > That is, since there are any number of courses of action > that *can* be intended to end in a player winning the game, > even if they don't look especially effective just at this > instant, it's usually very difficult to finding any clear > evidence of collusion or game-throwing unless the person > in question actually flat-out says that that's what they're > doing. And so it seems to me that it would be, in practice, > nearly impossible to distinguish someone "playing for 3 VPs" > from someone "playing for 5 VPs" even if a rule that you had > to play for 5 VPs did exist. I'll try to make an example, un-exaustive as it can be: imagine the typical 2+F tournament in which different group (by city or whatever) of friends attend: assuming ("bad") players A e B are friend and collusion-prone. On 1st round sat at the different tables. During that round 1, A scores 5 Pv, B scores 3 Pv. Now, what chanches the rule(s) let those players to collude on 2nd round if they meet at the same table? A needs just 1/1.5 or 2 Vps to have the finals (almost) granted, B needs 3 /3.5 or 4 Vps to get (almost) for sure to the final round. At any point, then, A can "hide" himself that " is playing to make just 2 Pv letting the other just 1 ", right ? While it's colluding with his/her friend, maybe just slowing down his prey or predator, to let his companion to make the 3 Vps he/she needs to get to the final. If that player would be forced to demonstrate that "he/she's playing to get the most Vp available", then the collusion would be far more easy to unravel ("how you're supposed to make the max vp currently available this way, dude?"). > Therefore I don't think much > of anything could be gained by instituting such a rule, when > the rule we already have already prohibits people from > giving up their own chances of *winning* the game in favor > of helping someone else win the game. Well, i think it would be rather "changing" the rule interpretation, and not instituting a (completely) new rule. In one word, Imho, with the "goal" interpreted as it is now, the fact that one can legally play (as Scott pointed) just to make "only 2 pv letting just 1 Vp to the remaining players" give enough space to (bad) players for collusion-like demeanors, whereas "playing for the max Vp in any moment" does not. comment welcome Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snip signature>

[ quoted text not captured ] If each player is playing to win and each player who cannot win is playing to maximize his VPs, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

tetragrammaton wrote: > However, what i'm trying to say that is pretty difficult > to tell, as you said, when a player is playing > (from the beginning) for > > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > > from > > "simply playing for 2 VPs". Playing for a 2 VP finish and not guaranteeing the win is not allowed if the player can play for the win, either by going for a clear win at 3VP or by proactively effecting a 2-1-1-0 finish. > > There are no plans to impose an spurious goal in place > > of the natural one (i.e., play to win). > > > > Why "spurious" ? > The goal "to win" it's not altered if > "scoring the most Vps" is interpreted as "scoring the maximum Vp available" > instead of "scoring more Vps than any other player at the current table". If someone has a "guaranteed" way to win and finish with 3 VPs and a very small chance to go for a sweep, and going for the sweep would mean taking risks that could lead to a 0 VP finish, the player is not obliged to go for the spurious 5VP goal - the player need only play to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:A97B5CE5C9E8B051.BE830104...@lp.airnews.net.. . > On 7 Feb 2003 16:17:14, Jeff Kuta wrote: > > >So, on Z's next turn, he passes a couple KRCs, ousting Y. X gets the > >VP and pool. W then bleeds X heavily eventually ousting X. Then, even > >though W is now in a superior position and CAN oust Z, he honors the > >deal and allows Z to withdraw. The table ends with W getting the Table > >Win with 2 VPs, X has 1 VP and Z has 1 VP. > > > >Is this legal? > > "Honor" is not the right word - W is a weasel while Z is a quisling. > > As to legality: > > a) Such deals are not sanctioned by the rules. If time is short, then > players shouldn't be wasting it by discussing them. If W can propose > such things then why can't Y propose counter-deals? Y *can* counter-propose deals, and Z can listen to those deals. > Where does this > process end? When the clock runs out? When Z, it being his turn, takes an action, thereby leaving the "talking deals" part of the game and entering the "playing the game" part of the game. > b) We are asked to believe that the VP which Z represents is worth > something to Z but worth nothing to W. Incorrect assumption. The GAME WIN is what is important to W (or any other player). If there are, say, 5-10 minutes left, and Z *cannot* get a Game Win (Josh and Trey's ridiculous "If you have even a 1-in-a-million chance of getting a Game Win, you are required to go for it" arguments notwithstanding), then he should maximize his VPs. Since this is a 4-player table, and his prey is the guy causing him not to be able to get a Game Win, and his predator is going to KILL HIM, then 1VP is the best he can hope to do, and making a deal to achieve this goal is what he SHOULD be doing. > So far as winning the game is > concerned, it is clearly worth nothing in the scenario described. Incorrect assumption. After Z's deal with W, the Game Win is within W's grasp, and so is Z's 1VP, which wasn't within Z's grasp before he made a deal with W. > But, if it is still worth something as a tournament tie-break or > rating boost, then W should be striving as hard for it as Z. And so W > should oust Z. You're confusing VPs and Game Wins, here. > c) In practise, the main reason that W would allow Z to walk away with > a free VP is the implicit threat of what will happen in future games, > if he doesn't - there will be boycotts, reprisals and so forth. Incorrect. The main reason the W would allow Z to walk away with a free VP is the implicit Game Win for W, which would not exist without allowing Z his VP. > Such > out-of-game considerations are collusion - only available to players > who know each other and make deals regularly. Incorrect, as demonstrated above. [snip irrelevant Survivor text] > > Andrew Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 20:07:11 GMT, Kevin M. wrote: >Incorrect. The main reason the W would allow Z to walk away with a free >VP is the implicit Game Win for W, which would not exist without >allowing Z his VP. In the situation described, W has already got his game win. Your theory is that he is free to stop competing in the game and may reward his cronies, such as Z. But that's collusion because the game mechanics give him no excuse to stop competing - there is no deal so far as the game's rules are concerned. If all that matters is the game win, then why don't you stop the game as soon as this is achieved? If play goes past this point, the players must have some other goal in mind, because the game win is no longer available to them. That goal is to gain VP and it applies to all players equally. If a player declines to take a VP that is available to him in this situation then he's cheating. Why does he cheat like this? Because he expects that his investment of 1 VP now will pay off with more than 1 VP in future games. Players openly talk about how important it is to protect their "reputation". It's sickening to see such open collusion. Andrew

In message <7CF20123B8660EF7.C5F748EA...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 20:07:11 GMT, Kevin M. wrote: >>Incorrect. The main reason the W would allow Z to walk away with a free >>VP is the implicit Game Win for W, which would not exist without >>allowing Z his VP. > >In the situation described, W has already got his game win. In the situation described, no players have been ousted, no game win has been garnered. Y is about to oust Z, and is conceivably in a very comfy position at that point with 6 extra pool, say, two KRCs from Z (3 damage each), so maybe 12 pool at that point. They've had no assaults from X, who is all but dead. With limited time, it may be very difficult for W to oust Y with that extra pool. That may then lead to a time-out. There is no reasonable guarantee implied in the set-up that W can oust Y absolutely. For instance, W may be a combat deck who was destroyed X, eventually, but who would not have the time to destroy Y too. W has 1 VP, Y has 1 VP. X and Z have 0. W and Y get 0.5 each, so 1.5 each. No table win. In the situation given, W makes a deal which gets a table win, or aims to. Since it gets a table-win, it is playing to win - as opposed to a time-limited situation, where Y *will* oust Z, where W still has to oust X and may not get through all of her pool with sufficient time remaining to deal with Y. This could be especially true of a weenie combat deck in W's position, say. Such things take time, and towards the end of a game, combative resources are often low. In that situation, W is playing to get a table win. In the process, Z gets a VP. However, in taking the deal, W is playing to maximise the perceived chances of getting a table win. Y is an unaccounted for variable. >Your >theory is that he is free to stop competing in the game and may reward >his cronies, such as Z. Deals are allowed. Deals which result in mutual benefit for both players are also allowed. >But that's collusion because the game >mechanics give him no excuse to stop competing - there is no deal so >far as the game's rules are concerned. Z has to maximise his VPs. If he does this deal, he gets a VP. If he doesn't, he gets 0. (Y will oust him, we are told.) Clearly, Z is not in violation of any rules or rulings. W secures a game win, whereas otherwise she might not. With limited time, she may not oust both X and Y, whereas ousting X and letting Z withdraw may well be plausible. In such an instance, that would be the optimum play. Since W secures a game win and Z maximises her VPs based on in game concerns, this cannot be collusion. >If all that matters is the game win, then why don't you stop the game >as soon as this is achieved? Because there are multiple players. The principal thing for the winner (if any) is the game win. For others, since game wins cannot be shared, it is not. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:7CF20123B8660EF7.C5F748EA...@lp.airnews.net.. . > On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 20:07:11 GMT, Kevin M. wrote: > > >Incorrect. The main reason the W would allow Z to walk away with a free > >VP is the implicit Game Win for W, which would not exist without > >allowing Z his VP. > > In the situation described, W has already got his game win. Your > theory is that he is free to stop competing in the game and may reward > his cronies, such as Z. But that's collusion because the game > mechanics give him no excuse to stop competing - there is no deal so > far as the game's rules are concerned. Where is the rulebook does it say ANYTHING about deals? Come on! Sheesh. LSJ has ruled on this in the past, and that ruling stated that you aren't forced to attempt to get the remaining VPs after you've achieved the Game Win. Now, as to what one *will* do after they achieve the Game Win, and there are still players at the table, is a matter of several variables. If I've just achieved a Game Win in round 3, and I've swept the past 2 rounds, it probably doesn't help me to go for the remaining VPs, so why should I? > If all that matters is the game win, then why don't you stop the game > as soon as this is achieved? Because there are still VPs to be had, which may make some difference when deciding placement at the final table. > If play goes past this point, the > players must have some other goal in mind, because the game win is no > longer available to them. That goal is to gain VP and it applies to > all players equally. If a player declines to take a VP that is > available to him in this situation then he's cheating. Almost certainly, yes. > Why does he > cheat like this? Because he expects that his investment of 1 VP now > will pay off with more than 1 VP in future games. If anyone honors that in the next game, it's considered *out of game considerations*, and hence illegal. > Players openly talk > about how important it is to protect their "reputation". It's > sickening to see such open collusion. Of course, it isn't collusion, as stated above. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 03:28:32 GMT, Kevin M. wrote: >Where is the rulebook does it say ANYTHING about deals? Exactly - it says nothing. Therefore such deals are not part of the game. For an example of what they might have said, I just opened a recent game sitting on top of the stack here - GMT's "The Napoleonic Wars". The rules for that game say: "8.6 Negotiations You may bargain freely but such discussions must be public and cannot delay play. There is no penalty for breaking a promise. Cards may not be traded or shown unless allowed by an event." VTES has no such rule therefore negotiations are not part of the game, any more than synchronised swimming, gurning or dressage is part of the game. Some players say that roleplaying is not part of the game too but there's some evidence for it in the rulebook - it gets a mention right at the start, when the basic concept of the game is described. >LSJ has ruled on this in the past, and that ruling stated that you >aren't forced to attempt to get the remaining VPs after you've achieved >the Game Win. So you can do what you like after you've won? Can you let someone withdraw or take the last two VPs if they ask you nicely? If you think that they role-played the game well? If you want to see them in the final, owing you a favour? If they come from the same city? If you don't want to sweep and become the "tall poppy"? As a magnanimous gesture? On a whim? And is the losing player likewise free to do as he pleases? >>If a player declines to take a VP that is >> available to him in this situation then he's cheating. > >Almost certainly, yes. We agree? So W and/or Z are cheating? (I've forgotten who's who but they are both in it together). BTW, I see that the FAQ has just been published. Note that it says: "The table dynamic is a predator-prey relationship. A player's primary goal is to oust the person to their left (their prey) without getting ousted by the player to their right (their predator)." Andrew

In message <2F77252CC60A51BC.B187DE42...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Exactly - it says nothing. Therefore such deals are not part of the >game. Repeated rulings from LSJ state otherwise. Rulings are just as much a part of the game as anything else. If you don't like the official environment, you don't have to deal with it. However, please do not repeatedly feed misinformation out because of your own, bizarre, twisted trolling fetishism. LSJ has ruled repeatedly that deals are allowed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <A%E1a.21658$LW1.1...@news1.west.cox.net>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >Now, as to what one *will* do after they achieve the Game Win, and there >are still players at the table, is a matter of several variables. If >I've just achieved a Game Win in round 3, and I've swept the past 2 >rounds, it probably doesn't help me to go for the remaining VPs, so why >should I? In a very large tournament, it would be possible to carry on needing the VPs, if other people were managing 3 table sweeps. However, this comes back down to the basic point of deals: - deals are legal, by repeated ruling and Garfield's own writings (he sought to limit the amount of useful interaction players could have, and use carrots like the Edge and 6 pool oustings to encourage counter to uber-diplomacy, but he did not seek to neuter them - see the political aspects of the game) - deals must be legal when they are made. That is, you must be playing to win or, secondarily, to maximise VPs. (This is well understood.) - honouring a previously made deal *even if there are better things for you to do NOW* is legal This third point is the tricky one. Outside of a simple, one-shot deal like Succubus Club ("Okay, you give me the Direct Intervention and I'll give you this Dreams of the Sphinx"), all deals have the capacity to bite back. Were you to rigorously enforce "You must *ALWAYS* play for maximising VPs and the table win", this would result in a situation like: W X Y Z (from previous post) Z offers the oust-Y and withdraw deal. W takes it. Y is ousted. W ousts X. W now has to play for maximising VPs and the table win. So he HAS to double-cross on the deal. However, in the situation where the deal was made, this would be obvious, so Z could never make the deal in the first place. As a result, any slightly complex or slightly long term deal would involve an element where one player would have to double-cross the other and maximise their VPs and chance of ousting their prey, etc. So deals have to be legal when made. >> Why does he >> cheat like this? Obvious answer: Because it's not cheating. No rules have been broken, and repeated rulings have stated it's legal. >>Because he expects that his investment of 1 VP now >> will pay off with more than 1 VP in future games. > >If anyone honors that in the next game, it's considered *out of game >considerations*, and hence illegal. In the situation that he expects some return from it in future games, yes, that would be collusion. However, all players develop a reputation and including that reputation in your considerations is allowed. "No, judge, I don't want to make that deal because he's a dirty double crosser and he won't go through with it" is a perfectly legal reason for taking or not taking a deal. Z may go on to develop a reputation of: "Oh, he was that smart guy who knew his way round the 'play to win' rules, and made sure he got a VP too. I don't know if I could've managed it if he didn't oust Y." When coming up to time, this may well also be noted by spectators. In later rounds, or other tournaments, clever play and subtle, legal manipulation of the finer points of the rules may come back to aid a player. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E450C02...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > However, what i'm trying to say that is pretty difficult > > to tell, as you said, when a player is playing > > (from the beginning) for > > > > "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" > > > > from > > > > "simply playing for 2 VPs". > > Playing for a 2 VP finish and not guaranteeing the win is not > allowed if the player can play for the win, either by going > for a clear win at 3VP or by proactively effecting a 2-1-1-0 > finish. > > > > There are no plans to impose an spurious goal in place > > > of the natural one (i.e., play to win). > > > > > > > Why "spurious" ? > > The goal "to win" it's not altered if > > "scoring the most Vps" is interpreted as "scoring the maximum Vp available" > > instead of "scoring more Vps than any other player at the current table". > > If someone has a "guaranteed" way to win and finish with 3 VPs and a very > small chance to go for a sweep, and going for the sweep would mean taking > risks that could lead to a 0 VP finish, the player is not obliged to go > for the spurious 5VP goal - the player need only play to win. > Ok, i can see your point. However, this way, the result is that if player X, having scored 4-5 pv on the first round (in a given 2+F tournament), once has scored 3 pv on the 2nd round, he can freely does (almost) anything he wants, *including* let the remaining 2 Vps to the other (remaining) player Z. Though currently allowed, that it's likely to be a collusion like-dictated act since, if that "other" player Z is a friend/comrade of X, he/she likely will receive the "2 Vps gift" from X. Maybe, in that moment, 2 Vps are just what player Z needs to get into the final too.... I hope that you can see my point Waiting for your opinion thanks EMiliano > --

>However, this way, the result is that if player X, having scored 4-5 pv >on the first round >(in a given 2+F tournament), >once has scored >3 pv on the 2nd round, >he can freely does (almost) anything he wants, *including* >let the remaining 2 Vps to the other (remaining) player Z. This is an unavoidable problem with multiround multiplayer tournaments of a certain size. Can try to legislate against it, but it doesn't require doing anything blatant to try to manipulate who else gets into the finals. The most blatant example of my doing it ended up with my getting the most VPs in my third prelim round, gotta love irony. So, rather than try to punish someone for maximizing their tournament results, I think it's easier just to focus on distribution of prize support as an incentive/disincentive to how someone approaches tournament play.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. > Waiting for your opinion You've had it already. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E4806BC...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3E450C02...@white-wolf.com... > > <snip> [ quoted text not captured ] Mh ? If i'm asking, i do not.....:-) You pointed about the chanches of doing a sweep , and i can see the point, yes. However, a situation in which a player has scored already 3 Vps (or is way to score the 3d) usually means that players has good chanches to get the remaining two Vps as well , doing therefore the sweep. If you realized the point , then you can see it's also clear that the ruling as it is now (implying that once a player has scored 3 he/she can "give away" the remaining 2 Vps ) somehow could help (or leaves a door open to) certain collusion-prone players. Imho, that could not happens if players had to play for "the most Vps" interpreted as "the max Vps currently available"; by that, no matter if "guaranteed" that a player can score the remaining two Vps, he should have to play *anyway* (to his/her best, as usual) attempting to score the remaining two. It would be much like the rule that if you can't win, you must try anyway to maximize your Vps ("if you win and there are still players at the table, you must try anyway to maximize your Vps") Afaik, that would not alters anyway the goal "to win" the game. thanks for your patience Emiliano > --

In message <b29cs1$1ada7b$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >If you realized the point , then > you can see it's also clear that the ruling as it is now >(implying that once a player has scored 3 he/she can >"give away" the remaining 2 Vps ) >somehow could help (or leaves a door open to) >certain collusion-prone players. Call a judge over and ask for a ruling. Trying to legislate everything before you have an understanding of the set-up, the people, the cards and the dynamics of the game is likely to fail. That's why you have judges. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message , tetragrammaton > writes: > > >If you realized the point , then > >you can see it's also clear that the ruling as it is now > >(implying that once a player has scored 3 he/she can > >"give away" the remaining 2 Vps ) > >somehow could help (or leaves a door open to) > >certain collusion-prone players. > > > Call a judge over and ask for a ruling. > > Trying to legislate everything before you have an understanding of the > set-up, the people, the cards and the dynamics of the game is likely > to fail. That's why you have judges. That is assuming there is some kind of collusion. But even if there isn't, I don't think this is good for the game. Just because this situation is not colusion doesn't meant that it should be allowed. The fact that it is allowed ('giving away' VPs) under the current rules only means that the rules may need revision. Flux

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Hv5k3VCI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <b29cs1$1ada7b$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton > <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: > >If you realized the point , then > > you can see it's also clear that the ruling as it is now > >(implying that once a player has scored 3 he/she can > >"give away" the remaining 2 Vps ) > >somehow could help (or leaves a door open to) > >certain collusion-prone players. > > Call a judge over and ask for a ruling. I agree. However, under the current rules set, how that judge is supposed to rule "against" a player (who has already scored 3 Vps) that now is "giving away" 2 Vps to the remaining player, if the ruling pointed by LSJ early here stated that it's legal in such situation ("i already won !") to "give away" those remaining 2 Vps ? Of course, that judge could not do anything. As Flux pointed, the situation i pictured means not necessarily collusion, but it could mean that a (small) revision of the current rule could be done to fix such potential collusions. I repeat here that the solution could be very similar to the rule that if you cannot "win", then you must attempt anyway to maximize yours Vps; ("If you win and there are still other players at the table, you must attempt anyway to maximize your Vps"). > > Trying to legislate everything before you have an understanding of the > set-up, the people, the cards and the dynamics of the game is likely to > fail. That's why you have judges. Yes, indeed i judge tournaments on regular basis, so i have an idea of the above, and is for that reason that i'm pointing this here. greets Emiliano, v:ekn prince of Rome

Tetragrammaton wrote: > However, under the current rules set, > how that judge is supposed to rule > "against" a player (who has already scored 3 Vps) > that now is "giving away" 2 Vps to the remaining player, > if the ruling > pointed by LSJ early here stated that it's legal > in such situation ("i already won !") > to "give away" those remaining 2 Vps ? The judge is not supposed to rule "against" a player who is playing properly, no. If you find that a judge is judging improperly, point out the error (politely). If the judge doesn't listen, then you'll have to accept the bad ruling, but you should then report the problem to the V:EKN. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <52f0d87d.03021...@posting.google.com>, Tetragrammaton <vam...@usa.com> writes: >I repeat here that the solution could be very similar to the rule >that if you cannot "win", then you must >attempt anyway to maximize yours Vps; >("If you win and there are still other players >at the table, you must attempt anyway to maximize >your Vps"). This necessitates back-stabbing a deal, after it has got you the table win but before the rest of table (including the person you made the deal with) dies. This has all the logical problems previously gone over. I have to backstab you. You know this. Anyone with a copy of the rules and the savvy to call over a judge can prove this. "Judge, if he does that, he won't be allowed to let him withdraw, will he, because he has to play for maximum VPs after he's won?" That is not a happy state of affairs. However, in situations where cutting a reasonable deal exist, with increased chances of receiving a game win and the other player having very little chance at all of receiving one anyway (e.g. a stealth bleed deck that's been all but destroyed by a combat deck, but has one, last vampire to throw at them, and does so), there is no problem. Both player cut a mutually beneficial deal - right? In situations where a deal is made which is rubbish and clearly not in a player's best interests ("Oh, uh, yeah, you do that and I'll oust myself," says the player with 75 pool and about to roll the table), a judge can intervene. In situations where VPs are just *given away* for no good reason, call a judge over. The judge can first establish that it isn't either of the above. So we are dealing with a situation where no overt, legal deal has been made. Perhaps you have a table A-B-C-D-E. D and E were combat decks, and E could have cut through A like a knife through butter. D goes forward heavily onto D, almost dying in the process. (Combat+Combat = Foom) A could oust D, but lets D oust E first. This could be regarded as a "Thank you" for stopping E ousting A and would be pretty much legal. (Unless there was something else odd going on.) A judge - using their judgement - could determine that a covert deal has been made, or pre-arranged. It is understood that a judge always has the option of stepping outside the Judging Guidelines where extenuating circumstances exist. In that case the answer is: it's up to the judge's decision. The judge, when given the facts of the case, makes a judgment. [LSJ 20020219] <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D8A0163.E3938FAA%40white-wolf.com> Please remember that these are only guidelines. If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate. [Judging Guidelines] If there were no reasonable explanation for the VPs being given away, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a judge to suspect collusion, out-of-game considerations and so on. (This can be especially true in the third round, when you have a good idea of who'll make the final and who giving your 'spare' VPs to might exclude.) Where a player can offer no reasonable motivation for their actions, it is perfectly okay for a judge to suspect something. Bear in mind that this is not a court of law, the judge is always relying on judgement calls and balancing issues. For instance, "If a judge believes that an infraction was intentional, the penalty should be upgraded as appropriate (see section 160)." *If a judge believes*, not *If a judge can prove beyond all reasonable doubt*. Were such to occur several times in a tournament with the same player, tracking it on paper would be an option. They cannot offer any reason for their actions that satisfies the Head Judge, and the Head Judge (and any other judges) suspect foul play. Extenuating circumstances (it happening several times) may convince the Judge to issue a written warning because they believe something is *wrong*, which is communicated with V:EKN. Similarly, if this happened every time in the third round with this player over several tournaments, a judge could suspect foul-play, collusion and so on. They use their judgement. Where things seem wrong, the judge has to use their discretion. Even without having sufficient reason to issue a penalty, the Archon (if used) allows Tournament Notes to be entered. A tricky decision such as the above could well be entered, with the judge's thoughts on it. If such happens multiple times, it's likely to come to V:EKN's attention. If it doesn't, shrug your shoulders and move on. It's a game. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <52f0d87d.03021...@posting.google.com>, > Tetragrammaton writes: > > >I repeat here that the solution could be very similar to the rule > >that if you cannot "win", then you must > >attempt anyway to maximize yours Vps; > >("If you win and there are still other players > >at the table, you must attempt anyway to maximize > >your Vps"). > > > This necessitates back-stabbing a deal, after it has got you the table > win but before the rest of table (including the person you made the deal > with) dies. > > This has all the logical problems previously gone over. I have to > backstab you. You know this. Anyone with a copy of the rules and the > savvy to call over a judge can prove this. "Judge, if he does that, > he won't be allowed to let him withdraw, will he, because he has to > play for maximum VPs after he's won?" > > That is not a happy state of affairs. I wonder. The current GW rule was introduced partially to prevent VP-splitting deals. Maybe it is better to go 'all the way' and forbid VP-splitting alltogether, limiting the game to 'smaller' deals. In casual play I seldom see table-splitting deals (since there is no incentive for such), shouldn't tournament play attempt to maintain the same type of play? I know plenty of players here would welcome the change. Either way, you could as easily include an exception clause: 'players must attempt to maximize their VPs at all times, except when honouring a previous deal made during the current game'. <snip bit on collusion> You keep aproaching this from the collusion angle, but that is not the important bit here (IMO). The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is no collusion involved. > Where things seem wrong, the judge has to use their discretion. Even > without having sufficient reason to issue a penalty, the Archon (if > used) allows Tournament Notes to be entered. A tricky decision such as > the above could well be entered, with the judge's thoughts on it. If > such happens multiple times, it's likely to come to V:EKN's attention. > If it doesn't, shrug your shoulders and move on. > > It's a game. ...that is supposed to be fun. It's much harder to have fun if you are taken out of a game on a whim from another player. I believe that is why the rules prohibit deciding the outcome of a game in a random way. Flux

Flux wrote: > The current GW rule was introduced partially to prevent VP-splitting > deals. The GW rule was introduced so that tournament goals would properly model/reward game goals. > Maybe it is better to go 'all the way' and forbid VP-splitting > alltogether, limiting the game to 'smaller' deals. What about deals that set up a VP-split but don't actually "deal" the VPs? You're attempting to add an undefined gray (if not invisible) line for deals. > The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he > wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can > reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is > no collusion involved. You assert that it is a problem. Why is it a problem? > ...that is supposed to be fun. It's much harder to have fun if you are > taken out of a game on a whim from another player. ... after the game has already been won and you have lost. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E4903C2...@white-wolf.com... > Flux wrote: <snip> > > The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he > > wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can > > reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is > > no collusion involved. > > > You assert that it is a problem. > Why is it a problem? > Because, as i pointed (and you said that you saw my point) and as Flux realized, under the current rule, during a round a player in good shape that already scored 3 Vps can let the remaining two to the other maybe "almost dead" player without any concerns. That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at tournament final round, and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason without qualms ("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps to my friend to let him in the final too"). Since it's ruled the way we know, a judge could not intervene in such "giving away the remainig 2 Vps" situation. Emiliano <snip> > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3E4903C2...@white-wolf.com... > >>Flux wrote: > > <snip> > >>>The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he >>>wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can >>>reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is >>>no collusion involved. >> >> >>You assert that it is a problem. >>Why is it a problem? >> > > > Because, as i pointed (and you said that you saw my point) and as Flux > realized, I see the point. I'm wondering what trit it possesses that leads you to classify it as a problem. > under the current rule, during a round a player in good shape that already > scored 3 Vps > can let the remaining two to the other maybe "almost dead" player without > any concerns. Yes. > That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at > tournament final round, > and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason > without qualms > ("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps > to my friend to let him in the final too"). > Since it's ruled the way we know, a judge could not intervene in such > "giving away the remainig 2 Vps" situation. You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has won) is a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Q8ERjGg9...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <52f0d87d.03021...@posting.google.com>, > Tetragrammaton <vam...@usa.com> writes: > >I repeat here that the solution could be very similar to the rule > >that if you cannot "win", then you must > >attempt anyway to maximize yours Vps; > >("If you win and there are still other players > >at the table, you must attempt anyway to maximize > >your Vps"). > > This necessitates back-stabbing a deal, after it has got you the table > win but before the rest of table (including the person you made the deal > with) dies. > > This has all the logical problems previously gone over. I have to > backstab you. You know this. Anyone with a copy of the rules and the > savvy to call over a judge can prove this. "Judge, if he does that, he > won't be allowed to let him withdraw, will he, because he has to play for > maximum VPs after he's won?" > > That is not a happy state of affairs. > I'm not sure. Afaik, most (legal) deal involving specifically Vps-gaining (let me do 1 pv and i'll let you do 1) are anyway problematic to handle. (the other players witnessing such "Vp deal" usually rants against it and/or calls the judge to inspect would-be collusions) Imho, it would be not much of a problem if a revised rule would minimize utterly the chanches that players have to do deals based specifically on Vps-gaining/splitting. > > > However, in situations where cutting a reasonable deal exist, with > increased chances of receiving a game win and the other player having > very little chance at all of receiving one anyway (e.g. a stealth bleed > deck that's been all but destroyed by a combat deck, but has one, last > vampire to throw at them, and does so), there is no problem. Both player > cut a mutually beneficial deal - right? > > In situations where a deal is made which is rubbish and clearly not in a > player's best interests ("Oh, uh, yeah, you do that and I'll oust > myself," says the player with 75 pool and about to roll the table), a > judge can intervene. Yes, unless that player has still scored 3 Vps; in that case, the player can even do as you figured just above ("i got already 3 Pvs, so i'll oust myself, even though i have 75 pool and about to roll over you, my little-remaining-at-the-table friend"). > > In situations where VPs are just *given away* for no good reason, call a > judge over. Yes, but if LSJ pointed that it is legal to [quote] "i repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he chooses, including not taking all the VPs that he can" [end quote] doesn't mean also that if i already won i can do just that ("giving away the remaining Vps")? > The judge can first establish that it isn't either of the > above. So we are dealing with a situation where no overt, legal deal has > been made. > > Perhaps you have a table A-B-C-D-E. D and E were combat decks, and E > could have cut through A like a knife through butter. D goes forward > heavily onto D, almost dying in the process. (Combat+Combat = Foom) A > could oust D, but lets D oust E first. This could be regarded as a > "Thank you" for stopping E ousting A and would be pretty much legal. > (Unless there was something else odd going on.) > > A judge - using their judgement - could determine that a covert deal has > been made, or pre-arranged. It is understood that a judge always has the > option of stepping outside the Judging Guidelines where extenuating > circumstances exist. Yes, here i agree with you. However you'll admit that the job of the judge it's harder if he knows, also, that it's legalized after all such "giving away Vps". Players also, know that. ("hey , it's ruled that if i win i can not taking all the VPs that i can"). > > In that case the answer is: it's up to the judge's decision. > The judge, when given the facts of the case, makes a judgment. > [LSJ 20020219] > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D8A0163.E3938FAA%40white-wolf.com> > > Please remember that these are only guidelines. If the judge > believes that the situation has significant, extenuating > circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as > appropriate. Yes, but it would not be better if the Judge knows that a specific rule clearly forbides to a "3 alredy-scored Vps" player from "giving away" the remaining 2 ? (say, because "a player a that point must play anyway to score the maximum Vps") > [Judging Guidelines] > > > If there were no reasonable explanation for the VPs being given away, it > would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a judge to suspect > collusion, out-of-game considerations and so on. (This can be especially > true in the third round, when you have a good idea of who'll make the > final and who giving your 'spare' VPs to might exclude.) Where a player > can offer no reasonable motivation for their actions, it is perfectly > okay for a judge to suspect something. Bear in mind that this is not a > court of law, the judge is always relying on judgement calls and > balancing issues. For instance, "If a judge believes that an infraction > was intentional, the penalty should be upgraded as appropriate (see > section 160)." *If a judge believes*, not *If a judge can prove beyond > all reasonable doubt*. For sure, i'm not adressing for a rule granting the " i can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt" (that is pretty beyond human nature, imho :-) ). However, i'm suggesting just a rule revision to clearly forbide an "already-scored-3Vps-player" to give away the remaining 2 Vps. <snipped the rest> Emiliano > --

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E493A1E...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3E4903C2...@white-wolf.com... > > > >>Flux wrote: > > > > <snip> <snip> > I see the point. > I'm wondering what trit it possesses that leads you to classify it as > a problem. > > > under the current rule, during a round a player in good shape that already > > scored 3 Vps > > can let the remaining two to the other maybe "almost dead" player without > > any concerns. > > Yes. > > > That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at > > tournament final round, > > and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason > > without qualms > > ("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps > > to my friend to let him in the final too"). > > Since it's ruled the way we know, a judge could not intervene in such > > "giving away the remainig 2 Vps" situation. > > You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has > won) is a problem. > Potentially altering the final round table by "giving away" 2 pvs to a single players during the 2nd (or 3rd with the 3+F) round, without any reason other than "i already scored 3 Vps, i'm in good shape and you're almost dead, but i can (legally) let you the remaing two Vps, so i'll let you score those 2" isn't enough of a problem? Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has >>won) is a problem. >> > > Potentially altering the final round table by "giving away" 2 pvs to a > single players > during the 2nd (or 3rd with the 3+F) round, without any reason other than > "i already scored 3 Vps, i'm in good shape and you're almost dead, > but i can (legally) let you the remaing two Vps, so i'll let you score those > 2" > isn't enough of a problem? First off: I was just asking for the reason why *you* thought it was a problem, you you hadn't specified that before. So whether "it" is "enough" of a problem in that context is entirely up to you. Now, why is that more of a problem than altering the final round by not "giving away" 2 VPs? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E494A35...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has > >>won) is a problem. > First off: I was just asking for the reason why *you* thought it was a problem, > you you hadn't specified that before. > > So whether "it" is "enough" of a problem in that context is entirely up to you. > > Now, why is that more of a problem than altering the final round by not > "giving away" 2 VPs? > Because, by the rule, you *have not* to give away those remaining 2 Vps. It's up to the (sportmanlike/unsportmanslike) behavior of the actual player(s). Say, figuring the same situation for two tables on 2nd round (2+F) : at table A remaining players 1 e 2 are friends, and/or have whatever reason to collude (say, they secretly dealt for splitting the final prizes) and they find themselves in such situation P1 has scored 3 Pvs, P2 still nothing; P1 is fine P2 is way to die at table B player 3 and 4 are *not* friends and/or have whatever reason to *not* collude (they're honests, and play to their last minion and pool anyway) and find in the same situation P3 has scored 3 Pvs, P4 nothing ; P3 is fine, P4 is way to die Now, given that both P1 and P3 have already placed in the finals for sure, (by the Vps they scored during the first round), and that P2 and P4 will get into the final if they score now 2Vps: *Why* shouldn't be a problem if, by "legally" following the rule, P2 is "given away" 2 Vps due friendship and/or collusion, and gets to the final while P4 gets nothing, playing (with P3) "honestly" ? Say, some possible dialogues: ["psst...please, you know the rule and you have already won: let me do 2 vps, by that i'll get to the final too, so that we'll get better chanches to split the prizes..]. ["ok my friend, we know the rule and we're going for round#2 at the same table; you need just 1 Vp to get into the final, me at least 2 vps; once in the final we'll get better chanches to split the prizes, you know?; it's all clear what we're going to do?..;-) ]. Emiliano > --

tetragrammaton wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3E494A35...@white-wolf.com... > >>tetragrammaton wrote: >> >>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >>> >>>>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner >>> > has > >>>>won) is a problem. >>> > >>First off: I was just asking for the reason why *you* thought it was a > > problem, > >>you you hadn't specified that before. >> >>So whether "it" is "enough" of a problem in that context is entirely up to > > you. > >>Now, why is that more of a problem than altering the final round by not >>"giving away" 2 VPs? >> > > > Because, by the rule, you *have not* to give away those remaining 2 Vps. > It's up to the (sportmanlike/unsportmanslike) behavior of the actual > player(s). [please do something about your news-poster's text mangl^h^h^h^h^hwrapping.] Circular argument. The addition of a spurious rule doesn't mean that the absence of the rule (and the routine "breaking" of the non-existent rule in accordance with the actual rules) is a problem. You claimed that the problem was that moving the 2 VPs in a particular way altered the composition of the final round and that such an alteration was bad. I'm pointing out that *not* moving those VPs in that way (but, rather, moving them in some other way, since they have to be moved somehow) alters the composition of the final in an equal measure. [snip contrived example] I'm looking for rationale, not anecdotes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E493A1E...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at > > tournament final round, > > and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason > > without qualms > > ("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps > > to my friend to let him in the final too"). > > Since it's ruled the way we know, a judge could not intervene in such > > "giving away the remainig 2 Vps" situation. > > You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has > won) is a problem. You're right that the outcome of the game has been determined - at least as far as the winner. But second place is *not* irrelevant in a tournament (or a casual) game, which is why play *doesn't* just stop after someone achieves the winning number of VPs. Given that the 2 remaining VPs are meaningful to the tournament, it seems to me that they should be treated as being meaningful rather than dismissed as unimportant to determining the winner of the game. Yes, if the person who already has the 3 VPs gets the last 2, that does affect the tournament standings just as much as if he or she allows another player to get the last 2. But it's never collusive to try to score points on your own behalf, and it can be collusive to allow others to score them. So it does make sense, I think, to require people to play for the most VPs they can earn even if they don't "need" them to win the game. Yes, this could rule out certain types of VP-splitting deals. I have no problem with that, personally, since I think those kinds of VP-splitting deals are usually against what I take to be the spirit of the game anyway. Josh play like you mean it

In message <b2bevr$1bbi6p$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >I'm not sure. >Afaik, most (legal) deal involving specifically Vps-gaining >(let me do 1 pv and i'll let you do 1) are anyway problematic to handle. >(the other players witnessing such "Vp deal" usually rants against it >and/or calls the judge to inspect would-be collusions) >Imho, it would be not much of a problem if a revised rule would minimize >utterly >the chanches that players have to do deals based specifically on >Vps-gaining/splitting. As a judge, it is much, much better that players are allowed to openly discuss VP splits than having to end up in half-hearted conversations like: "Oh, I'll do this and you do that. Oh, and I *PROBABLY* won't be able to oust you for a while. *nudge nudge wink wink*" when what they are trying to say is: "Look, you and me do this stuff, it'll help me, and you can oust him afterwards, okay?" Keeping the amount of crap a judge has to plough through to get to the heart of a deal to a minimum is a good thing. All deals should be made and made openly. This is also preferable for people whose first language isn't that of the tournament. Players co-operating in mutually beneficial situations will *always* happen in multi-player games. You cannot legislate against this with any useful effect that doesn't just make people hide it. >> In situations where a deal is made which is rubbish and clearly not in a >> player's best interests ("Oh, uh, yeah, you do that and I'll oust >> myself," says the player with 75 pool and about to roll the table), a >> judge can intervene. > >Yes, unless that player has still scored 3 Vps; Sure. >> In situations where VPs are just *given away* for no good reason, call a >> judge over. > >Yes, but if LSJ pointed that it is legal to > >[quote] >"i repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he chooses, > including not taking all the VPs that he can" >[end quote] That he can win by whatever means he chooses does not mean that collusion, bribery and other naughtiness cannot occur. Where a judge believes such is occuring, he or she is perfectly entitled to act, however many VPs are allocated. A judge would be entitled to believe that a player just giving away VPs for no good reason may well be involved in "changing the results of the game". (Quote from the guidelines. Note that this is not the same as changing the *winner* of the game.) If such is the case, then that judge *can* act. >Yes, here i agree with you. >However you'll admit that the job of the judge it's harder if >he knows, also, that it's legalized after all such "giving away Vps". >Players also, know that. >("hey , it's ruled that if i win i can not taking all the VPs that i can"). Sure. But that has to be the case, to allow deals to function. >Yes, but it would not be better if the Judge knows that a specific rule >clearly forbides to a "3 alredy-scored Vps" player from >"giving away" the remaining 2 ? No. Because that would tie a judge's hands, just in different ways. A judge is supposed to be able to exercise their judgement. Imagine the end of a five player game: A - B - C - D - E E is still going strong, as is A. D is putting up a lot of resistance, and E is doing quite well too. E won't oust A in time, but with enough pressure could seriously damage A's chances. (Perhaps, a couple of well-targeted combats, a Hostile Takeover or five, whatever.) A: "Look, E, if you hold off and go backwards at D, I'll be able to take out B and C no trouble. With your help, I'll get D. You know you can't get through me if I keep trying. But this way, I get B C and D and a table win. And then I'll roll over for you. This way, we don't time out, which we're going to do if not." E: "Okay." B, C and D: "Judge! But that's not taking all the VPs he can!" Add whining to taste. This way, A secures a table win and lets E have them. Without his promise (which E may not believe), A cannot secure the table win. But then, by your rules, he has to walk over E too. E, knowing this, may well then not then make the deal. So your rule prevents a table win being gained in what would be a perfectly legitimate situation. A needs the flexibility to bargain with the 'excess' VPs to get the TW. Attempting to restrict what a player may do with VPs will cut very, very hard across such deals, whether it fixes a perceived problem of someone just giving away VPs or not. >However, i'm suggesting just a rule revision to clearly forbide an >"already-scored-3Vps-player" to give away the remaining 2 Vps. What would you do with all the legitimate deals you've just torn up? [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:jY$daUUSx...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Imagine the end of a five player game: > > A - B - C - D - E > > E is still going strong, as is A. D is putting up a lot of resistance, > and E is doing quite well too. E won't oust A in time, but with enough > pressure could seriously damage A's chances. (Perhaps, a couple of > well-targeted combats, a Hostile Takeover or five, whatever.) I'm not sure how E can be "doing well" if he can't oust A before time. You just mean he's in no danger of getting ousted, I guess? It's not really important to the example, though. > A: "Look, E, if you hold off and go backwards at D, I'll be able to take > out B and C no trouble. With your help, I'll get D. You know you can't > get through me if I keep trying. But this way, I get B C and D and a > table win. And then I'll roll over for you. This way, we don't time > out, which we're going to do if not." > > E: "Okay." > > B, C and D: "Judge! But that's not taking all the VPs he can!" > > Add whining to taste. > > This way, A secures a table win and lets E have them. Without his > promise (which E may not believe), A cannot secure the table win. But > then, by your rules, he has to walk over E too. E, knowing this, may > well then not then make the deal. E probably *shouldn't* make the deal. Timing out and getting the 0.5 VP is probably better for E than finishing in time, getting 2 VPs, but letting A have 3 and the game win. If you can't get a game win yourself, you don't want anyone else to get it; it'll make it harder for you to get to the finals. There's not much reason, in my mind, for people to work toward the existence of game wins rather than no-game-win ends to games, if they're not the one who'd be getting the win. Josh and the little one said "i'm crowded, roll over"

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2av0e$19bgv6$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he > wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can > reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is > no collusion involved. If you think about how often someone plays in a "completely random way" after gaining the GW, your theory falls to pieces. > > Flux [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <b2bqvd$10out5$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >E probably *shouldn't* make the deal. Possibly. E would be entitled to take the deal, in order to maximise her VPs, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b2bklb$1b0e24$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:3E494A35...@white-wolf.com... > > tetragrammaton wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > >>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner > has > > >>won) is a problem. > > > First off: I was just asking for the reason why *you* thought it was a > problem, > > you you hadn't specified that before. > > > > So whether "it" is "enough" of a problem in that context is entirely up to > you. > > > > Now, why is that more of a problem than altering the final round by not > > "giving away" 2 VPs? > > > > Because, by the rule, you *have not* to give away those remaining 2 Vps. > It's up to the (sportmanlike/unsportmanslike) behavior of the actual > player(s). [snip an example of possible collusion activity] Let's go back to logic a second... There are only certain VP combinations that will yield Game Wins. Four-player table: 4/0, 3/1, 2/1/1, 2.5/0.5 Five-player table: 5/0, 4/1, 3/2, 3/1/1, 2/1/1/1, 3.5/0.5, 2.5/0.5/0.5, 2.5/1/0.5 There may be others, but I think that's covered the possibilities. It is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be three players remaining at the instant a Game Win has been determined for ANY table without going to time. Logically, with three players remaining, only 2 VPs have been earned, at best by a single player. Any of the remaining three players can "sweep" and earn the Game Win. (There has been quite a bit of discussion about the "three player game" on this newsgroup in the past and strategies for getting to that point and collapsing the table in your favor.) Once a Game Winner has been determined, they will logically have at most one opponent left, or, time will have been called. I played in a tournament final where a situation like this had occurred. The Giovanni "responsible bleeder" chose the Gangrel Wall as his predator. The Giovanni secured 3 VPs ousting 3 consecutive prey, leaving himself and his original predator standing. The Gangrel Wall was a slow-building deck and eventually decimated the Giovanni with combat, but they still didn't win the tournament. Granted, it would be possible for a player with 3 VPs to face off with their friend as the final 2 players, but I think it should be VERY obvious to a judge in most situations if the 3 VP player simply rolled over and died after earning 18 extra pool during the course of the game. A relatively extreme case of table-splitting I could imagine would be with a Rush/Wall deck preying on a "friendly" stealth bleed/politics deck. The Rush/Wall could keep themselves alive, while Rushing in sequence, minions of the S&B friend's prey. After securing 3 VPs and the GW, the bleed/politics deck would suddenly fall over and die to repeated Fame/torpor after "over-extending" themselves. In fact, IIRC, this is similiar to the situation which caused all sorts of controversy at the Euro Champs last year. At that point, the trick for the judges is determining whether the player is actually playing to win or just survive. This can be very difficult to judge especially if someone has a lot of pressure on them. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that once a table win has been secured, the rest of the game is usually easy to figure out. It's the strategies and tactics used DURING the game that a judge really needs to watch to determine if there is any collusion occurring.

>Five-player table: 5/0, 4/1, 3/2, 3/1/1, 2/1/1/1, 3.5/0.5, >2.5/0.5/0.5, 2.5/1/0.5 2/1.5/0.5? Halcyan 2

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E493A1E...@white-wolf.com... > >>tetragrammaton wrote: > > >>>That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at >>>tournament final round, >>>and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason >>>without qualms >>>("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps >>>to my friend to let him in the final too"). >>>Since it's ruled the way we know, a judge could not intervene in such >>>"giving away the remainig 2 Vps" situation. >> >>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner has >>won) is a problem. > > > You're right that the outcome of the game has been determined - at > least as far as the winner. But second place is *not* irrelevant > in a tournament (or a casual) game, which is why play *doesn't* just > stop after someone achieves the winning number of VPs. I didn't say the outcome was determined. I said the winner had won. Why change it from something you agree with to something you don't just so you can restate the thing you agree with and argue over the thing neither of us asserts? > Given that the 2 remaining VPs are meaningful to the tournament, it > seems to me that they should be treated as being meaningful rather > than dismissed as unimportant to determining the winner of the game. <sigh> They *are* unimportant "to determining the winner of the game", as you just repeated above. That doesn't mean that they aren't important in every regard, of course, which seems to be what you want to say. I agree, of course. > > Yes, if the person who already has the 3 VPs gets the last 2, that > does affect the tournament standings just as much as if he or she > allows another player to get the last 2. But it's never collusive > to try to score points on your own behalf, and it can be collusive Oh? > to allow others to score them. So it does make sense, I think, to > require people to play for the most VPs they can earn even if they > don't "need" them to win the game. See previous response to exactly this. An equally valid point would be to prohibit the person who already has 3 of more VPs from playing any more (to increase the "fun" the other players have, since being taken out by a player who has already won is not "fun" [FLUX 11-FEB-2003]). > Yes, this could rule out certain types of VP-splitting deals. I > have no problem with that, personally, since I think those kinds > of VP-splitting deals are usually against what I take to be the > spirit of the game anyway. Whether certain deals are affected is not the point. The point is: why impose an additional (spurious) goal on the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > You're right that the outcome of the game has been determined - at > least as far as the winner. But second place is *not* irrelevant > in a tournament (or a casual) game, which is why play *doesn't* just > stop after someone achieves the winning number of VPs. THREADJACK: second place *should* be irrelevant in a casual game. The main problem I see with this is a system that fosters two different playstyles, one for casual environments and one for tournament environments. I'm not dug in on this one, but I personally dislike all the wheeling and dealing along the likes of "I'll help you, prey, kill your prey right after you kill my predator. And then you'll have the table win and roll over for me, giving me two victory points, which is two more than my psychic powers show me getting right now." I can understand the need for that in a tournament where you're trying to make the finals. But if you view each game "atomically", either you won or you didn't. It's hard for the person being offered the table win to turn it down, and it drags the game out way more often IME. I've started boycotting all that crap in our weekly games. It's cost me a few veeps, of course. Also, given what LSJ has recently stated as the definition of "maximum VP", I can't see where players are required by the rules to get the most VP's they can if they are also clearly playing for second place. > Yes, this could rule out certain types of VP-splitting deals. I > have no problem with that, personally, since I think those kinds > of VP-splitting deals are usually against what I take to be the > spirit of the game anyway. Oh, the irony! ;) David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > You're right that the outcome of the game has been determined - at > > least as far as the winner. But second place is *not* irrelevant > > in a tournament (or a casual) game, which is why play *doesn't* just > > stop after someone achieves the winning number of VPs. > > THREADJACK: second place *should* be irrelevant in a casual game. The > main problem I see with this is a system that fosters two different > playstyles, one for casual environments and one for tournament > environments. > > I'm not dug in on this one, but I personally dislike all the wheeling and > dealing along the likes of "I'll help you, prey, kill your prey right > after you kill my predator. And then you'll have the table win and roll > over for me, giving me two victory points, which is two more than my > psychic powers show me getting right now." I can understand the need for > that in a tournament where you're trying to make the finals. But if you > view each game "atomically", either you won or you didn't. It's hard for > the person being offered the table win to turn it down, and it drags the > game out way more often IME. The concept of viewing each game atomically is one that's not accepted by everyone, though - even in non-tournament games. That's a matter of individual philosophy in multiplayer game play. No one's ever proved that that view is the correct or incorrect way to look at going for second place. And no one ever will, either. And personally, I play pretty much the same way in non-tournament and tournament games: I don't worry much about anything besides winning in either of them unless I'm resigned to losing. But the thing about accepting that you're going to lose and just going for, say one single victory point is that usually by the time you're sure you're going to lose, it's usually too late to do anything that would salvage in a single VP. By the time I've given it up, I'm usually always well along into the process of crashing and burning. Not always but more than 9 times out of 10. Conversely, most all the games I've gotten a single VP, I did so thinking it was a good start towards winning and only afterwards started going downhill. Fred

In message <3E4A65E5...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: >The concept of viewing each game atomically is one that's not accepted >by everyone, though - even in non-tournament games. That's a matter >of individual philosophy in multiplayer game play. No one's ever proved >that that view is the correct or incorrect way to look at going for >second place. And no one ever will, either. Looking at games atomically also has the problem of reputation and so forth. Someone who fights hard to sweep tables may be regarded differently to someone who only gets 3 VPs and wins. You might panic if you get the table sweeper on your table, but a person who gets 3 VPs twice in a tournament might not engender such panic in the third round. "Oh, well, he lost 2 VPs, so I might be able to get those anyway, and he can't have been *that good or he'd have swept." Good strategy? Possibly not. But a player's long term, or even medium- term, reputation is important to some. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, James Coupe wrote: > Looking at games atomically also has the problem of reputation and so > forth. I disagree with playing to maximize one's reputation as well. I don't think it's the kind of thing that can be enforced, but I do think the game is better when it isn't a factor. > Someone who fights hard to sweep tables may be regarded differently to > someone who only gets 3 VPs and wins. You might panic if you get the > table sweeper on your table, but a person who gets 3 VPs twice in a > tournament might not engender such panic in the third round. "Oh, well, > he lost 2 VPs, so I might be able to get those anyway, and he can't have > been *that good or he'd have swept." How does this relate to making deals to ensure one's coming in second? > Good strategy? Possibly not. But a player's long term, or even medium- > term, reputation is important to some. True. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E4A4372...@white-wolf.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > You're right that the outcome of the game has been determined - at > > least as far as the winner. But second place is *not* irrelevant > > in a tournament (or a casual) game, which is why play *doesn't* just > > stop after someone achieves the winning number of VPs. > > I didn't say the outcome was determined. > I said the winner had won. > Why change it from something you agree with to something you don't just > so you can restate the thing you agree with and argue over the thing > neither of us asserts? Oy. You said it hadn't been demonstrated why the end of the game, after the winner had won, was a problem. I thought this meant that you thought it *wasn't* a problem, because what happens after the winner wins doesn't matter. If that's not what you're saying, then yeah, I'm arguing over something neither of us asserts. But I didn't know that then. > > Given that the 2 remaining VPs are meaningful to the tournament, it > > seems to me that they should be treated as being meaningful rather > > than dismissed as unimportant to determining the winner of the game. > > <sigh> > They *are* unimportant "to determining the winner of the game", as > you just repeated above. > That doesn't mean that they aren't important in every regard, of > course, which seems to be what you want to say. I agree, of course. My writing seems to have failed me there; I meant that those VPs shouldn't be dismissed *because* they are unimportant to determining the winner; obviously the winner is determined, but that doesn't make them meaningless, since they still have meaning as the first tiebreaker among people with equal numbers of won games. > > Yes, if the person who already has the 3 VPs gets the last 2, that > > does affect the tournament standings just as much as if he or she > > allows another player to get the last 2. But it's never collusive > > to try to score points on your own behalf, and it can be collusive > > Oh? Do you have an example of how it's collusive to score points on your own behalf? I suppose if someone's letting you score them, you're in a collusive arrangement, but it's only the person who's "throwing" the games whose behavior can be distinguished from someone engaged in legitimate trying-to-win play, so... > > to allow others to score them. So it does make sense, I think, to > > require people to play for the most VPs they can earn even if they > > don't "need" them to win the game. > > See previous response to exactly this. That previous response being that the sense of it hasn't been demonstrated? Demonstrating the sense of it is what I'm trying to do. Since the VPs matter to the players of the game, even though the winner has been determined, they shouldn't be treated as if they don't matter by the "play to win" rule. An additional "spurious" rule should be added because in a tournament setting, winning the game is not the only thing that's scored; non- winning VPs also count toward tournament standing. So it doesn't make sense for the rules to say that, once a game winner has been determined, the winner has no use for the rest of the VPs - they *do* have a use for them. > Whether certain deals are affected is not the point. > The point is: why impose an additional (spurious) goal on the game? The goal's not spurious. Consider an imaginary Scrabble tournament. In this tournament, you add up the points you scored in each round as a tiebreaker, although your standing is primarily determined by how many rounds you won. Now, even though the rules of Scrabble tell you that the winner of the game is the person with the most points, and it doesn't matter how many more than your opponent you finish with, in this tournament you're better off the more points you win by. In such a tournament, your primary goal is to win each game by having more points than your opponent. But your secondary goal is to score the most points possible, because even if you don't win, your tiebreakers will be better if you have more points. So the "win the game" goal is not the only legitimate goal in this tournament... much like in VTES. Josh pointy

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Demonstrating the sense of it is what I'm trying to do. Since the > VPs matter to the players of the game, even though the winner has > been determined, they shouldn't be treated as if they don't matter by > the "play to win" rule. They aren't. The players who haven't won are still obliged to try to win as many VPs as they can. The player who wins is clearly playing to win, since any activity he takes at that point leads to an outcome in which he wins. [1] > An additional "spurious" rule should be added because in a tournament > setting, winning the game is not the only thing that's scored; non- > winning VPs also count toward tournament standing. So it doesn't > make sense for the rules to say that, once a game winner has been > determined, the winner has no use for the rest of the VPs - they *do* > have a use for them. They are free to try to make use of them, of course. >>Whether certain deals are affected is not the point. >>The point is: why impose an additional (spurious) goal on the game? > > The goal's not spurious. Yes, it is, by [1] above. You're stapling on a "winner must try to sweep" goal on top of the game's basic goal. > Consider an imaginary Scrabble tournament. In this tournament, you > add up the points you scored in each round as a tiebreaker, although > your standing is primarily determined by how many rounds you won. > Now, even though the rules of Scrabble tell you that the winner of > the game is the person with the most points, and it doesn't matter > how many more than your opponent you finish with, in this tournament > you're better off the more points you win by. > > In such a tournament, your primary goal is to win each game by > having more points than your opponent. But your secondary goal is > to score the most points possible, because even if you don't win, > your tiebreakers will be better if you have more points. So the > "win the game" goal is not the only legitimate goal in this > tournament... You've mirrored the current situation. Except for the bit about being able to achieve a win before the end of the game (as in V:TES). You'd be better off with a real parallel example, of course. Something where the available points are fixed at the start. But say that you make it possible to know the winner in Scrabble before the game ends - (e.g., the first player to play to a triple word square wins the game.) Now, why go further and add a rule to the fictional Scrabble environment that after securing the win, the player must play to maximize his points (when the tournament structure already makes that a consideration)? > much like in VTES. The V:TES player is free to try to take more VPs, of course. That is a legitimate goal. It is not prohibited. The tournament rules even make it typically attractive. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030212...@petsparc.mc.duke.ed u>, d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu writes: >On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, James Coupe wrote: >> Looking at games atomically also has the problem of reputation and so >> forth. > >I disagree with playing to maximize one's reputation as well. I don't >think it's the kind of thing that can be enforced, but I do think the game >is better when it isn't a factor. Play with robots, then? Seriously, it's not practical to prevent people having an eye to their reputation, or other people's reputations. It's how people make deals - any deals. Sure, disallow VP splitting deals. (See if you can enforce it rigorously, including all the nudge-nudge, wink-wink deals that would then occur.) But even with regards "You do this, I'll do that", you have to wonder how honest they'll be. So, he's promised to rush Arika, has he. Maybe he just won't pull a Claws of the Dead this time and I'll still be in trouble - but he's kept up his end of the deal. Isn't it funny how he *always* screws up his hand during a deal? Anyone who'd encountered that would automatically consider it when making deals. How much will he make the deal in good faith? At that point, whilst a player must play to win (or maximise VPs), no rules in the world will prevent them from also playing to reputation, if they choose to. >> Someone who fights hard to sweep tables may be regarded differently to >> someone who only gets 3 VPs and wins. You might panic if you get the >> table sweeper on your table, but a person who gets 3 VPs twice in a >> tournament might not engender such panic in the third round. "Oh, well, >> he lost 2 VPs, so I might be able to get those anyway, and he can't have >> been *that good or he'd have swept." > >How does this relate to making deals to ensure one's coming in second? The point was rather with the "giving away" of VPs, either literally or slightly cautiously. If you have 3 VPs and a table-win coming up, you might *want* to come in without 5 VPs *if* you're looking at it long term, so that people don't regard you as a threat. There, it's less who comes in second, but rather that someone (or, indeed, two people get 1 VP each, you get 3) does. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, LSJ wrote: > The players who haven't won are still obliged to try to win as many > VPs as they can. Ow. My head hurts. If you've got the time, could you explain this? I'm just trying to make it gel with what I I thought I'd read earlier. The goal of the game is to accumulate the most victory points, where "most" means "more than any of the other players" and (I think) enough for a table win, besides. Once it's been determined that there is a winner, why would the remaining players be *obliged* to maximize VPs? It seems like this conflicts with the defined goal of the game, as clarified by you, or relies on out of game considerations. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E4A9260...@white-wolf.com... > The players who haven't won are still obliged to try to win as many > VPs as they can. > > The player who wins is clearly playing to win, since any activity > he takes at that point leads to an outcome in which he wins. [1] I think what I find odd about this is that the non-winning players are required to "play for ranking" but the winning player, since his ranking in the game is already secured, isn't. The strange result is that the non-winners are obliged to play "to the tournament" but the winner doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. If he actually cares about his tournament ranking, he is, as you say, allowed to keep trying to score VPs. But if he doesn't, or if he has some reason to care more about influencing how many VPs the non-winners get, he's free to try to "give away" VPs too. > > The goal's not spurious. > > Yes, it is, by [1] above. You're stapling on a "winner must try to > sweep" goal on top of the game's basic goal. The goal I think should be added is that players should play to get the best tournament ranking possible. Since "honest" players will normally be trying to do this anyway, it's not much of a hardship, but it doesn't make sense to me for us to legislate that players must play to win games while ignoring the structure of multi-round tournament scoring. That is, there's a tournament rule saying that players must play to the goal in the rulebook. But there is not a tournament rule saying players must play to the goal of the tournament. Since they are participating in the tournament, it seems to me that such a rule would be pretty logical to have. > Now, why go further and add a rule to the fictional Scrabble environment > that after securing the win, the player must play to maximize his points > (when the tournament structure already makes that a consideration)? Interesting point. Perhaps VTES tournament games should end immediately when a player has secured enough VPs to guarantee that he or she has won the game. This would probably help tournament rounds end faster, too. :-) Josh race for the three!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3E495955...@white-wolf.com... > tetragrammaton wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > > news:3E494A35...@white-wolf.com... > > > >>tetragrammaton wrote: > >> > >>>"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > >>> > >>>>You still haven't explained why the end of the game (after the winner > >>> > > has > > > >>>>won) is a problem. > >>> > > > >>First off: I was just asking for the reason why *you* thought it was a > > > > problem, > > > >>you you hadn't specified that before. > >> > >>So whether "it" is "enough" of a problem in that context is entirely up to > > > > you. > > > >>Now, why is that more of a problem than altering the final round by not > >>"giving away" 2 VPs? > >> > > > > > > Because, by the rule, you *have not* to give away those remaining 2 Vps. > > It's up to the (sportmanlike/unsportmanslike) behavior of the actual > > player(s). > > [please do something about your news-poster's text mangl^h^h^h^h^hwrapping.] > Sorry, don't know what to do, i'm using standard OE settings. > Circular argument. > The addition of a spurious rule doesn't mean that the absence of > the rule (and the routine "breaking" of the non-existent rule in > accordance with the actual rules) is a problem. > > You claimed that the problem was that moving the 2 VPs in a particular > way altered the composition of the final round and that such an > alteration was bad. > > I'm pointing out that *not* moving those VPs in that way (but, rather, > moving them in some other way, since they have to be moved somehow) > alters the composition of the final in an equal measure. > In equal "measure"? yes, but likely with (very) different results and backed with "outside from the current game" motivations. "Not moving" those 2 Vps means that, say in the "contrived" example conditions i made, you're just managing to score the remaing Vps for yourself, and you know that you're already in the final round even without that 2 Vps. You simply can't know *directly* that doing that way (reserving for yourself the remaining two Vps after you already scored 3) you're affecting the ability of some other player at another table to get into the final *instead* of the current player you're ousting anyway (you've scored already 3) at your table. So, while that simply can't be a dictated-by-collusion-act at all, *actively* "giving away" those remaining 2 Vps to the remaining "friend" it's likely to be; or, at the very best, it could be a pretty unsportsmanlike act (and it's supported by the current rule so far). > [snip contrived example] > > I'm looking for rationale, not anecdotes. The "contrived" example i made seems made with enough rationale to me, and not so "anecdotic"... thanks Emiliano > --

[ quoted text not captured ] I can't see how that would be out of game in any event. At any rate, the tournament ruling has been established for some time now as: players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play to maximize their VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E4A9260...@white-wolf.com... > > >>The players who haven't won are still obliged to try to win as many >>VPs as they can. >> >>The player who wins is clearly playing to win, since any activity >>he takes at that point leads to an outcome in which he wins. [1] > > I think what I find odd about this is that the non-winning players > are required to "play for ranking" but the winning player, since > his ranking in the game is already secured, isn't. Is. He must play for first place in that game. Which he will get no matter which of the available activities he chooses. > The strange result is that the non-winners are obliged to play "to > the tournament" but the winner doesn't have to if he doesn't want > to. No. The non-winners are obliged to "play the game" - bettering their finish. The winner cannot better his finish, since there is no "zeroth" place winner at the table. > If he actually cares about his tournament ranking, he is, as > you say, allowed to keep trying to score VPs. But if he doesn't, > or if he has some reason to care more about influencing how many > VPs the non-winners get, he's free to try to "give away" VPs too. As has been established for some time now, if a player has two options available, and both lead to him winning the game, he is free to choose whichever one he likes. >>>The goal's not spurious. >> >>Yes, it is, by [1] above. You're stapling on a "winner must try to >>sweep" goal on top of the game's basic goal. > > > The goal I think should be added is that players should play to > get the best tournament ranking possible. Since "honest" players > will normally be trying to do this anyway, it's not much of a > hardship, but it doesn't make sense to me for us to legislate > that players must play to win games while ignoring the structure > of multi-round tournament scoring. The position of the V:EKN so far has been to avoid changing the game rules to match the tournament (but rather, the V:EKN has changed the tournament to match the game rules, at least in the case of the Game Win criterion). I support this position. > That is, there's a tournament rule saying that players must play > to the goal in the rulebook. But there is not a tournament rule > saying players must play to the goal of the tournament. Since > they are participating in the tournament, it seems to me that such > a rule would be pretty logical to have. Why? The tournament structure itself inherently provides the incentive to do well in the tournament. No need to go monkeying with the game. >>Now, why go further and add a rule to the fictional Scrabble environment >>that after securing the win, the player must play to maximize his points >>(when the tournament structure already makes that a consideration)? > > Interesting point. Perhaps VTES tournament games should end > immediately when a player has secured enough VPs to guarantee that > he or she has won the game. This would probably help tournament > rounds end faster, too. :-) Now you might be getting somewhere. You'd have to come up with details about how to handle left-over VPs (throw them away or whatever), time-outs (if you go to 2.5 at the time-out, does anyone else left standing still get theirs?) and so on. But seriously, I don't think that the time that elapses between the achieving of 3 VPs by one player and the end of the game is all that significant compared with the time that elapsed from the start of the game to the 3 VP grab. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <b2e7p1$1asgno$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >Sorry, don't know what to do, i'm using standard OE settings. http://jump.to/oe-quotefix The first example's broken lines is what half your posts look like. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, James Coupe wrote: > > d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu writes: > >I disagree with playing to maximize one's reputation as well. I don't > >think it's the kind of thing that can be enforced, but I do think the game > >is better when it isn't a factor. > Play with robots, then? I should clarify: I dislike seeing people prematurely abandon the pursuit of victory in order to fall back upon the much safer pursuit of their own good name. It's the "premature" part that is both slippery and key. > At that point, whilst a player must play to win (or maximise VPs), no > rules in the world will prevent them from also playing to reputation, if > they choose to. I agree that more harm than good would be done if you tried to make rules to enforce any of this. It is why I've phrased my opinions on the subject carefully. > >> Someone who fights hard to sweep tables may be regarded differently to > >> someone who only gets 3 VPs and wins. You might panic if you get the > >> table sweeper on your table, but a person who gets 3 VPs twice in a > >> tournament might not engender such panic in the third round. "Oh, well, > >> he lost 2 VPs, so I might be able to get those anyway, and he can't have > >> been *that good or he'd have swept." It's a given that lying below the threat radar is a powerful asset. This would be sufficient reason for me to explain not taking the extra VP's. That strategy could turn around and bite you as you barely miss the finals, but that's true of many strategies. > >How does this relate to making deals to ensure one's coming in second? > The point was rather with the "giving away" of VPs, either literally or > slightly cautiously. If you have 3 VPs and a table-win coming up, you > might *want* to come in without 5 VPs *if* you're looking at it long > term, so that people don't regard you as a threat. It still doesn't address whether struggling for second place in a non-tournament game is pointless. Sometimes we pack it up in order to get on with the next game, and sometimes we slug it out because the remaining principals find the endgame interesting. I've gone both ways on this, but I'd like to find some guidance that reduces the arbitrariness of it, if it exists. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.030212...@petsparc.mc.duke.ed u>, d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu writes: >It still doesn't address whether struggling for second place in a >non-tournament game is pointless. Sometimes we pack it up in order to get >on with the next game, and sometimes we slug it out because the remaining >principals find the endgame interesting. I've gone both ways on this, but >I'd like to find some guidance that reduces the arbitrariness of it, if it >exists. It depends. In a non-tournament game, playing for fun can be the most important part. If it stops being fun, turn in your decks for the night and start on something different. However, playing for second in friendly play can be useful. First of all, honing a deck - either for tournament play or for more friendly play - is very useful. It might be that your deck needs real work for the end-game. It gets decked very quickly, it gets into real trouble because it was solely transient. That sort of trouble. Knowing about this in detail helps you fix it. Additionally, even if not in a real tournament, some people keep friendly tallies of how well they're doing. In such instances, you need proper results really. On top of that, other people may well want to play fully to the end, even if you see it as a foregone conclusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thanks, i just downloaded the software, hope now my posts looks better :-) EMiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <b2bevr$1bbi6p$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton > <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >> I'm not sure. >> Afaik, most (legal) deal involving specifically Vps-gaining >> (let me do 1 pv and i'll let you do 1) are anyway problematic to >> handle. (the other players witnessing such "Vp deal" usually rants >> against it and/or calls the judge to inspect would-be collusions) >> Imho, it would be not much of a problem if a revised rule would >> minimize utterly >> the chanches that players have to do deals based specifically on >> Vps-gaining/splitting. > > As a judge, it is much, much better that players are allowed to openly > discuss VP splits than having to end up in half-hearted conversations > like: > > "Oh, I'll do this and you do that. Oh, and I *PROBABLY* won't be able > to oust you for a while. *nudge nudge wink wink*" > Sorry, but i can't understand how a revised rule prohibiting a "3Vps-already-scored-player" to "give away" the remaining 2 Vps would more induce players to deal in secret like that. If you play honestly,then you play honestly anyway, even under a would-be rule revision that disallow Vps-based-deals. While if the rule *legally* allows to the table-winner to "give away" the remaining Vps, then he/she can somewhat collude supported by that actual rule. Granted, those remaining Vps aren't at that point significant to tell the table winner, however they can be still (very) important to tell who's second at the tournament, or who's getting into the final round, etc.. The fact that, as Scott pointed, the actual tournaments rules encourage overall Vps gaining (and that's fine), as it stand now isn't sufficent, imho, for unmotivating to not take the opportunity to give away such "remaining" Vps to a friend of yours for whatever reason (improving his/her v:ekn rating, allowing him/her to get in the final round, alowing him/her to place 2nd at the tournament and so on). > when what they are trying to say is: > > "Look, you and me do this stuff, it'll help me, and you can oust him > afterwards, okay?" > > Keeping the amount of crap a judge has to plough through to get to the > heart of a deal to a minimum is a good thing. > Yes, and if the chanches of Vps based deal are utterly minimized that minimun would be granted. > All deals should be made and made openly. This is also preferable for > people whose first language isn't that of the tournament. > Yes, of course. But, i repeat, can't see how if Vps deals are utterly mimized the players go dealing in secretly. > Players co-operating in mutually beneficial situations will *always* > happen in multi-player games. You cannot legislate against this with > any useful effect that doesn't just make people hide it. > Of course no. Co-operating deals are fine, but they can differ greatly from Vps-based deals. > >>> In situations where a deal is made which is rubbish and clearly not >>> in a player's best interests ("Oh, uh, yeah, you do that and I'll >>> oust myself," says the player with 75 pool and about to roll the >>> table), a judge can intervene. >> >> Yes, unless that player has still scored 3 Vps; > > Sure. > Then you see that a player can act in such rubbish way once he scored 3Vps: for what reason should he be allowed to give away the remaining 2 Vps if not backed by a rubbish/no-self-best-interest reason? >>> In situations where VPs are just *given away* for no good reason, >>> call a judge over. >> Moot, under current rule, if that player has already scored 3 vps. >> Yes, but if LSJ pointed that it is legal to >> >> [quote] >> "i repeat, if he wins that game, he can win by whatever method he >> chooses, including not taking all the VPs that he can" >> [end quote] > > That he can win by whatever means he chooses does not mean that > collusion, bribery and other naughtiness cannot occur. > > Where a judge believes such is occuring, he or she is perfectly > entitled > to act, however many VPs are allocated. > > A judge would be entitled to believe that a player just giving away > VPs > for no good reason may well be involved in "changing the results of > the game". (Quote from the guidelines. Note that this is not the > same as changing the *winner* of the game.) > > If such is the case, then that judge *can* act. > So, say, with 2 players left at the table, if A has scored 3 Vps, is in good conditions (lot of minions and 10 pools), B has scored 0, will be ousted for sure by A 1 or 2 turns overhelmed by A minions, a judge can intervene if A lets B to score the remaining 2 Vps ? >> Yes, here i agree with you. >> However you'll admit that the job of the judge it's harder if >> he knows, also, that it's legalized after all such "giving away Vps". >> Players also, know that. >> ("hey , it's ruled that if i win i can not taking all the VPs that i >> can"). > > Sure. But that has to be the case, to allow deals to function. > Of course, take my example just above. >> Yes, but it would not be better if the Judge knows that a specific >> rule clearly forbides to a "3 alredy-scored Vps" player from >> "giving away" the remaining 2 ? > > No. Because that would tie a judge's hands, just in different ways. > A judge is supposed to be able to exercise their judgement. > Yes, but Players (and not judge) would get hand a bit tied about Vps-dealing, and that would be not a bad thing, imho. <snip your table example -point taken> > So your rule prevents a table win being gained in what would be a > perfectly legitimate situation. > Yes, i can see the point. Then ,the question is: is better to keep-on allowing a lot of Vps-Based-deals, but legally allowing to a table-win-player to "give away" the remaining Vps by potential (un-sanctionable at that point) collusion OR is better to disallow at all such "giving away" Vps, but minimizing the chanches of Vps-based-delas? <snip> >> However, i'm suggesting just a rule revision to clearly forbide an >> "already-scored-3Vps-player" to give away the remaining 2 Vps. > > What would you do with all the legitimate deals you've just torn up? good question. We should see if those kind deals are fundamental for the game, and,above all, for the tournament enviroment (for which i raised the point). thanks EMiliano PS: i'm using OE fix right now, hope that this message layout is fine

In message <b2fqt0$1ckeku$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <b2bevr$1bbi6p$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de>, tetragrammaton >> <nospamae...@hotmail.com> writes: >>> I'm not sure. >>> Afaik, most (legal) deal involving specifically Vps-gaining >>> (let me do 1 pv and i'll let you do 1) are anyway problematic to >>> handle. (the other players witnessing such "Vp deal" usually rants >>> against it and/or calls the judge to inspect would-be collusions) >>> Imho, it would be not much of a problem if a revised rule would >>> minimize utterly >>> the chanches that players have to do deals based specifically on >>> Vps-gaining/splitting. >> >> As a judge, it is much, much better that players are allowed to openly >> discuss VP splits than having to end up in half-hearted conversations >> like: >> > >> "Oh, I'll do this and you do that. Oh, and I *PROBABLY* won't be able >> to oust you for a while. *nudge nudge wink wink*" >> > >Sorry, but i can't understand how a revised rule prohibiting >a "3Vps-already-scored-player" to "give away" the remaining 2 Vps >would more induce players to deal in secret like that. I shall requote the above for you: "Imho, it would be not much of a problem if a revised rule would minimize utterly the chanches that players have to do deals based specifically on Vps-gaining/splitting." This is what was being referred to - all (or practically all, see "minimize utterly") VP split deals. The point was regarding how a "You must ALWAYS play for ALL the VPs" would affect currently legitimate play-styles. With such a restriction in force, any time players *openly* discussed VP splitting would be suspect and cause mucho headaches. Yet people would still want to co-operate. If you can see a way for you to get 2 VPs rather than 0 VPs, maybe you'd want to go for it. so you try to squeeze a little extra out of the rules. As a judge, that's crap you *really* don't need. This point was *not* just about table-wins and giving away second place. It was about VP splitting in general, as an *extension* of action against table-win-and-give-away-second-place "problems". >> All deals should be made and made openly. This is also preferable for >> people whose first language isn't that of the tournament. >> >Yes, of course. >But, i repeat, can't see how if Vps deals are utterly mimized > the players go dealing in secretly. Because people are people. Maybe your people are robots or something. However, the people I see around me every day and at tournaments want to win and play competitively. If you have some woolly rule about "You must play to maximise VPs always" then you will get into interminable arguments. "But if I don't make this deal now, I won't get any VPs anyway. And what are you telling me to do, backstab someone after I've made a deal? WTF?" Sounds like a great recipe for harmony. >> Players co-operating in mutually beneficial situations will *always* >> happen in multi-player games. You cannot legislate against this with >> any useful effect that doesn't just make people hide it. >> >Of course no. >Co-operating deals are fine, but they can differ greatly > from Vps-based deals. VP based deals can be but a sub-set of those deals. Go back in time and look at the 'problems' with combat decks splitting tables, for instance, where all this was gone over then. Neither can win alone. Chances are, both will die on their own. A little team work and boom, mutual co-operation. I get 0 VPs, maybe 1 VP before I die. You get 0 VPs because you're coming up behind me and we're just going to mutually annihilate each other. Or I get 3 VPs (TW) and you get 2 VPs. That's mutual co-operation, with each player playing towards in-game goals. If you'd like to be the one to explain to players "No, sorry, that previously perfectly legal tactic that helped you both out yesterday is now illegal. Yeah, I know I'm having to tell you both now not to maximise your VPs or your table win chances but, hey, we have some new rules that say you don't have to play for a table-win anymore if people don't like the deal you're making. Sux2bu." then be my guest. Simultaneously telling players "Maximise your VPs in game" and "Sorry, we're stopping you maximising your VPs in game" is a nightmare just waiting to happen. >>>> In situations where VPs are just *given away* for no good reason, >>>> call a judge over. >>> >Moot, under current rule, if that player has already scored 3 vps. Try reading the whole post, dear. Not moot at all. If a player or judge has good reason to suspect collusion, it matters not what the current state of VPs is. >So, say, with 2 players left at the table, >if A has scored 3 Vps, is in good conditions (lot of minions and 10 pools), >B has scored 0, will be ousted for sure by A 1 or 2 turns overhelmed >by A minions, >a judge can intervene if A lets B to score the remaining 2 Vps ? If the judge has sufficient reason to suspect collusion occurred, the judge always has leeway to intervene. I could explain this again if it'll help. That the player could offer no reasonable suggestion for their actions may convince a judge to pay more attention later on, even if they don't feel inclined to rule collusion here. If there is no reasonable suspicion of collusion, they don't act. >>> Yes, but it would not be better if the Judge knows that a specific >>> rule clearly forbides to a "3 alredy-scored Vps" player from >>> "giving away" the remaining 2 ? >> >> No. Because that would tie a judge's hands, just in different ways. >> A judge is supposed to be able to exercise their judgement. >> >Yes, >but Players (and not judge) would get hand a bit tied about > Vps-dealing, and that would be not a bad thing, imho. No, players who were better at explaining why what they were doing was legitimate play and not VP sharing would not be tied up at all. Players who weren't quite so quick with their explanations would be left tied up in knots. The gift of creative explanation is not one we all have. This is the sort of crap a judge doesn't need. Having had to sit down and give rulings on tables where all three remaining players (I recall a table at Gencon 2 years ago with Matt Green, Rob Treasure and *I think* Jon Cooper) are more than capable of making extremely convincing points about their style of play, it can be *extremely* hard to separate what is right in the context of the game, what is right in the context of what the players are entitled to believe and what is clever play on their part. In the context of the game: Are they doing what's right in order to maximise their chances of a game-win? Are they maximising their VPs if not? In the context of what the players are entitled to believe: I am a stealth bleed deck. You are an intercept wall, with bruise and bleed edges. I cannot bleed through you. So, we come to some deal. As a judge coming over to verify the deal, I can see both players' hands, ash-heaps, possibly their libraries, and so on. Assume that I'm playing the stealth bleed deck. Well, I can see that he's blocked or bounced everything I've done so far, but he's not getting on so well with this bleeds. However, if I then look at the intercept player, I can see that he's got *nothing* in his hand anymore. He's just managed to hit an absolute mine of combat, and he's got no intercept anymore, other than a Sport Bike and maybe a London Evening Star, but the political deck has been looking to steal that *anyway*. But maybe if I go back and look at the stealth and bleed deck, he's actually got nothing in his hand either. He had a wodge of combat defence and votes in his deck, just to upset the apple cart a little and throw people off scent off the other 70 stealth and bleed cards in his deck, and they've all come at once. At this point, as a judge, I have to balance what the players know with what they can be reasonably be expected to believe. It might just happen that the shuffles have gone so that player A should be able to destroy player B. But I can't *tell* them that, and if I were to break up a deal based on the empirical evidence, rather than what the players could be reasonably expected to believe, I *will* tell them something. Probably "Umm, something's odd here." If you look at your stealth bleed hand and are being told "No, you can't make that deal with the intercept/bounce deck", it doesn't take a genius to work out that something may well be up with that deck. In the context of clever play: Is a player just bullshitting me in order to maximise their final chances? Are they just *saying* all that so that they can knock out someone else from the running by giving other people extra VPs? And are they, per my warnings above, just someone who is much, much better with creative explanations than me? Or other people? On top of that, there's real life. Are they just a bad player? I can't easily intervene in play just because someone's a novice and that's not the best deal they could make. Maybe they don't know what cards he's got, or how his deck's likely to perform, but I do. I still can't intervene. Added on top of this would be the fact that you have to tell players who are trying to get table wins and VPs using solely in game methods, "No, you can't." (I note "in game methods" to distinguish this from "out of game methods", e.g. bribery, collusion.) You now have players playing with contradictory statements. "You must maximise your VPs or Table Wins." "You cannot do that using VP splitting deals." And with a judge having to look over several tables, deciding when a player is legitimately trying to make a long-term but without a guarantee of splitting deal and when a player is trying to make what *seems* like a long-term but without a guarantee of splitting deal, even though everyone on the table fully understands what is *really* meant, it may not be entirely practical to have a full understanding of the situation. >is better to keep-on allowing a lot of Vps-Based-deals, >but legally allowing to a table-win-player to "give away" >the remaining Vps by potential (un-sanctionable at that point) collusion >OR > is better to disallow at all such "giving away" Vps, >but minimizing the chanches of Vps-based-delas? If you disallow VP splitting deals, they will still happen. They will simply happen with the players who are quick-witted and gifted verbally. I don't see that as a desirable outcome. >> What would you do with all the legitimate deals you've just torn up? > >good question. >We should see if those kind deals are fundamental for the game, >and,above all, for the tournament enviroment (for which i raised >the point). The fundamental problem is that people are people and play to win, in many instances. (Allowing playing for fun to be kept separate for now, in the context of highly competitive tournament environments - where these questions matter.) How confident are you that you can spot the difference between a covert VP splitting deal and long-term non-VP splitting mutual-co-operation? How confident are you that, when people are playing in non-native languages, they can reasonably be expected to understand the difference? How confident are you that players who are motivated and competitive won't play to the very edge of legal behaviour, taking advantage of the loop-holes other players miss? How confident are you that things won't go unvoiced, unspoken or otherwise understood? If two people from the same regular play-group sit at the same table, how confident are you that they don't already know each other's play-styles well enough that - collusion/bribery apart - they can't already make VP splitting deals, understanding what the other person means, without it being properly noticed by others? [ quoted text not captured ]

"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b2fqt0$1ckeku$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de... > Yes, > but Players (and not judge) would get hand a bit tied about > Vps-dealing, and that would be not a bad thing, imho. I'm currently of the opinion that VP splitting deals are no longer a problem. I don't see any reason to restrict them further. Before the game win rule I heard lots of grumbling about tournaments being ruined by table-splitting. Since then, I've heard nothing of the sort. Lastly, going back to the 3 VP player giving away the other 2 VP... I don't see any reason to force the 3VP player to try to get more VPs. The current tournament structure already rewards him for getting more VPs. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > > > The current GW rule was introduced partially to prevent VP-splitting > > deals. > > > The GW rule was introduced so that tournament goals would properly > model/reward game goals. In casual games I've rarely (if ever) seen players who get 3 VPs forfeiting a chance to get the remaining VPs - unless there is some outside consideration, like the ousted players wanting the game to finish quickly so they can play again. :) > > Maybe it is better to go 'all the way' and forbid VP-splitting > > alltogether, limiting the game to 'smaller' deals. > > > What about deals that set up a VP-split but don't actually "deal" the > VPs? > > You're attempting to add an undefined gray (if not invisible) line > for deals. The current rules have plenty of grey lines anyway, that's why judgement calls are necessary (as you often point out). To compensate, I'd remove another line that is often grey and hard to discern: the one that separates collusion from legal VP-splits. > > The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he > > wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can > > reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there > > is no collusion involved. > > > You assert that it is a problem. > Why is it a problem? If it is not, why do current tournament rules forbid randomly deciding the outcome of a game? > > ...that is supposed to be fun. It's much harder to have fun if you are > > taken out of a game on a whim from another player. > > > ... after the game has already been won and you have lost. You may have lost, but the outcome of the game is still not completely defined. The problem (for me) is that, at that point, you still have an interest in the outcome the of game, but the winner (by the rules) doesn't. Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >> Flux wrote: >> >> > The current GW rule was introduced partially to prevent VP-splitting >> > deals. >> >> >> The GW rule was introduced so that tournament goals would properly >> model/reward game goals. > > > In casual games I've rarely (if ever) seen players who get 3 VPs > forfeiting a chance to get the remaining VPs - unless there is some > outside consideration, like the ousted players wanting the game to > finish quickly so they can play again. :) Likewise in tournaments. >> You're attempting to add an undefined gray (if not invisible) line >> for deals. > > The current rules have plenty of grey lines anyway, that's why judgement > calls are necessary (as you often point out). That's not a reason to add unnecessary gray areas, however. > To compensate, I'd remove another line that is often grey and hard to > discern: the one that separates collusion from legal VP-splits. ? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > > > In casual games I've rarely (if ever) seen players who get 3 VPs > > forfeiting a chance to get the remaining VPs - unless there is some > > outside consideration, like the ousted players wanting the game to > > finish quickly so they can play again. :) > > > Likewise in tournaments. I may go as far as saying that's be because not that many players know that it is legal for them to do so. I certainly know a few players who will 'abuse' this rule if made aware of the implications. > >> You're attempting to add an undefined gray (if not invisible) line > >> for deals. > > > > > > The current rules have plenty of grey lines anyway, that's why > > judgement calls are necessary (as you often point out). > > That's not a reason to add unnecessary gray areas, however. Agreed. The point being discussed is how 'unnecessary' this addition is. > > To compensate, I'd remove another line that is often grey and hard to > > discern: the one that separates collusion from legal VP-splits. > > > ? Telling legal VP-splits from illegal ones is most often up to a judgement call. Making all VP-splits illegal eliminates the need for that judgement to be made. Flux

In message <b2h1cb$1b8e9b$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >Telling legal VP-splits from illegal ones is most often up to a >judgement call. Making all VP-splits illegal eliminates the need for >that judgement to be made. As I've asked elsewhere, how do you deal with people who are extremely good at explaining why their deal isn't a VP splitting deal, it's just a mutually beneficial deal and if they both get some VPs at the end of it, well, they're not going to complain but that that's *obviously* not the motivation for the deal, because that would be illegal? It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in game method to generate a table-win. You now set up situations where players *can't* play to get a table-win, because you've just rendered their deal illegal. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message , Flux > writes: > > >Telling legal VP-splits from illegal ones is most often up to a > >judgement call. Making all VP-splits illegal eliminates the need for > >that judgement to be made. > > > As I've asked elsewhere, how do you deal with people who are extremely > good at explaining why their deal isn't a VP splitting deal, it's just > a mutually beneficial deal and if they both get some VPs at the end of > it, well, they're not going to complain but that that's *obviously* > not the motivation for the deal, because that would be illegal? Is that so much different from telling apart a deal made to win and a deal made because the players are friends? 'Sure, he's my friend, but I'm making a deal with him because if I do so I can get the table win, and if not I *may* not be able to do so.' > It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in > game method to generate a table-win. > > You now set up situations where players *can't* play to get a > table-win, because you've just rendered their deal illegal. Not a valid point. Imagine that a player can get a table win, but only if he shoots his opponents. That doesn't mean you should make shooting other players legal. The rule would still be to play using any valid in-game method to generate a table-win. The difference would be that VP-splitting would not be a valid in-game method. Flux

In message <b2h4qk$1cjs8f$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >Is that so much different from telling apart a deal made to win and a >deal made because the players are friends? Yes. If it doesn't stand a good chance, backed up with an explanation, of generating a table win for one and maximising VPs for the other, it's legal. If not, it's not. At that point, it doesn't matter who the deal is made with. If both players aren't playing for the stated goals, it's illegal. Now you want to be able to tell if two players are just working together long term or are VP splitting. That's *very* different. There, both of them can have *EXACTLY* the same outcome. Both of them can be played *EXACTLY* the same. You're trying to get us to peer into the heads of players and see if they're VP splitting or co-operating long-term. And you think that that's not different from being able to tell if a deal is legal? Telling if a deal is legal can be hard *anyway*. Becoming psychic is damn-near impossible. >> It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in >> game method to generate a table-win. >> >> You now set up situations where players *can't* play to get a table- >>win, because you've just rendered their deal illegal. > >Not a valid point. >Imagine that a player can get a table win, but only if he shoots his >opponents. That doesn't mean you should make shooting other players >legal. The words "in game method" were included. Perhaps your news-reader is malfunctioning? I suggest fixing it. If you also have to resort to pointless stupidity like "Well, they could shoot them to win", it does tend to suggest that your argument is very shaky indeed. >The rule would still be to play using any valid in-game method to >generate a table-win. >The difference would be that VP-splitting would not be a valid in-game >method. So you just agree to work together "long-term" and, oh, maybe in the process you'll be able to oust player E, but we don't agree to actually split the VPs. Same outcome, different words. So players now get punished for their words. Any player who can explain why their deal isn't VP splitting wins. Since it doesn't actually fix anything, and only provides extra arguments for judges to deal with, why bother? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message , Flux > writes: > > >Is that so much different from telling apart a deal made to win and a > >deal made because the players are friends? > > > Yes. > > If it doesn't stand a good chance, backed up with an explanation, of > generating a table win for one and maximising VPs for the other, it's > legal. > > If not, it's not. > > At that point, it doesn't matter who the deal is made with. It does, for purposes of collusion. > If both players aren't playing for the stated goals, it's illegal. Right. But: if the deal was made with outside motives, it's collusion (illegal), regardless of the in-game situation and terms. > Now you want to be able to tell if two players are just working > together long term or are VP splitting. That's *very* different. > There, both of them can have *EXACTLY* the same outcome. Both of them > can be played *EXACTLY* the same. You're trying to get us to peer > into the heads of players and see if they're VP splitting or > co-operating long-term. If table splits were made illegal most long-term deals would probably be rendered illegal, because they involve a probable split of VPs. > And you think that that's not different from being able to tell if a > deal is legal? Even disregarding possible outside motives, being able to tell if a VP-splitting deal is legal currently involves knowing if a player has a reasonable expectation of not making more VPs outside of the deal. > Telling if a deal is legal can be hard *anyway*. Becoming psychic is > damn-near impossible. That 'reasonable expectation' of defeat does require near-psychic abilites, doesn't it? > >>It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in > >>game method to generate a table-win. > >> > >>You now set up situations where players *can't* play to get a table- > >>win, because you've just rendered their deal illegal. > > > >Not a valid point. > >Imagine that a player can get a table win, but only if he shoots his > >opponents. That doesn't mean you should make shooting other players > >legal. > > > The words "in game method" were included. Perhaps your news-reader is > malfunctioning? I suggest fixing it. Given that my example was made to adress these words exactly, I wonder whose newsreader is faulty. But maybe I should have been more explicit: by 'legal' I meant 'part of the games rules', hence becoming an 'in-game method'. > If you also have to resort to pointless stupidity like "Well, they > could shoot them to win", it does tend to suggest that your argument > is very shaky indeed. There's no need to resort to thinly-veiled insults, it tends to suggest that your argument is very shaky too. There was a valid reason for chosing that example: I resorted to exageration to give an example of something that is not part of the game, and obviously should never be. If shooting were part of the game, your argument above would ammount to: do not remove it because it is a valid way to win. VP-splitting is part of the game *now*, but if it weren't it wouldn't make much sense to say you were prevented from winning because you couldn't use it. > >The rule would still be to play using any valid in-game method to > >generate a table-win. > >The difference would be that VP-splitting would not be a valid in-game > >method. > > > So you just agree to work together "long-term" and, oh, maybe in the > process you'll be able to oust player E, but we don't agree to > actually split the VPs. > > Same outcome, different words. So players now get punished for their > words. Any player who can explain why their deal isn't VP splitting > wins. Again, if a deal is made were the probable outcome is a VP-split, then it should be treated as a VP-splitting deal. The judgement required is wether the players can reasonably expect to be 'giving out' VPs to their deal-partner. As opposed to now, where the judgement required is wether the player can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal. Flux

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<O9pGzhQN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <b2h4qk$1cjs8f$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux > <fl...@netc.pt> writes: > >Is that so much different from telling apart a deal made to win and a > >deal made because the players are friends? > >The rule would still be to play using any valid in-game method to > >generate a table-win. > >The difference would be that VP-splitting would not be a valid in-game > >method. > > So you just agree to work together "long-term" and, oh, maybe in the > process you'll be able to oust player E, but we don't agree to actually > split the VPs. > > Same outcome, different words. So players now get punished for their > words. Any player who can explain why their deal isn't VP splitting > wins. > > > Since it doesn't actually fix anything, and only provides extra > arguments for judges to deal with, why bother? Imho, that would fix "something", allowing a judge to get rid of this argument: [quote] > under the current rule, during a round a player in good shape that already > scored 3 Vps > can let the remaining two to the other maybe "almost dead" player without > any concerns. Yes. [end quote] (the "yes" is the answer LSJ gave to me early here) Can see all of your points about deal-makings hampered by a would-be "play to get the maximun Vps at any time" rule; but also the "giving away the remaining Vps once you have already win the table" allowed by actual ruling is a potential collusion problem that,imho, the judge can't fix (since that "giving away" is allowed). For now, it seems that the "lesser evil" is to allow Vps-based-deals on a large scale, letting meanwhile an hole in the rue about that "remaining Vps giving away". Emiliano

In message <b2hfkv$1cran4$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux <fl...@netc.pt> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> At that point, it doesn't matter who the deal is made with. > >It does, for purposes of collusion. Think harder. If the deal is out of line, you just toss it aside. It doesn't matter then who made it. When a VP split deal is being made, it has to be in line for both players. Now we have a situation where not only does a long term deal have to be in line for both players, we have to be psychic and decide if they're doing it to split VPs or doing it because it's mutually beneficial. >> Now you want to be able to tell if two players are just working >>together long term or are VP splitting. That's *very* different. >>There, both of them can have *EXACTLY* the same outcome. Both of them >>can be played *EXACTLY* the same. You're trying to get us to peer >>into the heads of players and see if they're VP splitting or co- >>operating long-term. > >If table splits were made illegal most long-term deals would probably >be rendered illegal, because they involve a probable split of VPs. So what happens when it just happens to be in a player's interests to help out someone else, long term? For instance, two combat decks on a table almost always work better with some co-operation. And getting two combat decks on a table is hardly a rare occurrence. Of course, you now just pull a judge over and demand that they play differently because you don't want them to play towards a table-win or most VPs. >> And you think that that's not different from being able to tell if a >> deal is legal? > >Even disregarding possible outside motives, being able to tell if a VP- >splitting deal is legal currently involves knowing if a player has a >reasonable expectation of not making more VPs outside of the deal. That is a judgement based first and foremost on the state of the game. That is not a statement based on psychic knowledge of what players are doing. >> Telling if a deal is legal can be hard *anyway*. Becoming psychic is >> damn-near impossible. > >That 'reasonable expectation' of defeat does require near-psychic >abilites, doesn't it? No. If, looking at the game, it is reasonable in your experience and with the game in hand for a player to expect <x>, then deal <y> is probably legal. Or illegal, depending on the situation. That doesn't require looking into people's heads. That requires experience and knowledge of the game. All judges require that. Without experience and knowledge of the game, they can't judge. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to intervene in a game over something minor. The classic example is Hidden Lurker being played wrongly. (Rush-Hidden Lurker from an Assamite deck, say.) There are also a number of guiding posts that LSJ has made over the years on the issue. A part of the judgement may involve deciding if a player is bullshitting you. That's only relevant if the game doesn't say otherwise. For instance, I've had players (I pissed Dave Hammond off with this at a Milton Keynes tournament, for instance) come to me early in the game with VP split deals. In almost all instances, early game deals can be tossed aside. There are a very few circumstances where you have to listen to them (small tournaments, decks that have played each other repeatedly, that sort of thing), but in almost all instances, an early game VP split deal where the decks haven't had a chance to start is out of line. Damnit, I had the post just yesterday. Where's it gone? Ah, here's one: > Could you, just to illuminate me, provide one example of a turn-1 > position that is so bad you can't win from it (and would thus be > allowed to make a table-splitting deal)? No, since I don't know of any such position. [LSJ 20010805] (LSJ replying to Johan Lundstrom) That in itself provides a great deal of guidance. >> The words "in game method" were included. Perhaps your news-reader is >> malfunctioning? I suggest fixing it. > >Given that my example was made to adress these words exactly, I wonder >whose newsreader is faulty. But maybe I should have been more explicit: >by 'legal' I meant 'part of the games rules', hence becoming an 'in- >game method'. Your example was shooting someone. I think that's somewhat out of game. Don't you? Certainly, the player would cease to be able to play, whilst they were arrested, making it pretty much the end of their game anyway. >> If you also have to resort to pointless stupidity like "Well, they >>could shoot them to win", it does tend to suggest that your argument >>is very shaky indeed. > > >There's no need to resort to thinly-veiled insults, it tends to suggest >that your argument is very shaky too. Then there's no need to resort to utter stupidity like "I could win if I shoot you." Please try to address something like reality. The rules are not written for insane mass-murderers. >There was a valid reason for chosing that example: I resorted to >exageration to give an example of something that is not part of the >game, and obviously should never be. If shooting were part of the game, It isn't. Trying to reduce an argument to absurdity with something so thinly transparent isn't terribly helpful. It is also usually useful to pick an analogy that works. >your argument above would ammount to: do not remove it because it is a >valid way to win. No, it wouldn't. My argument is picked for a specific set of reasons. First point: If I shoot you, the judge can see it done, and verify it concretely. I do not have to question your motivation. Shoot, or don't shoot. Similarly, we can ban cards, because that is a simple, concrete matter. Banning shooting would be similar. Is he playing that card? Is he shooting that player? Yes/No. End of matter. VP split or no-VP split is a *VERY* different case. It relies on strategy, tactics and diplomacy. Banning players from being strategic, tactical and diplomatic is nigh on impossible. The player who plays strategically or with good tactics or with a great wealth of diplomacy is doing nothing illegal, clearly. A player who is good at all three may well be able to see a way out that involves aiding another player, with mutual gains. (For instance, the two combat deck table. Or, indeed, the two political deck table, where they help each other out and then destroy each other at the end, to see who gets what, for instance.) I can't tell if a player is lucky, diplomatic or if it's a combination of the two. Perhaps in table talk, both players discuss something and a good idea comes up. And it happens that they'll probably split the table. Which is no different in long term outcome from two players just discussing "Look, you do this, I do that, I get 3 VPs, you get 2. If not, we're going to destroy each other and run out of cards." Who do you punish? One of them? Both of them? What if one player plays like that *knowing* the other person doesn't want them to help? Nice, I'm giving up the game, so I'll get him disqualified or warned or whatever too. Who do you punish? How do you know? Shooting, I find out who did what. Stopping VP deals, I have to find out who thought what. Even England, with a legal and political system as slow as it is, removed thought-crime from the statutes. (There were, as in several countries, a number, including thinking about killing the Pope at one point, I recall.) The players want to win. Using the cards they have and the diplomacy they have, they come up with a deal that generates a table win for them, or maximises their VPs. You now want them to not play to win, with the games they have. >VP-splitting is part of the game *now*, but if it weren't it wouldn't >make much sense to say you were prevented from winning because you >couldn't use it. VP splitting is an inevitable result of a diplomatic game. *Any* game that provides cross-table functions and table talk is inevitably going to result in alliances. All you do is force people to make those alliances using slightly cleverer language, which you can't punish. "Well, we can renegotiate next turn, but I think it'll be in our interests then, don't you? *nudge* *wink*" What does and can work are carrots. Garfield found that adding the 6 pool for the oust was a massive incentive for players to oust people. Stopping people thinking, being logical, being creative, being strategic - well, that's just not going to happen. So you add some new incentive that adjusts the frame-work they're dealing with. Just telling them "Yes, that's the best move you could make, but it's not legal. No, I can't predict what is and isn't legal, it just depends whether I think you're trying to VP split or not" isn't going to be helpful. Similarly, you don't tell people "No boring stealth-bleed decks", because that's just as pointless and subjective as "No VP splitting". People will still do something similar, and you can't rule what a boring stealth bleed deck is in the first place. >> >The rule would still be to play using any valid in-game method to >> >generate a table-win. >> >The difference would be that VP-splitting would not be a valid in-game >> >method. >> >> >> So you just agree to work together "long-term" and, oh, maybe in the >> process you'll be able to oust player E, but we don't agree to >>actually split the VPs. >> >> Same outcome, different words. So players now get punished for their >> words. Any player who can explain why their deal isn't VP splitting >> wins. > >Again, if a deal is made were the probable outcome is a VP-split, then >it should be treated as a VP-splitting deal. I make a deal with you to oust Player B because he's going to destroy me and you. He's rushing backwards at your vampires, to stop you KRC-ing him, and he's rushing my vampires to try and bleed through me. We work together. Chances are, we'll roll the table if we do, because those two have no viable defence against our politics. Now banned. Great. So anything that even *looks* like it might end up with a VP split has to be banned. Or any deal which leads to us both getting VPs probably has to be banned too. >The judgement required is wether the players can reasonably expect to >be 'giving out' VPs to their deal-partner. That's not a reasonable judgement to make. At all times, players have to be playing to get a table-win or maximise their VPs. Many deals will, as a result, mean that a player achieves that goal. We now have to ban them, because reasonably, that deal leads to you two splitting VPs between you. Indeed, any deal that gives two decks a strong position on the table (getting rid of the anti-combat deck, chasing down the power weenie deck, getting rid of the !Ventrue because we're both political decks, so we throw our combined might at him in one go) is going to lead to a good chance of VPs. Now banned. >As opposed to now, where the judgement required is wether the player >can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal. That's simply not a judgement that can be made, in any useful fashion. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <52f0d87d.03021...@posting.google.com>, Tetragrammaton <vam...@usa.com> writes: >but also the "giving away the remaining Vps once you have >already win the table" allowed by actual ruling >is a potential collusion problem that,imho, the judge can't >fix (since that "giving away" is allowed). It it's a collusion problem, issue cautions or warnings where evidence exists, or notify V:EKN so they can track the issue. However, any player could still do the same split, just make a couple of 'bad' choices here and there, simulate hand jam, whatever. Who's going to be any the wiser? We've all had turns where we've thought "Bugger, if I'd remembered to play Taste of Vitae, I'd've got the blood and you wouldn't have burned me, and then I'd've got that extra VP." Simulating that wouldn't exactly be hard, would it? What the proposed "You can't split VPs" systems do is prevent players playing using the cards in game, with in game considerations, using in game methods to achieve in-game goals. If that isn't counter-intuitive-inna-bun, I don't know what is. Off the top of my head, making players care about VPs once they have table wins is an option, if this "problem" really is a problem. e.g. Table Wins determine who goes into the final. VPs (and then TPs) act as tie-breakers. However, once in the final, let VPs determine seating order instead. Would that be a good rule? No idea, I'd have to think about it. But what it would do is make VPs important, above and beyond mere TWs. You don't stop players playing or thinking. You just give them extra things to think about. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:GSq0IBeD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Think harder. If the deal is out of line, you just toss it aside. It > doesn't matter then who made it. > > When a VP split deal is being made, it has to be in line for both > players. > > > Now we have a situation where not only does a long term deal have to be > in line for both players, we have to be psychic and decide if they're > doing it to split VPs or doing it because it's mutually beneficial. You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits, and (b) if a player who wants to make a losing deal (eg getting the 2 VP end of a 3-2 split) truly has no chance of winning the game. Psychic powers are standard requirement for judging this game. I thought that was in the VEKN rules already? :-) Josh the spirit of richard garfield is trying to speak to us...

In message <b2j3ur$1bgdpm$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding >as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits, and >(b) if a player who wants to make a losing deal (eg getting the 2 VP >end of a 3-2 split) truly has no chance of winning the game. > >Psychic powers are standard requirement for judging this game. I >thought that was in the VEKN rules already? :-) Collusion in and of itself is rarely that big an issue *anyway*. It tends to come up most in arguments for things like the continental championships, in situations where two people from the same country help each other out. If two players can demonstrate in game reasons and in game benefits for a deal, and they're both maximising their VPs and table wins (as appropriate), then they *may* be colluding, yes. (This is not, in and of itself, a necessity.) But they also have to generate a scenario where such co-operation is a possibility. They have to be on the same table (in a 30 player tournament, that may well happen, yes) and they have to be in a scenario where it's to their benefit. That doesn't just happen, because they can't guarantee anything. One may be next to the other (perfectly possible) at which point, if no offensive action is taken at all, a player could easily call a judge over. As LSJ stated, "Mercy on your prey for no reason is clearly not in your interest. Your object when you sit down is to oust your prey - why the sudden wave of mercy when you've finally achieved that goal?" [LSJ 20010120] Side note: There are, of course, the other ways in which collusion can be detected - the physical handing over of bribes. But we can assume that the players engaging in such are not going to do those. When players are not playing to maximise their chances (never bleeding, never taking offensive action, for certain values of "never") a judge can intervene. For instance: "Disrupting the table dynamic *is* severely disruptive. Throwing a game (losing on purpose) is disruptive." (Also [LSJ 20010120]) Similarly, again the same post, re: play in your best interest: "Always. Or at least - in your perceived best interests (since none of the players has perfect knowledge of the other players' hands, decks, and intentions)." It's worth bearing in mind that the term "disruptive" is the term used in Unsportsman Like conduct. (A term referenced in that post.) With collusion, therefore, first of all it's hard to generate *anyway*. In any large tournament (where large is about a dozen-15 players), you'll not see the same person again. Much larger than that, you may not even see a given person anyway. (Though, as lessons that probability sucks, I do seem to have a knack for randomly allocating people who've travelled a long way onto the same table. e.g. the Durings.) So it may not even have a chance to occur and when it can, you can often intervene on more obvious grounds *anyway*. Whereas VP split deals occur regularly. If we take the suggestion that any deal that results in a reasonable chance of securing VPs is banned, "Again, if a deal is made were the probable outcome is a VP- split, then it should be treated as a VP-splitting deal." This is what we're being asked to ban. And any deal that goes something like "Give me a little help, he's being monstrous to me, can you rush Arika and I'll help you pass that vote?" certainly stands a good chance of helping them get some VPs each, with cross-table interaction. So now, even when we don't think they're colluding (a judgement call, and one I exercise very lightly anyway) and we do think the deal is in their best interests, we have to decide not only if they're *trying* to split VPs, but also if "the probable outcome is a VP-split". Any significant deal is going to stand a good chance of falling under that. And that's not going to have judges making ad-hoc, inconsistent decisions every five minutes and prevent people from playing to maximise their TW and VPs. Definitely not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <lRbMYttG...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >Collusion in and of itself is rarely that big an issue *anyway*. It >tends to come up most in arguments for things like the continental >championships, in situations where two people from the same country help >each other out. For reference, this was meant as: "comes up as an argument, rather than something that actually happens" [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message... > You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding > as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits, and You don't have to be psychic to tell if co-operation among players is legitimate. That's just silly! Note that your premise that only "accidental" VP splits are legitimate is faulty, as demonstrated within this thread, if not several dozen times since the GW rule came into existence. > (b) if a player who wants to make a losing deal (eg getting the 2 VP > end of a 3-2 split) truly has no chance of winning the game. Note that your implied premise that a player *always* has a chance of winning the game isn't realistic. As much as you might WANT the game to be that way, on a practical level, it isn't, and we have to deal with reality. > Psychic powers are standard requirement for judging this game. I > thought that was in the VEKN rules already? :-) In EVERY tournament I've judged where this has been an issue (Origins 2002 *especially* comes to mind), there has NEVER been a need for me to try to "guess" what the co-operating players' motives are or why they decided to make the deals they made. It might take time to listen to all sides and look at the situation with reason and rationality, but it isn't difficult. There's no need to allow ridiculous premises like "If you have even a 1-in-a-million chance of getting a Game Win, you are required to go for it" or "Let's force players who have already won to win more" into the equation. Just use your brain. > > Josh > > the spirit of richard garfield is trying to speak to us... Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Kevin M. wrote: > "Joshua Duffin" wrote in message... > > >You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding > >as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits, and > > > You don't have to be psychic to tell if co-operation among players is > legitimate. That's just silly! > > Note that your premise that only "accidental" VP splits are legitimate > is faulty, as demonstrated within this thread, if not several dozen > times since the GW rule came into existence. I think by accidental he meant 'forced by circunstances' (as opposed to by pre-game arrangement). > >Psychic powers are standard requirement for judging this game. I > >thought that was in the VEKN rules already? :-) > > > In EVERY tournament I've judged where this has been an issue (Origins > 2002 *especially* comes to mind), there has NEVER been a need for me > to try to "guess" what the co-operating players' motives are or why > they decided to make the deals they made. Then you've been lucky, haven't met a good collusive player, or have met him and didn't realize it. :) Flux

(sorry if this shows up twice, I've been having some difficulties getting it through to the server) James Coupe wrote: > Flux writes: > > >James Coupe wrote: > > > >>At that point, it doesn't matter who the deal is made with. > > > >It does, for purposes of collusion. > > > Think harder. If the deal is out of line, you just toss it aside. It > doesn't matter then who made it. > > When a VP split deal is being made, it has to be in line for both > players. Maybe I should remind you of what began this thread? A player who has good chances of sweeping can make a VP-split deal with someone (because they are friends, which is collusion), and the current rules won't prevent it, unless you use 'psychic powers' to look into the player's head and see the true motive behind the 'giving away'. > Now we have a situation where not only does a long term deal have to > be in line for both players, we have to be psychic and decide if > they're doing it to split VPs or doing it because it's mutually > beneficial. The first time I read this I thought you were refering to the current situation. :) > >If table splits were made illegal most long-term deals would probably > >be rendered illegal, because they involve a probable split of VPs. > > > So what happens when it just happens to be in a player's interests to > help out someone else, long term? > > For instance, two combat decks on a table almost always work better > with some co-operation. And getting two combat decks on a table is > hardly a rare occurrence. I say 'most', not all, depending on what the alternate rule is. For example, if the rules required you to maximize your VPs at all moments, it would effectivelly prevent you from 'rolling-over' unless the game is already lost, but most other deals would remain legal. It would surely depend on what the new rule said, but I guess the situation would have to be carefully studied, and rulings and guidelines would eventually emerge to help judges in difficult situations. Much like what happens now regarding collusion, table splits and other aspects of the game, as you say below. I don't think it would be impossible to find a solution that would be better than the current situation, as you obviously assume to be. > If, looking at the game, it is reasonable in your experience and with > the game in hand for a player to expect X, then deal Y is probably > legal. Or illegal, depending on the situation. '...it is reasonable...for a player to expect X' - that implies guessing what the player is thinking. > There are also a number of guiding posts that LSJ has made over the > years on the issue. That alone hints that the current situation is not that simple. > >There was a valid reason for chosing that example: I resorted to > >exageration to give an example of something that is not part of the > >game, and obviously should never be. If shooting were part of the game, > > > It isn't. Trying to reduce an argument to absurdity with something so > thinly transparent isn't terribly helpful. > > It is also usually useful to pick an analogy that works. That analogy was made to adress one single point: "It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in game method to generate a table-win." You were claiming that VP-splitting was OK because it is an 'in-game method'. I did not intend to compare shooting someone to VP-splitting in any other aspect, you're the one that assumed that comparison. I never try to find a 'perfect' analogy, because I don't think there ever is one. I usually use analogies to adress one point per analogy, a few more only if I bother to find a 'good' analogy (certainly not the case here). > >As opposed to now, where the judgement required is wether the player > >can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal. > > > That's simply not a judgement that can be made, in any useful fashion. ?? Since I'm refering to the current situation here, you're either agreeing with some of my points, or you need to pay more attention to what you're replying to. :) Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2lhvq$1dqv5j$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > Kevin M. wrote: > > > "Joshua Duffin" wrote in message... > > > > >You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding > > >as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits, and > > > > You don't have to be psychic to tell if co-operation among players is > > legitimate. That's just silly! > > > > Note that your premise that only "accidental" VP splits are legitimate > > is faulty, as demonstrated within this thread, if not several dozen > > times since the GW rule came into existence. > > I think by accidental he meant 'forced by circunstances' (as opposed to > by pre-game arrangement). I agree that's what he meant. And that premise is faulty, as I stated, above. > > >Psychic powers are standard requirement for judging this game. I > > >thought that was in the VEKN rules already? :-) > > > > In EVERY tournament I've judged where this has been an issue (Origins > > 2002 *especially* comes to mind), there has NEVER been a need for me > > to try to "guess" what the co-operating players' motives are or why > > they decided to make the deals they made. > > Then you've been lucky, haven't met a good collusive player, or have met > him and didn't realize it. :) Or... I'm just a good judge? You guys keep leaving out the most obvious options. ;) > > Flux [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <b2m9kk$1eppgp$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de>, Flux <fl...@netcabo.pt> writes: >> Think harder. If the deal is out of line, you just toss it aside. It >> doesn't matter then who made it. >> >> When a VP split deal is being made, it has to be in line for both >> players. > >Maybe I should remind you of what began this thread? Maybe I should remind you that the collateral damage of your proposed fixes is so insanely damaging to all forms of diplomacy in the game as to make any significant deal illegal? >A player who has good chances of sweeping can make a VP-split deal with >someone (because they are friends, which is collusion), and the current >rules won't prevent it, unless you use 'psychic powers' to look into the >player's head and see the true motive behind the 'giving away'. You've yet to cite any examples of this as a clear and present danger in tournament play. You've yet to cite, as LSJ has requested, any reason why changing the outcome one way to suit yourself is any better than changing it another way. You've yet to cite any useful definition of a VP splitting deal that doesn't obliterate anyone attempting to do well. You've yet to cite a reason why preventing people from maximising their table wins or VPs, as your 'fixes' do, is either desirable or possible. You've yet to cite a reason why you think people who can explain things better to a judge about why what they're doing isn't actually VP splitting, it just happens that it's in their best interests now and, oh, next turn as well, should continue to be able to do what you hate whilst letting people who can't explain it get penalised. Great for people who aren't fluent in the host language of the tournament, that one. You've yet to cite any possible method of looking into a player's head to determine if they're VP splitting. You want a change, you need to make a case for it. And you're making a case that's so bad at the moment, you really need to stop and revise it. >> >If table splits were made illegal most long-term deals would probably >> >be rendered illegal, because they involve a probable split of VPs. >> >> >> So what happens when it just happens to be in a player's interests to >> help out someone else, long term? >> >> For instance, two combat decks on a table almost always work better >> with some co-operation. And getting two combat decks on a table is >> hardly a rare occurrence. > >I say 'most', not all, depending on what the alternate rule is. Your alternate rule requested the banning of VP splitting deals. Your definition stated: >Again, if a deal is made were the probable outcome is a VP-split, then >it should be treated as a VP-splitting deal. How is that not going to affect practically every instance of mutual interest in the game? >For example, if the rules required you to maximize your VPs at all >moments, it would effectivelly prevent you from 'rolling-over' unless >the game is already lost, but most other deals would remain legal. It would also prevent you from ever making lasting deals that you had to backstab on. The A-B-C-D-E, where E withdraws and you get E's co-operation to oust D, is the perfect example. At this point, I *need* this deal. If not, I can't maximise my VPs. But if I take it, I have to oust E. Which is clearly absurd. And E wants to take it, because E will maximise her VPs that way. So at that point, they have to play for the most VPs. So that deal has to be made. But then later, it has to be broken, so it will never be made in the first place. You can't tell people "Always play to make most VPs" and then make it logically impossible for them to do so. If I don't do this, I don't make most VPs. If I do do this, I can't make most VPs anyway because logically E knows I have to oust her. Which is just absolutely insane. There's this problem that no-one's even begun to prove exists, which needs so desperately to be fixed that we have to obliterate the diplomatic elements of the rest of the game which have worked for years, with no-one being able to cite convincing evidence that this problem even exists. >It would surely depend on what the new rule said, but I guess the >situation would have to be carefully studied, and rulings and guidelines >would eventually emerge to help judges in difficult situations. Much >like what happens now regarding collusion, table splits and other >aspects of the game, as you say below. It is worth pointing out that the rules currently address legitimate deals, not table splits. >I don't think it would be impossible to find a solution that would be >better than the current situation, as you obviously assume to be. Then can you give me the phone number of your psychic please? I'll be sure to give her a call every time I have a problem determining whether players are playing to win or playing-to-appease-Flux's-sense-of-how- they-should-play-even-though-it-shafts-their-chances-of-winning-because- they-can't-make-the-deals-they-need-to-make-because-Flux-doesn't-like- them-and-doesn't-care-he's-just-obliterated-the-intentional-diplomatic- element-of-the-game-in-order-to-address-a-problem-he-can't-even-show- exists. You're trying to stop players *thinking*. They have a game in progress. If they do X, Y and Z, they win, and player E gets some VPs too. If they don't, they lose, and so does E. So your rule requires them to *not* play to win, to *stop* thinking, to *stop* competing. Way to go. >> If, looking at the game, it is reasonable in your experience and with >> the game in hand for a player to expect X, then deal Y is probably >> legal. Or illegal, depending on the situation. > >'...it is reasonable...for a player to expect X' - that implies guessing >what the player is thinking. No, it doesn't. It is the judge's judgement call as to what is reasonable - possibly in consultation with the players. (Almost inevitably, he will have to talk to the players to determine what is being suggested.) However, the judge can make a judgment call on what is reasonable. He cannot, however, have two identical situations with two identical outcomes and determine with any legitimacy whether two players are VP splitting or just working together and happen to get VPs. That's the problem. If two players *both* see what's in their interests - because they're *both* good players - they can achieve it anyway. You don't even need a deal. Just a little table talk, a few lines about "Well, if he went, I'd do that and you'd probably do that." Same outcome. Good, strategic playing. Or is it intentional VP splitting? It's playing to *win*. >> There are also a number of guiding posts that LSJ has made over the >> years on the issue. > >That alone hints that the current situation is not that simple. Spurious logic. LSJ has made many guiding posts on many issues over the years. People ask him questions about all sorts of things. People wonder if question X was answered properly. It doesn't mean that the situation was or wasn't simple. >> >There was a valid reason for chosing that example: I resorted to >> >exageration to give an example of something that is not part of the >> >game, and obviously should never be. If shooting were part of the game, >> >> >> It isn't. Trying to reduce an argument to absurdity with something so >> thinly transparent isn't terribly helpful. >> >> It is also usually useful to pick an analogy that works. > >That analogy was made to adress one single point: > >"It also significantly detracts from the simple rule: play using any in >game method to generate a table-win." Shooting people is not an in-game method. If you are having problems with that, I suggest packing up your cards and selling them, or you might find it problematic when you get sentenced for murder. >You were claiming that VP-splitting was OK because it is an 'in-game >method'. *sigh* You really, really, really don't get it. Players play to win using in game methods. For the hard of thinking, this involves *cards* not *guns*. Players talk. Players discuss situation. Players notice that doing X, Y and Z leads them to a situation where they both get VPs and where one of them gets a table win. (With suitable side notes for maximising VPs, etc.) If they don't do that, they don't maximise their VPs or TWs. If they do do that, they maximise their VPs and TWs. But now you come along and say, "Sorry, you're not allowed to maximise your VPs and TWs." It is worth noting that the game is intended to be a diplomatic one. About what makes a bad multi-player game: If players can interact too freely with one another, then the winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation... "I'm not the threat, SHE's the threat!"... On the other hand, if players can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your hands, a game which may be fun, but which leaves the players dealing more with the system than with each other. (Garfield, p.39, The Eternal Struggle) The current rules facilitate that. You have to have something useful to offer a player, you have to mutually benefit from a situation. You know when you sit down at a table with a weenie-bleed deck and you think "Oh, FUCK, I'm going to get trounced because I didn't prepare for that" (alter to any deck archetype you prefer) and you then decide to build a better deck next time? If people are offering VP splitting deals, it's a variant on the same thing. You built your deck to play solitaire, when what you're playing is a diplomatic, interactive game. It's not *free* interaction, based on a number of things - that you can't just bleed whoever you like, that it's not a last man standing game, that the carrot of the Edge (very useful for political games, especially when you need a crucial early vote passed, though I do feel that a few more cards that made it worthwhile wouldn't be a bad thing, even if not overly necessary) and the carrot of a VP for going left and the carrot of a boost of 6 pool, that you can't block anyone on the table, that directed actions can only be blocked by the targeted player, that you can only play reaction cards when other people are acting and so on ad infinitum, pull it very, very far away from being a freeform interaction. So you build your deck for better interaction. If two people are making a VP splitting deal as you see it, counter it. Counter it with one of the involved players. Offer them something they want. If it's your predator or your prey involved (and on a 5 player table, it would be unusual for it to be your grand-predator and grand-prey making the deal only, but not impossible) disrupt it. They can't follow through a deal if you take their legs from under them. When such a deal has been made, you could easily explain to a judge "They said they'd oust me. If I'm not here, I can't maximise my VPs. If I cripple him, I stand a better chance of still being here to oust my prey." If one of them *is* your prey and you think you're going to get obliterated, you might as well throw everything that you have at them *anyway*. Or negotiate a better deal with them. What, you mean you don't put cards in your deck thinking, "How can I make a proper deal with other players that they might like?" Sux2bu. The political deck is the obvious one here, but it applies to many archetypes. Use that Disputed Territory to give him the Heidelberg Castle. Use your KRCs to take a little away from his predator or prey, as appropriate. Maybe even make, *gasp*, 2-2 splits on a KRC, rather than the 3-1 most people want. He's going in for a kill on his prey, and they're then going to obliterate you. Negotiate a system whereby he doesn't need to ask his predator hold off on him - give him some pool. Parity Shift, for instance, is a *GREAT* way of destabilising an alliance. Take 5 pool away from him, and give some of it to you and some of it to him. It's interesting how much that can upset a deck. Or pass a Political Flux, to give him more pool. Or, indeed, pass a Political Flux to give him *1* pool, and offer him a few Consanguineous Boons or Parity Shifts if you stay in the game. And, of course, at the same time you'll be playing Bribes and Voter Captivation to get a few pool yourself, so it works for both of us. Or negotiate a better deal with *other* players. Stop *them* playing solitaire. The combat deck has many similar offers it can make, almost all minion- based, of course. The obvious analogy is Banishment. I'll Banish your vampire, I'll torporise your vampire. Not quite the same, of course, and either can be more crippling, depending on what role the vampire plays. Kooky decks often have all sorts of interesting actions. A Ravnos deck, taking one obvious example, would be able to threaten all sorts of nastiness. Deal with me or face a Reality. Or offer a Reality with someone else. What's going to make a better impact? Bouquets or brickbats? Of course, if they *break* the deal and come after you, you have all sorts of retributive strikes anyway. It would also be very easy to explain to a judge that you're exercising optimal Prisoner's Dilemma conditions and that, in order to maintain your chances of winning, you need to show people why they should go along with deals with you. This (PDG) is the 'game' popular with mathematicians. You and a friend are both interrogated for a crime, separately. If you *both* confess, you both get sent away for 20 years. If only one of you confesses, the squealer gets off (plea-bargaining) but the other person gets sent away for life. If neither of you confess, you both get sentenced for 5 years. Other options involving doing this to maximise your chances of getting money, and so on. The generally accepted best-long-term strategy is tit-for-tat retaliation, across most players. Co-operate until you get bitten. Then bite back. There is a great deal of theory to support such a position as being legitimate. "It has three characteristics that account for its impressive performance: it is nice (cooperates on the first move), retaliatory (punishes defection in the prior move with defection) and forgiving (immediate return to cooperation after one C of the adversary)." http://www.brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html - Tit for Tat in the left frame But you played an intentionally, *DESIGNED* diplomatic game and got out- maneuvered on the strategy. Great, you can play the solitaire angle. And if you go too far for the diplomatic, you get screwed there because you can't actually advance your own needs. But you sat down to play a diplomatic game and got out-run by someone better at the diplomacy angle. This is an intentional facet of the game. >I did not intend to compare shooting someone to VP-splitting in any >other aspect, you're the one that assumed that comparison. FFS, if you will bring in shooting as "If I shoot you, I win" then you are comparing them, overtly or not. It's a stupid, stupid, stupid example, proving nothing. >I never try to find a 'perfect' analogy, because I don't think there >ever is one. Probably not. But there are some diabolically bad ones. Comparing a deal with shooting someone dead rates pretty highly on the 'unbelievably bad' scale. >I usually use analogies to adress one point per analogy, a >few more only if I bother to find a 'good' analogy (certainly not the >case here). It doesn't address anything, other than a lack of understanding about the real world. VP splits are an entire world away from whatever you were trying to address. VP splits manipulate in-game decisions and in-game strategies to achieve ends. Guns do not. >> >As opposed to now, where the judgement required is wether the player >> >can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal. >> >> >> That's simply not a judgement that can be made, in any useful fashion. > >?? That (what you're proposing)'s simply not a judgement that can be made, in any useful fashion. >Since I'm refering to the current situation here, you're either agreeing >with some of my points, or you need to pay more attention to what you're >replying to. :) Your entire suggestion, being opposed to now, is what was being referred to. The original paragraph was somewhat longer, but I shifted bits of it around. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote: > > >Kevin M. wrote: > > > >>Note that your premise that only "accidental" VP splits are legitimate > >>is faulty, as demonstrated within this thread, if not several dozen > >>times since the GW rule came into existence. > > > >I think by accidental he meant 'forced by circunstances' (as opposed to > >by pre-game arrangement). > > > I agree that's what he meant. And that premise is faulty, as I stated, > above. Hm? So you're saying that a VP-split by pre-game arrangement _might_ not be illegal? I though that was the very definition of (illegal) collusion? > >Then you've been lucky, haven't met a good collusive player, or have met > >him and didn't realize it. :) > > > Or... I'm just a good judge? > > You guys keep leaving out the most obvious options. ;) :) Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2orn7$1eif9t$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > Kevin M. wrote: > > > "Flux" wrote: > > > > >Kevin M. wrote: > > > > > >>Note that your premise that only "accidental" VP splits are legitimate > > >>is faulty, as demonstrated within this thread, if not several dozen > > >>times since the GW rule came into existence. > > > > > >I think by accidental he meant 'forced by circunstances' (as opposed to > > >by pre-game arrangement). > > > > > > I agree that's what he meant. And that premise is faulty, as I stated, > > above. > > Hm? So you're saying that a VP-split by pre-game arrangement _might_ not be > illegal? I though that was the very definition of (illegal) collusion? No, of course not. I'm saying that what I believe Josh was getting at, by equating 'legitimate' with 'accidental', is that ANY arranged VP split at ANY point during the game is illegal. And that's his faulty premise. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > I'm saying that what I believe Josh was getting at, by equating > 'legitimate' with 'accidental', is that ANY arranged VP split at ANY > point during the game is illegal. And that's his faulty premise. I don't think that was what he meant. I read 'accidental' as 'accidentally, due to current game conditions, a deal is the best option available'. So if a deal is your best option (or at least as good as any other option), it's legal. If not, you're not playing to maximize your VPs and the deal is illegal. So not all deals are illegal, but legal deals can be very hard to distinguish from illegal deals (when it's not clear what the 'best option' is). That, I think, was Josh's point. Flux

James Coupe wrote: > In message , Flux > writes: > > >>Think harder. If the deal is out of line, you just toss it aside. It > >>doesn't matter then who made it. > >> > >>When a VP split deal is being made, it has to be in line for both > >>players. > > > >Maybe I should remind you of what began this thread? > > > Maybe I should remind you that the collateral damage of your proposed > fixes is so insanely damaging to all forms of diplomacy in the game as > to make any significant deal illegal? AFAIR, I haven't _proposed_ any specific 'fix'. I'm discussing the implications of several potential 'fixes'. I don't believe all significant deals would be made illegal, depending on what rule was to be adopted. Obviously, if the rule is 'no deals', it would have serious consequences on diplomatic aspects of the game - I don't support that option. If it's 'maximize your VPs at all times', many significant deals could still be made. Some could not. Are those deals that get thrown out important to the game? That is largely a matter of opinion, it depends on what you think the game should be like. Actually, I'm mistaken. I did mention a specific option that no-one else mentioned before (AFAIK): that the rules require you to 'maximize your VPs at all times, except when honouring a deal made previously'. In fact, this is effectivelly the rule now (due to LSJ's rulings about honouring deals), except now it doesn't apply to a player who has already won. Why you haven't adressed that option at all, when it seems to have a near zero impact on 'all forms of diplomacy in the game', is beyond me (I'm not psychic either). Maybe you're more interested in discussion than conversation. > >For example, if the rules required you to maximize your VPs at all > >moments, it would effectivelly prevent you from 'rolling-over' unless > >the game is already lost, but most other deals would remain legal. > > > It would also prevent you from ever making lasting deals that you had to > backstab on. Right. > The A-B-C-D-E, where E withdraws and you get E's co-operation to oust D, > is the perfect example. At this point, I *need* this deal. If not, I > can't maximise my VPs. But if I take it, I have to oust E. Which is > clearly absurd. And E wants to take it, because E will maximise her VPs > that way. E will maximize her VPs, if the deal is honoured. > So at that point, they have to play for the most VPs. So that deal has > to be made. But then later, it has to be broken, so it will never be > made in the first place. > > > You can't tell people "Always play to make most VPs" and then make it > logically impossible for them to do so. If I don't do this, I don't > make most VPs. If I do do this, I can't make most VPs anyway because > logically E knows I have to oust her. If E knows the deal can't be honoured, she will maximize VPs by not making the deal. If she doesn't know if the deal will be honoured, she might maximize VPs by taking the deal (and you honouring it), or she might maximize VPs by not taking the deal (if you never intended to honour it anyway). Why is one situation preferable to the other? Knowing that the deal can't hold forever simplifies your options, and it probably makes the judge's job easier. Not knowing gives the players more options, so the players feel more free, and the game has greater uncertainty. > Players play to win using in game methods. For the hard of thinking, > this involves *cards* not *guns*. > > Players talk. > > Players discuss situation. > > Players notice that doing X, Y and Z leads them to a situation where > they both get VPs and where one of them gets a table win. (With > suitable side notes for maximising VPs, etc.) > > If they don't do that, they don't maximise their VPs or TWs. > > If they do do that, they maximise their VPs and TWs. > > But now you come along and say, "Sorry, you're not allowed to maximise > your VPs and TWs." For some X, Y or Z (for example, a pre-game arrangement with one of the other players), you're already saying that. So now we have to make collusion legal and a 'valid in-game method' so that players are allowed to maximize their VPs. If you find the gapping hole in that logic, you've just found why I was objecting to your dismissal when I made the 'shooting' analogy. > It is worth noting that the game is intended to be a diplomatic one. > About what makes a bad multi-player game: > > If players can interact too freely with one another, then the > winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation... "I'm not the > threat, SHE's the threat!"... On the other hand, if players > can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your > hands, a game which may be fun, but which leaves the players > dealing more with the system than with each other. > (Garfield, p.39, The Eternal Struggle) > > The current rules facilitate that. You have to have something useful to > offer a player, you have to mutually benefit from a situation. <snip very nice and long discussion on the strategy of vtes and multiplayer games in general> All very nice. But how much interaction do you allow? How much is enough, and how much is too much? You (well, the current rules) say all deals are valid, *except* for some. 'Some' includes deals where a player doesn't win or maximize his VPs and deals with out-of-game motives, and maybe a few more that I'm missing. I'm saying that expanding that exception (even if not directly) could be preferable. > >>>As opposed to now, where the judgement required is wether the player > >>>can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal. > >> > >> > >>That's simply not a judgement that can be made, in any useful fashion. > > > >?? > > > That (what you're proposing)'s simply not a judgement that can be made, > in any useful fashion. As I wrote the sentence, I meant for [the judgement required is wether the player player can reasonably expect to get the same or more VPs by making the deal] to refer to [now], ie, the current situation. AFAIK, that is grammatically correct English, please correct me if I'm mistaken. Flux

Flux wrote: > Actually, I'm mistaken. I did mention a specific option that no-one else > mentioned before (AFAIK): that the rules require you to 'maximize your VPs > at all times, except when honouring a deal made previously'. In fact, this > is effectivelly the rule now (due to LSJ's rulings about honouring > deals), except now it doesn't apply to a player who has already won. So, instead of finding an exception-form for the rule, use this: You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is allowed). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > > > Actually, I'm mistaken. I did mention a specific option that no-one else > > mentioned before (AFAIK): that the rules require you to 'maximize your > > VPs > > at all times, except when honouring a deal made previously'. In fact, > > this > > is effectivelly the rule now (due to LSJ's rulings about honouring > > deals), except now it doesn't apply to a player who has already won. > > > So, instead of finding an exception-form for the rule, use this: > > You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. > (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is allowed). Ok, thanks. That would be the current rule, my suggestion would be changing 'standing' to 'VPs'. Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. >> (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is >> allowed). > > Ok, thanks. > That would be the current rule, my suggestion would be changing > 'standing' to 'VPs'. Which would be, as stated previously, an arbitrary addition. "Play to win" is based on the sportsmanship rule. Playing for some arbitrary goal (e.g., "maximize VPs") doesn't have the same solid foundation. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:42:38 +0000, Flux wrote: >the rules require you to 'maximize your VPs at all times, >except when honouring a deal made previously'. The rules don't say one word about deals. They don't exist, except by card effect (Succubus Club). > > If players can interact too freely with one another, then the > > winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation... "I'm not the > > threat, SHE's the threat!"... On the other hand, if players > > can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your > > hands, a game which may be fun, but which leaves the players > > dealing more with the system than with each other. > > (Garfield, p.39, The Eternal Struggle) So, in other words, Garfield is saying that negotiation is bad but interaction is good. That's similar to what he said in The Duellist too. Take away all these goddam deals and that's what you've got - less talk and more action. This is a card game not a game of negotiation. He wants you to play cards, geddit? You play your cards, I play mine, Joe Soap plays his. That's not solitaire, any more than Magic is solitaire. But not having deals doesn't stop the players talking to each. They can banter and trash talk; exchange views on how the game is going; make suggestions and even cooperate in limited ways ("if my prey gets a piece of the KRC, then I'll vote in favour of it"). That's how Shadowfist is played - there's plenty of chatter (too much), plenty of action but no deals. Switching from Shadowfist to VTES was like going back to the days of playing Diplomacy. Except that, in Diplomacy, it was understood that deals were made to be broken. And there were time limits for negotiation - you couldn't talk for an hour without making a move. You guys have made a perversion of the game - it's all cross-game alliances, sweetheart deals, kingmaking and collusion. How could it be any more political? You're nowhere near the middle ground that Garfield was aiming for. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:42:38 +0000, Flux wrote: >>the rules require you to 'maximize your VPs at all times, >>except when honouring a deal made previously'. > > The rules don't say one word about deals. They don't exist, except by > card effect (Succubus Club). Following the topic might help. The rules (to include official rulings) allow you to honor a legally-made deal even at the point where the player could gain an advantage by breaking the deal. The play-to-win rule (ruling) doesn't require the player to break the deal. >> > If players can interact too freely with one another, then the >> > winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation... "I'm not the >> > threat, SHE's the threat!"... On the other hand, if players >> > can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your >> > hands, a game which may be fun, but which leaves the players >> > dealing more with the system than with each other. >> > (Garfield, p.39, The Eternal Struggle) > > So, in other words, Garfield is saying that negotiation is bad but > interaction is good. No. He says that reducing the game to *pure* negotiation (i.e., the game's outcome depends soley on negotiation and the rest of the game mechanics become immaterial) is bad. [snip rant] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:49:38 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Following the topic might help. Orpheus' original query was an open-and-shut case of collusion - a cross-game deal. It's amazing to me that the question was even asked. Now, I'm not following this thread closely but there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus on wherever it's got to now. >The rules (to include official rulings You mean you've got these chumps believing that anything you say is the rules, by definition. Talk about playing solitaire. Excuse me if I prefer to get my rules from the rulebook. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > You mean you've got these chumps believing that anything you say is > the rules, by definition. No. I'm just telling you what the context of the quote you mishandled was. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: >> Actually, I'm mistaken. I did mention a specific option that no-one >> else mentioned before (AFAIK): that the rules require you to >> 'maximize your VPs at all times, except when honouring a deal made >> previously'. In fact, this is effectivelly the rule now (due to >> LSJ's rulings about honouring deals), except now it doesn't apply to >> a player who has already won. > > So, instead of finding an exception-form for the rule, use this: > > You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. > (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is > allowed). I got a question here ("Honoring deals made legally is allowed"): it is allowed to honore a formerly-legal deal but that lately, (for unpredictable in-game happenings lately in the same round) would clearly make you to *not* win the table nor to maximize your Vps? thanks Emiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome

tetragrammaton wrote: > I got a question here ("Honoring deals made legally is allowed"): > it is allowed to honore a formerly-legal deal but that lately, > (for unpredictable in-game happenings lately in the same round) > would clearly make you to *not* win the table nor to maximize your Vps? That's the whole point of that rule, yeah. In every deal that involves something now for something later, it would be in the interest of the player giving something later to default on the deal (when the action is considered in isolation, not as a series of deals or what have you). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > tetragrammaton wrote: >> I got a question here ("Honoring deals made legally is allowed"): >> it is allowed to honore a formerly-legal deal but that lately, >> (for unpredictable in-game happenings lately in the same round) >> would clearly make you to *not* win the table nor to maximize your >> Vps? > > That's the whole point of that rule, yeah. > > In every deal that involves something now for something later, it > would be in the interest of the player giving something later to > default > on the deal (when the action is considered in isolation, not as a > series of deals or what have you). Sorry for my bad english here, i'm not sure to understand so i would need a "yes" or "no" answer here: it is allowed or not to "Honore a deal made (formerly) legally " under the circumstances i pointed above (where that deal lately would make you to *not* win or maximize your Vps at all)? thanks again Emiliano

In message <0C58D7DAC73FCF03.D3270A28...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >Orpheus' original query was an open-and-shut case of collusion - a >cross-game deal. Look, Andrew, if you can't handle the difference between an in-game deal and collusion, you need to do something about your reading skills. Collusion is not the same as making a legitimate in game deal. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > >> You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. > >> (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is > >> allowed). > > > > > > Ok, thanks. > > That would be the current rule, my suggestion would be changing > > 'standing' to 'VPs'. > > > Which would be, as stated previously, an arbitrary addition. > "Play to win" is based on the sportsmanship rule. > Playing for some arbitrary goal (e.g., "maximize VPs") doesn't > have the same solid foundation. The current (tournament) rule is "play to best standing", a generalization of the "play to win" rule. It is worth noting the rulesbook only supports the "play to win" rule (AFAIK). "Maximizing VPs" is not an arbitrary goal, it is a generalization of the "play for best standing" goal. The real change is actually much smaller then going from "play to win" to "play for best standing". Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. ("yeah" is equivalent to "yes). That's exactly the point of the rule in question. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message > <0C58D7DAC73FCF03.D3270A28...@lp.airnew s.net>, > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >> Orpheus' original query was an open-and-shut case of collusion - a >> cross-game deal. > > Look, Andrew, if you can't handle the difference between an in-game > deal and collusion, you need to do something about your reading > skills. Collusion is not the same as making a legitimate in game deal. However, at this point what is "legitimate" and what is not it's a very hard thing to tell, IMHO: 1) a "winning" 3 Vps player can openly collude, letting to the remaining player at the table the 2 Vps left, without he/she needs other reason to motivate such "giving away" Vps. That's perfectly legal as Soctt pointed here and it's clear that being a legal a judge can't intervene at that point. ("hey, it's my friend and i already won the table at this point, so it's legal for me to do what i want with the remaining Vps"). 2) In any stage of the game, when it's clear that you can't win the table, then it's allowed to deal for less than 3 Vps (say, 0, 1 or 2). That's ok. BUT, lately, if you then gain a (somewhat unexpected) superior position that would perfectly allow you to gain "the most" Vps, then you're (by official interpretation) *still* free to honor that deal, clearly going against the object of the game ("player must accumulate the *most* victory points). it seems me that, far from clutting would be illegitimate (Vps based) deals, this way the path leading to un-sanctionability of *any* kind of deals it's wide open. Sure, preserving fair deals, but nicely keeping collusive/unsportsmanlike deals/behavior too... just my thought Emiliano

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2qqmm$1fkuav$2...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > Kevin M. wrote: > > > I'm saying that what I believe Josh was getting at, by equating > > 'legitimate' with 'accidental', is that ANY arranged VP split at ANY > > point during the game is illegal. And that's his faulty premise. > > I don't think that was what he meant. But, that's what he SAID. > I read 'accidental' as 'accidentally, due to current game conditions, a deal > is the best option available'. So if a deal is your best option (or at least > as good as any other option), it's legal. If not, you're not playing to > maximize your VPs and the deal is illegal. > > So not all deals are illegal, but legal deals can be very hard to > distinguish from illegal deals (when it's not clear what the 'best option' is). > > That, I think, was Josh's point. Josh said: "You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits,..." What that means is, for Josh, there are two ways to split VPs: - Collusion - Accidental, i.e. Legitimate > > Flux Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"tetragrammaton" <nospamae...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b2rs63$1fpira$1...@ID-158753.news.dfncis.de... > James Coupe wrote: > > In message > > <0C58D7DAC73FCF03.D3270A28...@lp.airnew s.net>, > > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >> Orpheus' original query was an open-and-shut case of collusion - a > >> cross-game deal. > > > > Look, Andrew, if you can't handle the difference between an in-game > > deal and collusion, you need to do something about your reading > > skills. Collusion is not the same as making a legitimate in game deal. > > However, at this point what is "legitimate" and > what is not it's a very hard thing to tell, IMHO: > > 1) a "winning" 3 Vps player can openly collude, letting > to the remaining player at the table the 2 Vps left, > without he/she needs other reason to motivate such "giving away" Vps. > That's perfectly legal as Soctt pointed here and > it's clear that being a legal a judge can't intervene at that point. > ("hey, it's my friend and i already won the table at this point, so it's > legal for me to do what i want with the remaining Vps"). If you think about how often someone "openly colludes" after gaining the GW, your theory falls to pieces. It just doesn't happen, statistically. If you start seeing this happen -- which you won't, of course -- then let us know. Let's everyone who wants to keep giving this non-reason at least admit that they're talking out of their asses. [snip other reason(s)] > > Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

"Flux" <fl...@netcabo.pt> wrote in message news:b2rje1$1fs9en$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > LSJ wrote: > > > Flux wrote: > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > >> You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. > > >> (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is > > >> allowed). > > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks. > > > That would be the current rule, my suggestion would be changing > > > 'standing' to 'VPs'. > > > > > > Which would be, as stated previously, an arbitrary addition. > > "Play to win" is based on the sportsmanship rule. > > Playing for some arbitrary goal (e.g., "maximize VPs") doesn't > > have the same solid foundation. > > The current (tournament) rule is "play to best standing", a generalization > of the "play to win" rule. It is worth noting the rulesbook only supports > the "play to win" rule (AFAIK). No, that is NOT the current tournament rule. The current tournament rule is: "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play to maximize their VPs." Please get the facts correct and state them correctly instead of changing and then misstating the facts to suit your purposes. > > Flux [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote in message > news:b2rje1$1fs9en$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > > >LSJ wrote: > > > > > Flux wrote: > > > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > > > > >> You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. > > > >> (Making deals to do so is allowed. Honoring deals made legally is > > > >> allowed). > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, thanks. > > > > That would be the current rule, my suggestion would be changing > > > > 'standing' to 'VPs'. > > > > > > > > > Which would be, as stated previously, an arbitrary addition. > > > "Play to win" is based on the sportsmanship rule. > > > Playing for some arbitrary goal (e.g., "maximize VPs") doesn't > > > have the same solid foundation. > > > >The current (tournament) rule is "play to best standing", a generalization > >of the "play to win" rule. It is worth noting the rulesbook only supports > >the "play to win" rule (AFAIK). > > > No, that is NOT the current tournament rule. The current tournament > rule is: "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play > to maximize their VPs." Please read what LSJ wrote above: 'You are required to maximize your final standing in the game. (...)' I was simpy restating that. In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you wrote (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a significant one. Flux

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote: > > >Kevin M. wrote: > > > > > >>I'm saying that what I believe Josh was getting at, by equating > >>'legitimate' with 'accidental', is that ANY arranged VP split at ANY > >>point during the game is illegal. And that's his faulty premise. > > > >I don't think that was what he meant. > > > But, that's what he SAID. What he said is, unfortunately, open to interpretation. Once we've both exposed our views, unless he steps in and clears it up, there's no use in debating it any further. :) Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2s9kp$1fj94q$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] < S I G H > Q: What is the maximum standing you can get in each game? A: Game Win. Once you've got a Game Win, you can't maximize your final standing in the GAME any more than that. > In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you wrote > (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a significant one. There is NO difference, as demonstrated above. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote in message > news:b2s9kp$1fj94q$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > > >Kevin M. wrote: > > > > > >>"Flux" wrote in message > >>news:b2rje1$1fs9en$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > >>> > >>>The current (tournament) rule is "play to best standing", a > >>>generalization of the "play to win" rule. It is worth noting the > >>>rulesbook only supports the "play to win" rule (AFAIK). > >> > >> > >>No, that is NOT the current tournament rule. The current tournament > >>rule is: "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must > >>play to maximize their VPs." > > > >Please read what LSJ wrote above: > >'You are required to maximize your final standing in the game. (...)' > > > >I was simpy restating that. > > > < S I G H > > > Q: What is the maximum standing you can get in each game? > > A: Game Win. > > Once you've got a Game Win, you can't maximize your final standing in > the GAME any more than that. Ah, I think I understand your objection now. But "... in the game" was implicit when I said "play for best standing" (I was quoting LSJ's statement), I did not mean to imply that the rule was "play for best standing in the tournament". Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. > >In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you > >wrote (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a > >significant one. > > There is NO difference, as demonstrated above. There is, actually. Once you've lost, if you are required to "maximize your VPs" you will only have to care about your own score; if you are required to "maximize your standing", you should also attempt to minimize the score of everyone other than the winner. For example: with a "maximize your standing" objective, if you know you will only get 1 VP a 4-1-0-0-0 finish is preferable to 2-2-1-0-0 or 3-1-1-0-0. With the "if you can't win, maximize your VPs" rule, any of those options is equally valid. Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct. I was paraphrasing the tournament rule to match the context of the thread. > In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you > wrote (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a > significant one. What difference? How is maximizing your VPs when you cannot win any different than maximizing your final standing? Are you thinking of a case when you cannot achieve any more victory points and yet *can* influence which of your two neighbors gets a VP and keep one of them from tying you? I suppose if you have 1 VP and player A has 3, then you could try to get player A to score the last VP rather than allowing one of the other players to tie you. But scoring that 1 VP yourself is obviously superior to that, so you'd only do that when you couldn't score the VP yourself, so it works out to the same thing, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message >>Kevin M. wrote: >>>"Flux" wrote in message >>>>LSJ wrote: >>>>>Flux wrote: >>>>>>LSJ wrote: >>>>>>>You are required to maximize you final standing in the game. >>>>The current (tournament) rule is "play to best standing", a >>>No, that is NOT the current tournament rule. The current tournament >>>rule is: "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play >>>to maximize their VPs." >> >>Please read what LSJ wrote above: >>'You are required to maximize your final standing in the game. (...)' >> >>I was simpy restating that. > >>In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you wrote >>(which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a > > significant one. > > There is NO difference, as demonstrated above. Then why did you post the assertion that it is not the tournament rule? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > > > In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you > > wrote (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a > > significant one. > > > What difference? > How is maximizing your VPs when you cannot win any different than > maximizing your final standing? > > Are you thinking of a case when you cannot achieve any more > victory points and yet *can* influence which of your two neighbors > gets a VP and keep one of them from tying you? > I suppose if you have 1 VP and player A has 3, then you could try > to get player A to score the last VP rather than allowing one > of the other players to tie you. But scoring that 1 VP yourself is > obviously superior to that, so you'd only do that when you couldn't > score the VP yourself, so it works out to the same thing, IMO. Which is why I stated the difference is not a significant one. :) (the exact situation you describe is impossible in a 5-player game, but there are a few other possible examples) Flux

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E522C02...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If you look at the original message, when Flux said that "play to best standing"[A] was the current tournament rule, I corrected him and stated that the current tournament rule was really "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play to maximize their VPs."[B] Flux thought he was restating B when he said A, and I tried to demonstrate why it was not. I then said that there was no difference between: [Flux] 'You are required to maximize your final standing in the game. (...)'[C] and [Kevin] "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play to maximize their VPs."[B] Flux then said: "But '...in the game' was implicit when I said 'play for best standing' (I was quoting LSJ's statement), I did not mean to imply that the rule was 'play for best standing in the tournament'. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough." ...which effectively ended my debate with him, since "Play for best standing in the game" = C = B. I did *not* say that A = C. Sorry there were so many messages in there between me and Flux. :) > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>Then why did you post the assertion that it is not the tournament rule? > > If you look at the original message, when Flux said that "play to best > standing"[A] was the current tournament rule, I corrected him and stated > that the current tournament rule was really "Players must play to win > and, when not able to win, must play to maximize their VPs."[B] Flux > thought he was restating B when he said A, and I tried to demonstrate > why it was not. > > I then said that there was no difference between: > [Flux] 'You are required to maximize your final standing in the game. > (...)'[C] This is [A], what Flux said. Play to best standing. If you take [D] to be "maximize final standing in tournament", [A] is not [D], although it seems you assumed that Flux meant "in the tournament" when he actually meant "in each game". In the context, the omission leads to the latter. The current tournament rule is as Flux stated (in his restatement of my statement of what the tournament rule is). > and > [Kevin] "Players must play to win and, when not able to win, must play > to maximize their VPs."[B] > > Flux then said: > "But '...in the game' was implicit when I said 'play for best standing' > (I was quoting LSJ's statement), I did not mean to imply that the rule > was > 'play for best standing in the tournament'. Sorry if I didn't make that > clear enough." > > ...which effectively ended my debate with him, since "Play for best > standing in the game" = C = B. = A. > > I did *not* say that A = C. Sorry there were so many messages in there > between me and Flux. :) But A (in context) = C. It just doesn't = D. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b2t9os$1fobla$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry that I got so exasperated. At least we're in agreement now! :) > > >In practice there may be a small difference between that and what you > > >wrote (which is the actual tournament rule), but AFAIK it is not a > > >significant one. > > > > There is NO difference, as demonstrated above. > > There is, actually. Noooooooooooo! :( > Once you've lost, if you are required to "maximize your VPs" you will only > have to care about your own score; if you are required to "maximize your > standing", you should also attempt to minimize the score of everyone other > than the winner. Remember, you're talking about two *different* points in the game. ONCE YOU'VE LOST -- i.e. AFTER SOMEONE ELSE HAS GOTTEN -- the Game Win, you are required to "maximize your VPs." At that point, your goal is synonymous with smashing everyone's face, taking into account any VP-maximizing deals that you wish to take into account. This follows logically, since taking those deals into account is synonymous with your current goal of being required to maximize your VPs. BEFORE SOMEONE HAS GOTTEN the Game Win, *that* is when you are required to "maximize your standing", which means smashing everyone's face in your quest for the Game Win. Once you've gotten the Game Win, you may now play in any manner you choose. Now, having just said that "you may now play in any manner you choose", yes, I'm fully aware that this issue is what the whole conversation has been about, and probably what Josh's point has been about all along. You guys on the other side of this issue from me have concerns like: [Tetragrammaton 04-FEB-2003] "Otherwise, speaking of tournament matter,if the goal is just to "win a game" and not "to score the most victory points" there's a wide path open to potential collusion." [Tetragrammaton 04-FEB-2003] "Anyway, nitpicking apart, IMHO allowing (in v:tes tournaments) a player with 3 pv already scored (at a 5 player table) to let to do the remaining 2 to the other player, equals to lure badly the players toward collusion." [Tetragrammaton 07-FEB-2003] "Don't you feel that if players should have to play (from the very beginning) for "accumulating the most Vps" intended as *the maximum total Vps currently available* instead of *the most Vps needed to win at the table* we had a less-prone-to-collusion tournament enviroment? I'm not saying that players collude on a regular basis, of course :), just that, as v:tes grows, the tournament enviroment needs a clearer rule about "mandatory" Vps-making" [Andrew S. Davidson 08-FEB-2003] "Such out-of-game considerations are collusion - only available to players who know each other and make deals regularly." [Andrew S. Davidson 09-FEB-2003] "In the situation described, W has already got his game win. Your theory is that he is free to stop competing in the game and may reward his cronies, such as Z. But that's collusion because the game mechanics give him no excuse to stop competing - there is no deal so far as the game's rules are concerned." [Tetragrammaton 08-FEB-2003] "IMHO, it's a questionable and argueable assumption, (legal, from the beginning "Playing to accomplish a 2-1-1-finish" not legal "simply playing for 2 VPs") that lets enough space to a (bad) player for eventual collusion-like behaviors. That's all." [Tetragrammaton 10-FEB-2003] "If you realized the point , then you can see it's also clear that the ruling as it is now (implying that once a player has scored 3 he/she can "give away" the remaining 2 Vps) somehow could help (or leaves a door open to) certain collusion-prone players." [Flux 10-FEB-2003] "Just because this situation is not colusion doesn't meant that it should be allowed. The fact that it is allowed ('giving away' VPs) under the current rules only means that the rules may need revision." [Flux 11-FEB-2003] "The problem is that once a player wins, he is free to do whatever he wants to. He can play in a completely 'random' way and no judge can reprehend him for it (unless he actually flips a coin), because there is no collusion involved." [Tetragrammaton 11-FEB-2003] "under the current rule, during a round a player in good shape that already scored 3 Vps can let the remaining two to the other maybe "almost dead" player without any concerns. That "Vps giving away" could even alter the composition of the table at tournament final round, and that giving away could be motivated with a completely random reason without qualms ("uh ? i have already won the table, so i know i can let the remaining Vps to my friend to let him in the final too")." [Tetragrammaton 11-FEB-2003] "Say, some possible dialogues: ["psst...please, you know the rule and you have already won: let me do 2 vps, by that i'll get to the final too, so that we'll get better chanches to split the prizes..]. ["ok my friend, we know the rule and we're going for round#2 at the same table; you need just 1 Vp to get into the final, me at least 2 vps; once in the final we'll get better chanches to split the prizes, you know?; it's all clear what we're going to do?..;-) ]." [Tetragrammaton 12-FEB-2003] "So, while that simply can't be a dictated-by-collusion-act at all, *actively* "giving away" those remaining 2 Vps to the remaining "friend" it's likely to be; or, at the very best, it could be a pretty unsportsmanlike act." [Josh Duffin 11-FEB-2003] "Yes, if the person who already has the 3 VPs gets the last 2, that does affect the tournament standings just as much as if he or she allows another player to get the last 2. But it's never collusive to try to score points on your own behalf, and it can be collusive to allow others to score them." I will submit to you (all), for the third time in this thread, that if you think -- really THINK -- about *how often* someone plays in a "completely random way" and/or a "collusionary way" after gaining the Game Win, your collusion-can-happen-therefore-we-need-to-change-the-Game-Win-rule-and-a ssociated-rulings theory falls to pieces. If you *really* want to convince people that the current Game Win rule and/or associated rulings need to be changed, start keeping track of how often you believe players "play randomly" and/or "collude" after gaining the Game Win, and then come back and show us your data which demonstrates your supposition(s). Remember: As long as BEFORE ANYONE HAS GOTTEN THE GAME WIN you're playing for the Game Win, and AFTER SOMEONE ELSE HAS GOTTEN THE GAME WIN, you are playing to "maximize your VPs", you are playing *completely correctly*. > For example: with a "maximize your standing" objective, if you know you will > only get 1 VP a 4-1-0-0-0 finish is preferable to 2-2-1-0-0 or 3-1-1-0-0. > With the "if you can't win, maximize your VPs" rule, any of those options is > equally valid. ummmm No. The "I got 1VP" option isn't equally valid if you COULD have gotten 2VP, since you wouldn't have then been playing by the "when not able to win, players must play to maximize their VPs" rule. And I doubt that you can convince us that that last VP was gained "completely randomly". ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E52418D...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Hrrmm. Maybe I took it out of context?!? You win. Oh well. :) > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" wrote in message > news:b2t9os$1fobla$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > > >Once you've lost, if you are required to "maximize your VPs" you will > >only have to care about your own score; if you are required to "maximize > >your standing", you should also attempt to minimize the score of everyone > >other than the winner. > > > Remember, you're talking about two *different* points in the game. No, I'm talking about one single point in time, but two possible (different) rules (the real one and the one LSJ wrote as a paraphrase of the actual rule). :) < big snip - you have done your homework, haven't you? ;) > > I will submit to you (all), for the third time in this thread, that if > you think -- really THINK -- about *how often* someone plays in a > "completely random way" and/or a "collusionary way" after gaining the > Game Win, your > collusion-can-happen-therefore-we-need-to-change-the-Game-Win-rule-and-a > ssociated-rulings theory falls to pieces. If you *really* want to > convince people that the current Game Win rule and/or associated rulings > need to be changed, start keeping track of how often you believe players > "play randomly" and/or "collude" after gaining the Game Win, and then > come back and show us your data which demonstrates your supposition(s). Granted, I don't have data to prove this is major problem. But if a loophole exists, it should be plugged (prevention is better than correction), especially if there is a correction that can have minimal impact in the game. > >For example: with a "maximize your standing" objective, if you know you will > >only get 1 VP a 4-1-0-0-0 finish is preferable to 2-2-1-0-0 or 3-1-1-0-0. > >With the "if you can't win, maximize your VPs" rule, any of those options > >is equally valid. > > > ummmm No. The "I got 1VP" option isn't equally valid if you COULD have > gotten 2VP, since you wouldn't have then been playing by the "when not > able to win, players must play to maximize their VPs" rule. Which is why I started my example with "if you know you will only get 1 VP", implying there is no chance at all of getting a 2nd VP. :) I'll just put forward one example, for completeness (note that this is just a side-issue, not really related to the main discussion): 3 players, A-B-C: - A has 1 VPs and is in a strong position, neither of the opposing players can oust him. - B has 0 VPs, but is in a good position to oust C. But even if he does, he will be ousted by A afterwards. - C has 1 VPs, but he can't hope to oust A no matter what, and neither A nor B are interested in letting him withdraw, so he is effectivelly at his "maximum VPs". There is enough time that timing out is not an issue. Under current rules, C is required to "win, or maximize his VPs". He has no chance of winning, so he is reduced to maximizing his VPs. But he has no chance of getting more than his current 1 VP, so he is free to lose in any way he choses - either get ousted by B, or help A oust B first and then get ousted by A. If the rule is "play for best standing" though, he should ensure that B doesn't get any VPs, so he can be second alone in the table, instead of tying for second with B. SO, there is a difference. :) But that is not important, because I'm not arguing the current rule is "play for best standing (in the current game)" and not "try to win, and if that is not possible try to maximize your VPs"; and the alternative I actually proposed was "try to maximize your VPs". Flux

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E5112A2...@white-wolf.com... > Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > If players can interact too freely with one another, then the > > winner becomes a matter of pure negotiation... "I'm not the > > threat, SHE's the threat!"... On the other hand, if players > > can't interact enough you have multiplayer solitaire on your > > hands, a game which may be fun, but which leaves the players > > dealing more with the system than with each other. > > (Garfield, p.39, The Eternal Struggle) > > > > So, in other words, Garfield is saying that negotiation is bad but > > interaction is good. > > No. He says that reducing the game to *pure* negotiation (i.e., the > game's outcome depends soley on negotiation and the rest of the > game mechanics become immaterial) is bad. I may regret stepping in back in an earlier portion of the thread without having caught up to date yet, but... In my experience, VTES *is* reduced in many cases too close to pure negotiation, especially among good players with strong decks. The mechanics aren't nearly as important as who's convincing (or lucky), because cross-table interaction is possible to a degree that means that almost no table position is strong enough to guarantee a win, at least until there are only 2 players left - you can always be defeated by a coalition of others. This is part of why deals can be so important and game-altering, because many decks have enough cross-table influence to be able to tilt the balance against players who are not their prey. It's a delicate balance, certainly. I'm not sure that VTES is currently finding the proper balance point, though. (I'm not sure that it ever did in the past, either, to be clear.) Josh if you like Diplomacy, try VTES!

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:rAg4a.41773$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net... > > "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message > news:b2qqmm$1fkuav$2...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > > So not all deals are illegal, but legal deals can be very hard to > > distinguish from illegal deals (when it's not clear what the 'best > > option' is). > > > > That, I think, was Josh's point. Yeah, that was my point, but Kevin's also right that I was going on to imply that not that many "losing" deals are legitimate. > Josh said: > "You already have to be psychic to tell if (a) players are colluding > as opposed to arriving at legitimate (ie accidental) VP splits,..." > > What that means is, for Josh, there are two ways to split VPs: > - Collusion > - Accidental, i.e. Legitimate Yeah. You can't intentionally split VPs, because you only ever *want* to win a game. You never *want* to be on the losing end of a VP split. You will only ever get there accidentally, by having already lost the game. If you have made a deal on the assumption that you will lose the game, and gotten VP scraps from the winner for helping him or her win, that fits into the "accidental" (but in my book stupid) category. LSJ has alluded to the difficulty of being certain about game outcomes, but I don't think he's committed himself in print to the idea that it's almost never truly legitimate to give up your position while there are more than two players in the game. But yes, that is my idea. If it's a million to one, it's probably reasonable to assume that you're going to lose. If it's ten to one, to me, it's not reasonable. I still have no idea how anyone is calculating odds with enough certainty in this game to claim that it's a million to one against them. :-) Josh not a bookie, but plays one on the internet

In article <_Mg4a.41867$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>, you...@imaspammer.org says... > If you think about how often someone "openly colludes" after gaining the > GW, your theory falls to pieces. It just doesn't happen, statistically. > If you start seeing this happen -- which you won't, of course -- then > let us know. Wasn't this thread started by an actual example of this happening? -- -Snapcase

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:MPG.18be1d0c5...@news.optonline.net... [ quoted text not captured ] As I stated, above, it just doesn't happen *statistically*. So yeah, you now have ONE example of it happening. Good luck finding any more. :) > > -Snapcase [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:kb05a.11799$Hb.2...@news1.west.cox.net... > > "Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message > news:MPG.18be1d0c5...@news.optonline.net... > > In article <_Mg4a.41867$Rx3.1...@news1.west.cox.net>, > > you...@imaspammer.org says... > > > > > If you think about how often someone "openly colludes" after gaining > the > > > GW, your theory falls to pieces. It just doesn't happen, > statistically. > > > If you start seeing this happen -- which you won't, of course -- > then > > > let us know. > > > > Wasn't this thread started by an actual example of this happening? > > As I stated, above, it just doesn't happen *statistically*. So yeah, > you now have ONE example of it happening. Good luck finding any more. > :) Actually, I know a case where there were two players left and one player was able to bluff (or maybe it wasn't a bluff) that he could last until time. The non-bluffing player had 3 VPs a nd the bluffing player had 0. The bluffing player convinced the non-bluffing player into a mutual withdrawal rather than a risking a time out. How would you consider that? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Actually, I know a case where there were two players left and one player was > able to bluff (or maybe it wasn't a bluff) that he could last until time. > The non-bluffing player had 3 VPs a nd the bluffing player had 0. The > bluffing player convinced the non-bluffing player into a mutual withdrawal > rather than a risking a time out. How would you consider that? Good play. That would still be legal (and good play) under the proposed change, too. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <kb05a.11799$Hb.2...@news1.west.cox.net>, you...@imaspammer.org says... > > Wasn't this thread started by an actual example of this happening? > > As I stated, above, it just doesn't happen *statistically*. So yeah, > you now have ONE example of it happening. Good luck finding any more. > :) Do you think, in principle, it should be allowed? Ignoring statistics for a minute... -- -Snapcase

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:MPG.18bfec3d...@news.optonline.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I think that statistics are at the very heart of the matter, here. If this was happening all the time, or even "a lot", then I'm sure there would be some thought of changing the rule. Since it hardly ever happens, there isn't any need to worry about changing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<4mr5a.33087$Hb.6...@news1.west.cox.net>... > > Do you think, in principle, it should be allowed? Ignoring statistics > > for a minute... > > I think that statistics are at the very heart of the matter, here. > > If this was happening all the time, or even "a lot", then I'm sure there > would be some thought of changing the rule. Since it hardly ever > happens, there isn't any need to worry about changing it. I will agree that "at least once" is not enough reason to change the rule. I'm actually curious about what your opinion is on this issue though, statistics aside. I tend to agree with Josh that it feels "against the spirit of the game" and it may be worth killing off some types of VP-splitting deals to avoid this VP-dispensing (if it becomes statistically signifigant at any time). -Snapcase

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3150b71e.0302...@posting.google.com... > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<4mr5a.33087$Hb.6...@news1.west.cox.net>... > > > > Do you think, in principle, it should be allowed? Ignoring statistics > > > for a minute... > > > > I think that statistics are at the very heart of the matter, here. > > > > If this was happening all the time, or even "a lot", then I'm sure there > > would be some thought of changing the rule. Since it hardly ever > > happens, there isn't any need to worry about changing it. > > I will agree that "at least once" is not enough reason to change the > rule. I'm actually curious about what your opinion is on this issue > though, statistics aside. I don't see that it's an issue. I didn't before the Game Win rule, and I *especially* don't now that we have the Game Win rule. In casual play sessions with my old playgroup, when 2 of the players at the table were stronger than the other 2-3, and those 2 players decided to ally and beat the crap out of everyone else, the weakers players didn't care that there was a VP split going to happen eventually. They cared about the fact that it was going to happen AFTER THEY WERE DEAD, and they focused on making their *own* alliance in order to survive. Sometimes this worked well enough to break up the old "strong" alliance, and make a "new" strong alliance (which ANY of those weaker players would gladly become a part of; see below), or it might even screw up all plans enough to give no one more than 1VP, or to time out the table, or whatever. We all played by a kind of "Survival of the Fittest" mentality, and it worked well enough that no one cared about the occasional VP splitting that went on. Plenty of fun was had by all, since the SotF mentality is the appropriate way to play a game. In my opinion, the Game Win rule modified this VP splitting mentality on two points: 1. The strongest player has to be much more *obviously* the strongest to make any deals, since causing the loss of the Game Win is, in the long run, almost as important for the losing players as eeking out whatever small VPs they're going to get in the game. 2. After getting the Game Win, that player is much less likely to "give" away more than 1VP in any deals, since once you have more than 0 Game Wins, the amount of VPs you have become extremely important for purposes of Final Table seating. > I tend to agree with Josh that it feels > "against the spirit of the game" and it may be worth killing off some > types of VP-splitting deals to avoid this VP-dispensing (if it becomes > statistically signifigant at any time). Well, I've said before that when these kind of deals become significant in any way, we'll deal with it. But... <drumroll> that may be unfair on my part, since it could be interpreted that I'm trivializing what you and Josh have to say on this issue. Especially my pal Josh, since I got to *tell* him at Origins 2002 that I really disagreed with him. :) When I examine this issue and try to figure out *why* you guys believe what you believe, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you guys are trying to manufacture an environment where FUN and FAIRNESS is maximized for everyone at all times. With respect to maximizing FUN, your objective is impossible. Inherent in the concept of a "game" you have competition, which some people don't like; winners, which people like to be; and losers, which people don't like to be. Occasionally, *everyone* is going to be having less fun than someone else. With respect to maximizing FAIRNESS, your objective is also impossible. Since this is a multi-player game, and since they are built-in as part of the game, you have alliances, which people don't like when they're not on the "winning" side. To achieve what you seem to want to achieve, you'd either have to remove ALL alliances, and thereby *destroy* a fundamental part of the game, or make VTES like those non-reality-based soccer games you hear about where no statistics are kept, and at the end the parents say "You're all winners!!!" Neither of those alternatives has ANY redeeming values. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<BkP5a.47014$Hb.10...@news1.west.cox.net>... [snip] > When I examine this issue and try to figure out *why* you guys believe > what you believe, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you > guys are trying to manufacture an environment where FUN and FAIRNESS is > maximized for everyone at all times. Neither of which will ever happen in a game where luck is such a large factor. If I want extreme fairness, I'll just play chess. I can't speak for Josh, but my only concern is the arbitrary nature that the original example in this thread seemed to have. Being on the bum end of some kind of vp-split that a player skillfully made through proper diplomacy is one thing. You at least had some chance to turn said deal in your favor, break the deal, etc (you gave some good examples in the snipped portion). Missing the finals because some guy who had already won decided to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed would be appalling to me. Unfortunately it's legal. It's not particularly an issue yet; again, I agree that "once" isn't a big problem. It's odd for me to take the idealist point of view so I'll quit now. -Snapcase

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3150b71e.03022...@posting.google.com... > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<BkP5a.47014$Hb.10...@news1.west.cox.net>... > > [snip] > > > When I examine this issue and try to figure out *why* you guys believe > > what you believe, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you > > guys are trying to manufacture an environment where FUN and FAIRNESS is > > maximized for everyone at all times. > > Neither of which will ever happen in a game where luck is such a large > factor. The quantity of luck within each game is relative. For example, I do not believe that luck is as large a factor in VTES as you seem to believe it is, and that is part of the (civil) disagreement we're having. > If I want extreme fairness, I'll just play chess. Good call. > I can't > speak for Josh, but my only concern is the arbitrary nature that the > original example in this thread seemed to have. The original example didn't have an arbitrary nature. The original example WAS arbitrary. But I think you've already agreed to that. :) > Being on the bum end > of some kind of vp-split that a player skillfully made through proper > diplomacy is one thing. You at least had some chance to turn said > deal in your favor, break the deal, etc (you gave some good examples > in the snipped portion). Missing the finals because some guy who had > already won decided to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 > vp's he needed would be appalling to me. Unfortunately it's legal. You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. > It's not particularly an issue yet; again, I agree that "once" isn't a > big problem. It's odd for me to take the idealist point of view so > I'll quit now. Except for our philosophical discussion in this thread, it isn't ANY kind of issue, period. But it *has* been an interesting discussion. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ZCB6a.4832$2b.2...@news1.west.cox.net>, you...@imaspammer.org says... > The quantity of luck within each game is relative. For example, I do > not believe that luck is as large a factor in VTES as you seem to > believe it is, and that is part of the (civil) disagreement we're > having. Don't get me wrong; I do believe it takes a great deal of skill to be successful in this game (that's why I read the 'group in the first place- to learn more). I'm just (philisophically) trying to see where the best balance between skill and luck is. Too much skill, we have chess, too much luck we have coin flips. > The original example didn't have an arbitrary nature. The original > example WAS arbitrary. But I think you've already agreed to that. :) Well I think (can't find it anymore, newsreader purged all the old articles) the example given _was_ one that actually happened, so it wasn't just a hypothetical. > You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided > to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You > missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win > enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* > for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. I'll agree to a certain extent. The vp dispensing certainly didn't help, and could be considered bad luck. The guy certainly didn't *earn* those two vps. > Except for our philosophical discussion in this thread, it isn't ANY > kind of issue, period. > > But it *has* been an interesting discussion. =) Indeed! And civil, at least once LSJ shut that Davidson guy up. -- -Snapcase

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:53:55 GMT, Snapcase wrote: >And civil, at least once LSJ shut that Davidson guy up. I'm currently spending more time watching Master of Orion 3 go down in flames. I just noted Kevin's view that VTES not only has deals, it has alliances. I find the concept even more repellant and, of course, the you won't find it in the rules, just like they say nothing about deals. There seem to be some folk who always want to turn such games into a buddy thing. MoO3 is a multiplayer game too. The game mechanics actually have formal alliances and deals but there is a significant lobby that complain that alliance victories are not possible. And there's a similar bunch who want to form "clans" for multiplayer play (i.e. they want to collude). Another interesting multiplayer computer game is Hearts of Iron (WW2 on a huge scale). I was playing it at the weekend with three other players. Both Germany and USSR were played by veteran gamers and I thought they were both mature. Germany started conquering Europe in the usual way but there was an uneasy peace between Germany and USSR (as in history). They were doing some trading (as in history) but then Stalin double-crossed Hitler and, instead of completing a deal, he declared war. We'd been playing for several hours and Germany was still doing ok but he now conceded all his gains back to the Allies and then quit the game in a huff, saying that he refused to play with liars. Anyway, my point is that there are sheep and goats. The sheep want a game in which your word is your bond and you routinely do binding deals, make alliances and so forth. The goats expect a cut-throat game of every-man-for-himself and don't expect any cooperation to last beyond the point that it is in a player's interest to do so. I regard VTES as a game for goats - both by design and theme. I'm still aghast that it has been captured by the sheep. Still, there is a solution. The dominant form of the game at a new local club is 2-player and it was quite refreshing to play the game in this no-nonsense way recently. A game for rams, perhaps. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<0DECFDE19D8B8824.0BDB9A9D...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe you should stop playing then... Marty

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > Anyway, my point is that there are sheep and goats. The sheep want a > game in which your word is your bond and you routinely do binding > deals, make alliances and so forth. The goats expect a cut-throat > game of every-man-for-himself and don't expect any cooperation to last > beyond the point that it is in a player's interest to do so. > > I regard VTES as a game for goats - both by design and theme. I'm > still aghast that it has been captured by the sheep. Still, there is > a solution. The dominant form of the game at a new local club is > 2-player and it was quite refreshing to play the game in this > no-nonsense way recently. A game for rams, perhaps. I dunno, call me a sheep, but I see this black and white view of VTES as simplistic and unreasonable. You cannot say that every game of VTES is a "goat" game because in the end, VTES is just that, a GAME, the stakes are not life and death, and the measure of how ANY player plays, whether cut-throat or diplomat, is representative of what that player finds entertaining and enjoyable. To wish for every game to be the vicious, every-man-for-himself goat's game is a personal wish, the goat's game is what you yourself find entertaining. But given the spectrum of personalities in game players, you cannot reasonably expect all others to share your view, at least not if you expect some of them to enjoy the game. Perhaps a more realistic description of the two types of players in VTES is that of FINITE players and INFINITE players (ala James Carse, to give credit). FINITE players only play to win and in the pursuit of this desire tend to forget (as is the requirement of ALL finite play) that the game is just a game. The atmosphere at a table of finite players is tense, cut-throat, and highly fierce and competitive. I openly acknowledge that this type of play can be entertaining, but I speculate that not every player would share this view. There are external factors to EVERY game, things going on in a player's life outside of the game that he may be unwittingly bringing with him to the VTES table. Be disgusted with it all you wish, but to a certain extent some element of humanity is inevitable in all games. Given this, playing against "sheep" is going to happen, regularly, and indeed people who were goats last week, may realistically be sheep the next, and vice versa. Furthermore, finite players tend to insist that everyone play within the same explicit boundries they are playing within, using the same interpretation of the game, since indeed it allows the definition of victory to be reached more clearly. That's fine, I mean, we all need to agree on the rules before we begin or the game unravels. It stops being a game though when you begin forcing your view of the game on others. A game definition that is forced upon other players (rather than freely agreed upon by all players) is not a game. Comparatively, Infinite players play finite games (like VTES) primarily to enjoy the act of playing, victory is pursued, but can be coincidental since the primary goal is to just have fun (and we can agree that we all have different definitions of what we find fun, yes?) so things like cross-table diplomacy, alliance making, are entertained to expand upon the finite rules and boundries of the game. Indeed you mention this yourself--the diplomatic metagame is not covered in the VTES rulebook. This is not so that it can be eliminated as an element of VTES, but because such an element can never be defined by rules, since doing so would undermine it's very nature. Finite players play within the boundries of the game, infinite players play WITH the boundries themselves. It's important to emphasize that infinite players still play finite games, it's just that their attitude toward such games differs from people who are primarily finite players. Finite players tend to act competitively. Infinite players act playfully. My point is, lighten up, dude: approach the game from a more playful, less cut-throat standpoint, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is just there to enjoy themselves and realize that not everyone enjoys what you enjoy. -Matt

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<0DECFDE19D8B8824.0BDB9A9D...@lp.airnews.net>... > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:53:55 GMT, Snapcase wrote: > snip > Anyway, my point is that there are sheep and goats. The sheep want a > game in which your word is your bond and you routinely do binding > deals, make alliances and so forth. The goats expect a cut-throat > game of every-man-for-himself and don't expect any cooperation to last > beyond the point that it is in a player's interest to do so. > > I regard VTES as a game for goats - both by design and theme. snip ...How appropriate. ^sings^ "Sheep go to Heaven, Goats go to Hell..."* :-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:MPG.18c4dcfc1...@news.optonline.net... > In article <ZCB6a.4832$2b.2...@news1.west.cox.net>, > you...@imaspammer.org says... > > > The quantity of luck within each game is relative. For example, I do > > not believe that luck is as large a factor in VTES as you seem to > > believe it is, and that is part of the (civil) disagreement we're > > having. > > Don't get me wrong; I do believe it takes a great deal of skill to be > successful in this game (that's why I read the 'group in the first > place- to learn more). I try to be just like you, and read the newsgroup, so that I can learn how to be a better player. Too bad more people can't learn from our example. ;) > I'm just (philisophically) trying to see where > the best balance between skill and luck is. Too much skill, we have > chess, too much luck we have coin flips. I'd think that most people would say that the best balance between luck and skill is to minimize luck to as great an extent as possible, i.e. Chess or Go. I also don't really think that particular quest can really help you in this discussion, since you aren't talking about a luck vs. skill issue. You're talking about a collusion vs. legality issue. > > The original example didn't have an arbitrary nature. The original > > example WAS arbitrary. But I think you've already agreed to that. :) > > Well I think (can't find it anymore, newsreader purged all the old > articles) the example given _was_ one that actually happened, so it > wasn't just a hypothetical. I didn't say it was a hypothetical, I said it was *arbitrary*, i.e. random. Since I don't believe this matter is an issue, the thread, from the very beginning, seemed to be randomly trying to figure out a solution for a problem waiting to happen. > > You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided > > to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You > > missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win > > enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* > > for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. > > I'll agree to a certain extent. The vp dispensing certainly didn't > help, and could be considered bad luck. The guy certainly didn't *earn* > those two vps. You're missing the point. Cutting down others doesn't help raise you up, or make your point any more valid. If you missed the finals, you missed the finals because of YOUR performance. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that happened on ANOTHER table. You missed the finals because your deck didn't function well enough, or you misplayed, or you choked, or you got screwed over by a judge not recognizing collusion going on at your table, or whatever, but whatever someone else did at a table you weren't sitting at had nothing to do with your place in the finals. > > Except for our philosophical discussion in this thread, it isn't ANY > > kind of issue, period. > > > > But it *has* been an interesting discussion. =) > > Indeed! And civil, at least once LSJ shut that Davidson guy up. You'll often find that mathematicians (such as LSJ) have such a command of the English language that their arguments are *quite* convincing. ;) Andrew *often* has a lot to say that's worth reading and discussing. It's just that sometimes, for whatever reason, he likes to toss bait out there and see if he catches anything. At *best*, that's bad etiquette; at worst... Well, I don't pretend to understand it, and I try not to respond to him (or anyone else) tossing out 'bait'. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:0DECFDE19D8B8824.0BDB9A9D...@lp.airnews.net.. . > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:53:55 GMT, Snapcase wrote: > >And civil, at least once LSJ shut that Davidson guy up. > > I'm currently spending more time watching Master of Orion 3 go down in > flames. > > I just noted Kevin's view that VTES not only has deals, it has > alliances. I find the concept even more repellant and, of course, the > you won't find it in the rules, just like they say nothing about > deals. Andrew, despite just having posted the fact that I try not to response when you throw out bait, I just have to say something here, since there is so much to correct. It isn't KEVIN'S VIEW that VTES has deals and alliances. It's PART OF THE GAME. Your denial of those facts doesn't change those facts, it just makes it that much harder for you to understand and enjoy the game. [all non-helpful non-related stuff snipped] > Anyway, my point is that there are sheep and goats. The sheep want a > game in which your word is your bond and you routinely do binding > deals, make alliances and so forth. The goats expect a cut-throat > game of every-man-for-himself and don't expect any cooperation to last > beyond the point that it is in a player's interest to do so. I regard > VTES as a game for goats - both by design and theme. And your 'goats' view of the game is different from the current state of the game... how? > I'm still aghast that it has been captured by the sheep. Ridiculous! > Still, there is > a solution. The dominant form of the game at a new local club is > 2-player and it was quite refreshing to play the game in this > no-nonsense way recently. A game for rams, perhaps. A *non*-VTES game, to be sure. > > Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: >>>You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided >>>to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You >>>missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win >>>enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* >>>for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. >> >>I'll agree to a certain extent. The vp dispensing certainly didn't >>help, and could be considered bad luck. The guy certainly didn't *earn* >>those two vps. > > > You're missing the point. Cutting down others doesn't help raise you > up, or make your point any more valid. Ah, but qualifying for a final depends on your overall ranking, not on absolute score. So cutting down others *does* help you qualify for a final. > If you missed the finals, you missed the finals because of YOUR > performance. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that happened on > ANOTHER table. You missed the finals because your deck didn't function > well enough, or you misplayed, or you choked, or you got screwed over by > a judge not recognizing collusion going on at your table, or whatever, > but whatever someone else did at a table you weren't sitting at had > nothing to do with your place in the finals. What happens at other tables has *everything* to do with qualifying or not for a final. The same performance by a player can give him a top spot in one tournament, and place him out of the top ten in another. To get back to the original issue: Two players with identical performances in a tournament - if one of them gets 2 VPs handed to him, and the other gets 0 VPs in a similar situation, the first will have a higher ranking, possibly enough to qualify for the final round. Even if the second player actually manages to get 1 more VP because he is a better player, his place in the final is 'stolen' by the player who was lucky enough to get 2 VPs for 'free'. Flux

In article <SzQ6a.4960$Nf.6...@news1.west.cox.net>, you...@imaspammer.org says... > I also don't really think that particular quest can really > help you in this discussion, since you aren't talking about a luck vs. > skill issue. You're talking about a collusion vs. legality issue. I am, but if a case of collusion changes the outcome of a tournament, the players screwed over were on the receiving end of some bad luck. > I didn't say it was a hypothetical, I said it was *arbitrary*, i.e. > random. Since I don't believe this matter is an issue, the thread, from > the very beginning, seemed to be randomly trying to figure out a > solution for a problem waiting to happen. My bad. Yeah, it was an arbitrary example. But (in theory) it can happen again. > If you missed the finals, you missed the finals because of YOUR > performance. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that happened on > ANOTHER table. You missed the finals because your deck didn't function > well enough, or you misplayed, or you choked, or you got screwed over by > a judge not recognizing collusion going on at your table, or whatever, > but whatever someone else did at a table you weren't sitting at had > nothing to do with your place in the finals. But say you WOULD have made the finals had that person not been "given" those two vps? Each table contributes to the final rankings. They're all connected. Not as much as each single game is connected, but the performance of EVERY player and the outcome of every table affects who reaches the finals. And an event completely out of your control *contributed* (not _caused_, I'll agree that your own performance is the biggest factor) to your not making the finals. And that event is questionable, ethically. End of the world? No. Sucks? I think so. -- -Snapcase

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b3gq6q$1lndou$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > Kevin M. wrote: > > >>>You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided > >>>to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You > >>>missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win > >>>enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* > >>>for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. > >> > >>I'll agree to a certain extent. The vp dispensing certainly didn't > >>help, and could be considered bad luck. The guy certainly didn't *earn* > >>those two vps. > > > > You're missing the point. Cutting down others doesn't help raise you > > up, or make your point any more valid. > > Ah, but qualifying for a final depends on your overall ranking, not on > absolute score. So cutting down others *does* help you qualify for a final. I think you're missing the point, also. You're taking "cutting down" too literally. I meant that cutting down someone at another table, who happened to be lucky enough to receive 2VP from the table winner, instead of examining why YOU and/or your deck didn't perform well enough, doesn't help YOU and/or your deck (or the issue that this whole thread is based upon) become better. > > If you missed the finals, you missed the finals because of YOUR > > performance. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that happened on > > ANOTHER table. You missed the finals because your deck didn't function > > well enough, or you misplayed, or you choked, or you got screwed over by > > a judge not recognizing collusion going on at your table, or whatever, > > but whatever someone else did at a table you weren't sitting at had > > nothing to do with your place in the finals. > > What happens at other tables has *everything* to do with qualifying or not > for a final. The same performance by a player can give him a top spot in one > tournament, and place him out of the top ten in another. See "You're taking me to literally", above. > To get back to the original issue: > Two players with identical performances in a tournament - if one of them > gets 2 VPs handed to him, and the other gets 0 VPs in a similar situation, > the first will have a higher ranking, possibly enough to qualify for the > final round. Even if the second player actually manages to get 1 more VP > because he is a better player, his place in the final is 'stolen' by the > player who was lucky enough to get 2 VPs for 'free'. Hmmm. I guess you need to re-read every one of my responses in this entire thread. :P > > Flux [ quoted text not captured ]

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:MPG.18c5fb10c...@news.optonline.net... > In article <SzQ6a.4960$Nf.6...@news1.west.cox.net>, > you...@imaspammer.org says... > > > I also don't really think that particular quest can really > > help you in this discussion, since you aren't talking about a luck vs. > > skill issue. You're talking about a collusion vs. legality issue. > > I am, but if a case of collusion changes the outcome of a tournament, > the players screwed over were on the receiving end of some bad luck. Well, now you're *completely* changing the subject. That's fine. :) I guess if you want to get micromolecular about it, SURE, collusion = bad luck for everyone else, but you could also insert any semi-ridiculous hypothetical game situation and claim it to be "bad luck". That seems like a weak argument. > > I didn't say it was a hypothetical, I said it was *arbitrary*, i.e. > > random. Since I don't believe this matter is an issue, the thread, from > > the very beginning, seemed to be randomly trying to figure out a > > solution for a problem waiting to happen. > > My bad. Yeah, it was an arbitrary example. But (in theory) it can > happen again. As long as you admit that "in theory" isn't a very strong argument to defend from, I'll agree. :) > > If you missed the finals, you missed the finals because of YOUR > > performance. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that happened on > > ANOTHER table. You missed the finals because your deck didn't function > > well enough, or you misplayed, or you choked, or you got screwed over by > > a judge not recognizing collusion going on at your table, or whatever, > > but whatever someone else did at a table you weren't sitting at had > > nothing to do with your place in the finals. > > But say you WOULD have made the finals had that person not been "given" > those two vps? Each table contributes to the final rankings. They're > all connected. Not as much as each single game is connected, but the > performance of EVERY player and the outcome of every table affects who > reaches the finals. And an event completely out of your control > *contributed* (not _caused_, I'll agree that your own performance is the > biggest factor) to your not making the finals. And that event is > questionable, ethically. End of the world? No. Sucks? I think so. Sure, sure, of course. But now we seem to have distilled the argument down to its most basic: this is such an arbitrary and corner-case situation as to be unworthy of a rule(s) change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message > news:b3gq6q$1lndou$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > >>Kevin M. wrote: >> >> >>>>>You didn't miss the finals because some guy who had already won decided >>>>>to roll over for his friend and give him the 2 vp's he needed. You >>>>>missed the finals because you didn't take care of business and win >>>>>enough games. You missed the finals because of YOU. Blaming *others* >>>>>for *your* shortcomings doesn't build your case. >>>> >>>>I'll agree to a certain extent. The vp dispensing certainly didn't >>>>help, and could be considered bad luck. The guy certainly didn't *earn* >>>>those two vps. >>> >>>You're missing the point. Cutting down others doesn't help raise you >>>up, or make your point any more valid. >> >>Ah, but qualifying for a final depends on your overall ranking, not on >>absolute score. So cutting down others *does* help you qualify for a final. > > I think you're missing the point, also. You're taking "cutting down" > too literally. > > I meant that cutting down someone at another table, who happened to be > lucky enough to receive 2VP from the table winner, instead of examining > why YOU and/or your deck didn't perform well enough, doesn't help YOU > and/or your deck (or the issue that this whole thread is based upon) > become better. Of course it doesn't make you any better objectively. But we're talking about a competitive tournament, where it doesn't really matter if you're any good, but where the ranking is supposed to reflect how good you are *when compared with other players*. In that setting, giving some player a 2 VP boost is giving him an unfair advantage over other players. > Hmmm. I guess you need to re-read every one of my responses in this > entire thread. :P Awww, do I really have to? ;P Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b3hif5$1m85gr$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] OK, you've got 2 different ideas in there and you're trying to represent them as one idea. IDEA 1: It doesn't really matter if you're any good during a competitive tournament. This is obviously false, as your being any good DOES matter MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE for ranking purposes during a competitive tournament. IDEA 2: The ranking is supposed to reflect how good you are *when compared with other players*. This is obviously true. 'Nuff said. Also, the idea of "giving" in that last sentence has been debunked withing this thread, and I don't believe we need to go into it again, I just wanted to remind everyone of that debunkedness. > > Hmmm. I guess you need to re-read every one of my responses in this > > entire thread. :P > > Awww, do I really have to? ;P Naaa. Not if you don't wanna. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message > news:b3hif5$1m85gr$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... > >>Kevin M. wrote: >> >>>I meant that cutting down someone at another table, who happened to be >>>lucky enough to receive 2VP from the table winner, instead of examining >>>why YOU and/or your deck didn't perform well enough, doesn't help YOU >>>and/or your deck (or the issue that this whole thread is based upon) >>>become better. >> >>Of course it doesn't make you any better objectively. >>But we're talking about a competitive tournament, where it doesn't really >>matter if you're any good, but where the ranking is supposed to reflect how >>good you are *when compared with other players*. In that setting, giving >>some player a 2 VP boost is giving him an unfair advantage over other players. > > OK, you've got 2 different ideas in there and you're trying to represent > them as one idea. No, the one idea I was trying to present is that in a tournament what matters is how good you are *relative to other players*. > IDEA 1: It doesn't really matter if you're any good during a competitive > tournament. > > This is obviously false, as your being any good DOES matter MORE THAN > ANYTHING ELSE for ranking purposes during a competitive tournament. Not if everyone else is as bad a player as you. :) Side note: In reality, a tournament with poor players is usually more affected by luck than one with good players, being a good player consists largely of minizing the randomness of the game. I've seen some very poor players get a GW at tournaments because they were lucky to find themselves in a table where every player is poor, and even if some of the other players were objectively better, the table just collapsed that way. > IDEA 2: The ranking is supposed to reflect how good you are *when > compared with other players*. > > This is obviously true. 'Nuff said. Then you must agree that one specific player getting a 2 VP boost (by whatever means, regardless of skill) goes against that purpose. Flux

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<gKW6a.9090$Nf.1...@news1.west.cox.net>... > > I am, but if a case of collusion changes the outcome of a tournament, > > the players screwed over were on the receiving end of some bad luck. > > Well, now you're *completely* changing the subject. That's fine. :) > > I guess if you want to get micromolecular about it, SURE, collusion = > bad luck for everyone else, but you could also insert any > semi-ridiculous hypothetical game situation and claim it to be "bad > luck". That seems like a weak argument. Not as off the subject as you might think... Your position in the tournament was hurt by an arbitrary event over which you had no control. Sounds like bad luck to me. Although in this case it was legal (collusion or not). > Sure, sure, of course. But now we seem to have distilled the argument > down to its most basic: this is such an arbitrary and corner-case > situation as to be unworthy of a rule(s) change. I agreed to that 4 posts ago :) It's definitely not worthy of a rules change at this time. If it starts happening more (or if either one of us is on the receiving end of it), we'll revisit the issue. -Snapcase

On 25 Feb 2003 12:08:48 -0800, guenh...@mindspring.com (atomweaver) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] You do know were Virgin Wool comes from, right? From Ugly Sheep of course.. >:-) > >DaveZ >Atom Weaver

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:b3iehe$1m5pgs$1...@ID-121674.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Whatever you say... > > IDEA 1: It doesn't really matter if you're any good during a competitive > > tournament. > > > > This is obviously false, as your being any good DOES matter MORE THAN > > ANYTHING ELSE for ranking purposes during a competitive tournament. > > Not if everyone else is as bad a player as you. :) > > Side note: In reality, a tournament with poor players is usually more > affected by luck than one with good players, being a good player consists > largely of minizing the randomness of the game. > > I've seen some very poor players get a GW at tournaments because they were > lucky to find themselves in a table where every player is poor, and even if > some of the other players were objectively better, the table just collapsed > that way. > > > IDEA 2: The ranking is supposed to reflect how good you are *when > > compared with other players*. > > > > This is obviously true. 'Nuff said. > > Then you must agree that one specific player getting a 2 VP boost (by > whatever means, regardless of skill) goes against that purpose. And you must agree that if this argument wasn't arbitrary, then it would be a discussion worth having. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Snapcase" <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3150b71e.03022...@posting.google.com... > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<gKW6a.9090$Nf.1...@news1.west.cox.net>... > > > I am, but if a case of collusion changes the outcome of a tournament, > > > the players screwed over were on the receiving end of some bad luck. > > > > Well, now you're *completely* changing the subject. That's fine. :) > > > > I guess if you want to get micromolecular about it, SURE, collusion = > > bad luck for everyone else, but you could also insert any > > semi-ridiculous hypothetical game situation and claim it to be "bad > > luck". That seems like a weak argument. > > Not as off the subject as you might think... Your position in the > tournament was hurt by an arbitrary event over which you had no > control. Sounds like bad luck to me. Although in this case it was > legal (collusion or not). And I'm saying that by this theory, ANYTHING can be called bad luck, and that's a weak argument. Say... my prey just had a heart attack! What bad luck for him! > > Sure, sure, of course. But now we seem to have distilled the argument > > down to its most basic: this is such an arbitrary and corner-case > > situation as to be unworthy of a rule(s) change. > > I agreed to that 4 posts ago :) It's definitely not worthy of a rules > change at this time. If it starts happening more (or if either one of > us is on the receiving end of it), we'll revisit the issue. Great. :) [ quoted text not captured ]