[lsj] about deals, unsportsmanlike conduct and play to win

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Hi all, hi LSJ.

I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
mentioned in each thread I find.

Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
can manage it.

For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
win rule.
In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):

- a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
to the GW;

- a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
and profit from it to gain the GW later;

- a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
(not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
archetypical decks)

- a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
X]

- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
Headquarters)

Does these situations fall on the general concept of unsportmanslike
conduct? I mean, on the "etc." part of:

5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at
any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be
subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines
and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players,
spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and
sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity,
argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another,
or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must
not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as
stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the
basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.).

If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
can't find it.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

My .02:

With the exception of the last two these are all instances of using
information external to the game environment to decide on reasons for a
course of action. The suddened HQ is certainly in game while the
clan-dislike might be in game and, to me, completely fun and acceptable
within the style of WoD lunacy.

-tpl
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:52:21 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
<fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:

>Hi all, hi LSJ.

Oops. A couple of errors...

>- a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>(not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>he wants,

"the means *to build* whatever deck he wants..."

including some proven and tested tournament winner
>archetypical decks)

>- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned

*Suddened*.

>some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>Headquarters)

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> Hi all, hi LSJ.

Howdy.

> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
> mentioned in each thread I find.

Mythophobia?
Hellenologophobia?

> Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
> playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
> dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
> play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
> said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
> dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
> tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
> can manage it.

Strictly illegal (when it violates the "play to win" rule, of course --
it's OK for the predator of the deal breaker to be one of the gang,
clearly).

> For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
> penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
> win rule.

Exactly right.

> In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
> like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>
> - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
> accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
> to the GW;

Immaterial to game state. Play the game. You'd have to wait and see
if your preconception/prejudice regarding his competence is
warranted (that is, until the game state shows that your best play
is a cross table harassment).

> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
> dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
> and profit from it to gain the GW later;

Beyond a "bit" of stretch even if the prejudice were an acceptable
rationale.

> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
> collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
> (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
> he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
> archetypical decks)

One doesn't play one's collection. One plays one's deck.

> - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
> X]

Unstated: and [clan X] is the only clan that that cross-table player
has influenced out.

Immaterial. Play the game.

> - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
> some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
> Headquarters)

If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.

> Does these situations fall on the general concept of unsportmanslike
> conduct? I mean, on the "etc." part of:
>
> 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
>
> Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at
> any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be
> subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines
> and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players,
> spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and
> sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity,
> argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another,
> or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must
> not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as
> stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the
> basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.).
>
> If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
> V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
> can't find it.

Section 200.
1) Correct the illegal play.
2) If the player refuses to play according to the rules, then eject
him and adjust the game state to maintain balance in his absence.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>> Hi all, hi LSJ.
>
>Howdy.
>
>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>> mentioned in each thread I find.
>
>Mythophobia?
>Hellenologophobia?

I'm not sure I understand this, but if I'm going a little too far in
my concerns about browsing old threads, the reason (for now) is that
the mentioned debate went too far on detailed and presumed situations
when I feel my role as NC is to clarifiy the general spirit of the
rules and leave the details (game state, "threat factor" etc.) to the
judges to consider when needed.


>> Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
>> playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
>> dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
>> play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
>> said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
>> dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
>> tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
>> can manage it.
>
>Strictly illegal (when it violates the "play to win" rule, of course --
>it's OK for the predator of the deal breaker to be one of the gang,
>clearly).

Or the dealbreaker's prey if he or she run some risk of being ousted
by the dealbreaker soon, I presume.


>> For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
>> penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
>> win rule.
>
>Exactly right.

That was the whole point, though the debate went too far off the
tracks.

Most of the situations below were brought up by me as examples of
illegal play. Some didn't accept one or another (like attacking the
most accomplished player).


>> In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
>> like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>>
>> - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
>> accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
>> to the GW;
>
>Immaterial to game state. Play the game. You'd have to wait and see
>if your preconception/prejudice regarding his competence is
>warranted (that is, until the game state shows that your best play
>is a cross table harassment).

Exaclty what I thought.


>> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
>> dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
>> and profit from it to gain the GW later;
>
>Beyond a "bit" of stretch even if the prejudice were an acceptable
>rationale.

OK.


>> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>> collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>> (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>> he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
>> archetypical decks)
>
>One doesn't play one's collection. One plays one's deck.

Sure, but unfortunately I know some that don't realise this.


>> - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
>> X]
>
>Unstated: and [clan X] is the only clan that that cross-table player
>has influenced out.

Sure, that was the spirit of the example.

>Immaterial. Play the game.

>> - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>> some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>> Headquarters)
>
>If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.

Essencially the judge (if called) would have to assert the situation
for the attacker as he would have to do with the cross-table Sudden
Reversal, I presume?


>> If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
>> V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
>> can't find it.
>
>Section 200.
>1) Correct the illegal play.
>2) If the player refuses to play according to the rules, then eject
>him and adjust the game state to maintain balance in his absence.

Understood. Many thanks.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>> Hi all, hi LSJ.
>
>Howdy.
>
>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>> mentioned in each thread I find.
>
>Mythophobia?
>Hellenologophobia?

[finally found what it is...
for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]

Heh, no. In fact most of the time I have to deal with others who do
not want to stretch any discussion to a broader scale or debate about
a subject in detail. If I engage in any of these two extremes, people
start to ignore the issue and ultimately I feel like I've wrote a
bunch of lines for nothing.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all, hi LSJ.
>>
>>Howdy.
>>
>>
>>>I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>>>I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>>>I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>>>situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>>>interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>>>mentioned in each thread I find.
>>
>>Mythophobia?
>>Hellenologophobia?
>
>
> [finally found what it is...
> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]

Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381

I was just joking, myself, though. 🙂

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>>- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>>>some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>>>Headquarters)
>>
>>If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.
>
> Essencially the judge (if called) would have to assert the situation
> for the attacker as he would have to do with the cross-table Sudden
> Reversal, I presume?

Yes. CT SR is often delivered under the auspices of "cycling my hand",
though, which is sometimes a valid example of play-to-win. Moreso
in the case of a master which would "get in the way later", as in
your case.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

LSJ a écrit :
> Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all, hi LSJ.
>>>
>>>
>>> Howdy.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>>>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>>>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>>>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>>>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>>>> mentioned in each thread I find.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mythophobia?
>>> Hellenologophobia?
>>
>>
>>
>> [finally found what it is...
>> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]
>
>
> Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
> severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381

LOL. This one was great !!

Orpheus, not bannophobic.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thirty seconds' worth of opinion:

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
|
| For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
| penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
| win rule.
| In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
| like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):

I'll also assume each player is foolish enough to state his motives out
loud, instead of fabricating something random that falls under the "play
to win" rule.

| - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
| accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
| to the GW;

I'd bar the action if he actually _SAID_ as much.

However, usually the most accomplished players are also in a good
position game-state-wise, so it's not hard to make the jump from "Must
Kill Goudie" to "Goudie's position is too good, I have to rein him in"
- -- and the second is very hard to rule against because you can't
legislate against stupid play, only illegal play.

| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
| dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
| and profit from it to gain the GW later;

Penalty on the spot. Play to win the current game, not to vindicate
your own personal moral compass. Of course, having that particular
moral compass tends to indicate that you're not sure how to win in the
first place. =)

| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
| collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table

Penalty on the spot. Players should base decisions on the game state.

| (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
| he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
| archetypical decks)

Everyone I know has the potential for a proven, tested
tournament-winner. It's called OBF DOM, and it's made with mostly
commons. The given argument is garbage.

| - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
| X]

Penalty. Players should base decisions on the game state.

| - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
| some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
| Headquarters)

No penalty. The initial Sudden is legal for obvious reasons; so is
in-game retributive action to discourage further Suddens. Everything
here is based on the game state.

| If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
| V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
| can't find it.

Mostly, just disallow the action, rewind as much as possible (if
necessary), and move on. But few players will call for the judge when
it's happening, so the rewind tends to be beyond the scope of "easily
possible" and the end result is often just "don't do it again".

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCPM6wtQZlu3o7QpERAvbyAJwIIyApx1WogdJyfZK9t1rzeXTEOQCg61ny
Si6+msLmPtiqkWgFy9XmLMU=
=DaZN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:12:36 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

>>>Mythophobia?
>>>Hellenologophobia?
>>
>> [finally found what it is...
>> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]
>
>Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
>severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
>http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381
>
>I was just joking, myself, though. 🙂

Heh, I know. Just was caught by surprise since I didn't know what the
heck was this particular phobia.

And jokes that drive the listener to learn more don't hurt 😉

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:22:20 +0100, Orpheus <orpheus.13@DEADfree.fr>
wrote:

>> Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
>> severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381
>
>LOL. This one was great !!
>
>Orpheus, not bannophobic.

I wonder when Tzimiscephobia will be discovered by science.

I know, I've been building a lot of decks asking myself "will it
survive against a Tzimisce prey or predator"?

agh, gotta love Tranquility and Sire's Index Finger and block fails
cards...

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Darby Keeney a écrit :
>>Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and
>
> the
>
>>severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
>
>
> The fear of long words: Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
>
> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=204:1595
>
> Somehow, using that word for this fear just seems cruel.
>
> Darby

I *would* speak to you about my vampiric algophobia
(http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=153:1353),
but my Logizomechanophobia
(http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=267:1658)
just prevents me from typing anymore.

Orpheusophobic
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:15:28 -0500, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Thirty seconds' worth of opinion:
>
>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>|
>| For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
>| penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
>| win rule.
>| In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
>| like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>
>I'll also assume each player is foolish enough to state his motives out
>loud, instead of fabricating something random that falls under the "play
>to win" rule.

You assume right in this case.
In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
of honor or something.
I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
out loud to all tables around.


>| - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
>| accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
>| to the GW;
>
>I'd bar the action if he actually _SAID_ as much.
>
>However, usually the most accomplished players are also in a good
>position game-state-wise, so it's not hard to make the jump from "Must
>Kill Goudie" to "Goudie's position is too good, I have to rein him in"
>- -- and the second is very hard to rule against because you can't
>legislate against stupid play, only illegal play.

Exactly. That's why I refrained from looking on past threads, I just
needed to clarify the players on the general concept - you can't base
yourself on experience alone. Be smart and wait for him to live by its
standards. If you're afraid that Player X is in your table, and you
know that X is too damn good, give X a chance to show at least a
little of it and not only you won't be doing illegal play, but you
will be successful in rallying others to help you in this task of
reigning him.

These situations make me feel that the rules are mainly made to guide
players to the sure paths of victory - be cunning and the rules will
support you to the best, be stupid and corny and they'll stand in your
way.


>| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
>| dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
>| and profit from it to gain the GW later;
>
>Penalty on the spot. Play to win the current game, not to vindicate
>your own personal moral compass. Of course, having that particular
>moral compass tends to indicate that you're not sure how to win in the
>first place. =)

Heh, sure. 🙂
I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
"elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
Unfortunately most regular players in here don't know jack about the
V:EKN rules, be it by lack of language skills to read and understand
it (which is something that can only be reversed by informed and
bilingual players, and that's what I'm bound to do as NC) or by being
lazy enough to not browse through them or search any forum about the
subject (which I can't do jack about and frankly couldn't care less;
if one does not want to be informed, it's his problem).
The frightening side of this is that there are *princes* who feel they
have the right to enforce dealbreaking intolerance, even in
tournaments, and some who know that this stance is not supported by
the rules in any event and simply don't talk about the issue for fear
of "encouraging dealbreaking".


>| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>| collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>
>Penalty on the spot. Players should base decisions on the game state.

>| (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>| he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
>| archetypical decks)
>
>Everyone I know has the potential for a proven, tested
>tournament-winner. It's called OBF DOM, and it's made with mostly
>commons. The given argument is garbage.

This is one situation I've included for clarity's sake. I believe most
players in the country (and I mean as close as 100% as it can get)
knows this, but it doesn't hurt to include this example since nothing
prevents newbies from feeling this way in the future - hey, I don't
have a single War Ghoul, that guy has lots, his Tzimisce deck will
call one as soon as possible, I have to prevent it etc. What if the
player has built a Tzimisce bleed deck with no WG?
I've seen this a couple of times.


>| - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
>| X]
>
>Penalty. Players should base decisions on the game state.

Same case as above.


>| - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>| some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>| Headquarters)
>
>No penalty. The initial Sudden is legal for obvious reasons; so is
>in-game retributive action to discourage further Suddens. Everything
>here is based on the game state.

Even if there's a chance for the suddened player to, say, oust his
prey in two turns if he devotes his resources already available to it?
This goes a little in the realm of specific cases, but I've had CT
Suddens in a master I tried to place and it usually happens when I'm
in a position where the CT player knows that I'm about to make a VP or
two and reach him - so it strikes me as an incentive to do exactly
what I'm about to. Of course, sometimes the Sudden could prevent me
from making the VP right now, but that's another story.


>| If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
>| V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
>| can't find it.
>
>Mostly, just disallow the action, rewind as much as possible (if
>necessary), and move on. But few players will call for the judge when
>it's happening, so the rewind tends to be beyond the scope of "easily
>possible" and the end result is often just "don't do it again".

Yeah, I'm fine with "just don't do it again, ok?". The problem of
players not calling the judge is what I'm most concerned about. That's
why I called for general dispositions of the unsportmanslike conduct
and the play to win rule - I hope one day they'll have a genuine
enough understanding of the concepts to be able to apply it in many
given situations, not just very specific ones. The latter tends to
make most players feel like almost everything is plausible when it's
not the case.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <os4r31tgn8hl2gqnuei1br63qvfv1pfn77@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:
>In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
>in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
>players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
>harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
>taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
>of honor or something.
>I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
>out loud to all tables around.

Perhaps you should tell people that you're not going to play with people
who have an apparent mental age of, oh, about five years old, and that
you need to get them off the table too.

It's a game. People play to win. If your players can't cope with that,
it may be time for them to grow up.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:23:40 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <os4r31tgn8hl2gqnuei1br63qvfv1pfn77@4ax.com>, "Fabio
>\"Sooner\"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:
>>In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
>>in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
>>players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
>>harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
>>taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
>>of honor or something.
>>I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
>>out loud to all tables around.
>
>Perhaps you should tell people that you're not going to play with people
>who have an apparent mental age of, oh, about five years old, and that
>you need to get them off the table too.
>
>It's a game. People play to win. If your players can't cope with that,
>it may be time for them to grow up.

Believe me, no matter how much I agree with you on the mental age part
- not to mention that it is *just a game*, nothing really important to
merit that much ethic zeal - if I take this approach I'll end up with
almost no one to play with (if any at all) or will be obliged to
travel to play in non-"sanitized" cities.

I never broke any deal myself and thought about doing it just for a
start and to provoke a response on the matter - so to see if they
actually live by what they preach, and to see them in a situation
where they could have to apply the rules against their will - but I
fear it will cause more trouble than it's worth. Besides, I'm in just
for the fun, so I consider getting harsh as improductive a response as
is theirs to enforce a fake environment with no dealbreaking. I also
believe that dealbreaking has its own problems - if you build up too
serious a reputation on the matter you won't be able to profit from
deals at some point. What strikes me as odd is knowledgeable players
and Princes not defending the personal right to break them.

So I find it better just to try to enlighten new players and Princes.
Some new Princes in the country are beginning to build larger
playgroups now and are already advised about the issue - in fact I've
engaged in this debate again in local mailing lists because I know
there's a player who already won a tournament breaking deals
elsewhere, and there's a chance that he'll make up to the Nationals or
the SAC, so I feel I must prepare the old-timers judges to that
possibility. Some newbies in my city are already advised about
dealbreaking also - that it CAN happen and IS allowed, no matter the
fact that they never see it in locaI casual games. In time, I expect
the general view on this to shift once player bases swap older players
with new ones, which will happen eventually. I guess it's the best way
to deal with the issue - if some have the mental age of five years
old, that does not mean all who come about will act accordingly if
they're properly counseled and informed.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:52:01 -0300, Fabio "Sooner
<fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:

> Heh, sure. 🙂
> I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
> dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
> "elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
> rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
> experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
> enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.

???

If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an edge.

Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.

Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?

No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.

--
Bye,

Daneel
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Derek Ray wrote:
> Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation.
> Each game should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions
> in that game based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game
> considerations.

If that were true, then in an ideal game no one should be able to
profit from knowing other people's "tells", since being able to see
when folks are telling the truth or bluffing is usually based on
experiences with them from previous games. I think knowing other
people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making decisions
based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game strategy,
and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid strategy as
well.

> It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
> out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
> state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
> deal-breaker;

Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
played.

> ...the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
> information that persists between games to either gain his own
> "advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. ...it certainly
> makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
> _relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
> simply being good at the game itself.

If by out-of-game you meant knowledge from a previous game, you'd be
exactly right. But that last sentence suggests that you don't consider
reputation a valid part of V:tES...a position that to me sounds a
little like Andrew Davidson's trollish stance that since diplomacy and
discussion are not explicitly allowed in the rules, they should be
banned from the game.

It's been established that if you make legal deals--deals you make with
the intention of maximizing your VPs--then it is is legal to abide by
those deals even if sticking to them will lessen your chance of taking
VPs. So keeping and breaking deals are equally legal strategies.
Therefore figuring out how likely other people are to keep deals is a
part of the game. Therefore convincing other people that you're going
to keep a deal is part of the game. Therefore establishing a reputation
as someone who keeps deals (or punishes cross-table mischief, or
whatever) is part of the game. And people who make their reputations
work for them are good at this aspect of the game.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <opsnx69vh3o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
>
>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.

No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
from the table to punish them."

No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.


Your post completely misses the point, in a quite spectacular fashion.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:10:13 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:52:01 -0300, Fabio "Sooner
><fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
>
>> Heh, sure. 🙂
>> I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
>> dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
>> "elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
>> rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
>> experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
>> enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
>
>???
>If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
> when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an edge.
>Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.
>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?

Somewhat. Maybe one is better at extracting the most out of a deal so
there's no need to break them. Others are better at keeping
dealbreaking a last resort or a possibility to consider when they need
to build a scenario that eases the way to victory. It's not only a
matter of preference but playstyle and personal skills.


>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest.

No. The point is that no one - dealkeepers or dealbreakers - must be
branded for heresy.

If players prone to one side artificially enforce a playing
environment to abide by their standards, this can give them an edge.
It doesn't matter if the side artificially enforced is "dealbreaking
is evil" or "dealkeeping is stupid" - it works as a half-experience
either way.


That would be
> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.

I believe honesty has his own rewards most of the time, at least in
this game. That's why I said I never broke a deal myself - I just try
to make deals that I won't need to break to profit from them, and on
the other side, to accept deals that seem unlikely to be broken by the
other part involved since it's in his or her best interests to deal
with me. If these personal standards are not met, I prefer not to make
or accept a deal in the first place. But I support the right of anyone
to break deals without hassle.

The "outer" world is another issue entirely. I agree that honesty is
underrated nowadays - but that's another cup of tea. Not being honest
can lead to crime. Dealbreaking in this game is not a crime.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:

>In message <opsnx69vh3o6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
>writes:
>>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
>>
>>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
>> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
>> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
>
>No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
>play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
>must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
>from the table to punish them."
>No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
>shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.

Yeah, that is pretty much the issue. They *should* profit from
reputation - they just can't prevent others to play the game in a
different perspective that's allowed by the rules. Not just because
it's illegal, but because it's unnecessary - as I said before,
building a good reputation has its own rewards, there's no need to
turn its own reputation into a canon.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
| On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
| wrote:
|
|>No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
|>play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
|>must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
|>from the table to punish them."
|
|>No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
|>shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.
|
| Yeah, that is pretty much the issue. They *should* profit from
| reputation - they just can't prevent others to play the game in a
| different perspective that's allowed by the rules. Not just because
| it's illegal, but because it's unnecessary - as I said before,
| building a good reputation has its own rewards, there's no need to
| turn its own reputation into a canon.

Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation. Each game
should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions in that game
based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game considerations.

Realistically, this is not possible. So while a deal-keeper is
certainly free to refuse any deals made by a deal-breaker, and can
advise other players at the table that this player has broken deals in
the past, he cannot directly act on that information in-game (ie., he
cannot Rush the player to "punish him for breaking deals".)

It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
deal-breaker; the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
information that persists between games to either gain his own
"advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. The deal-breaker,
on the other hand, gains an advantage; others must trust him at their
own peril, since they know nothing about whether he will keep his word
or not.

This sort of environment would likely lead to almost no long-term deals
being made, and noticeably fewer short-term deals. And it certainly
makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
_relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
simply being good at the game itself.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCPjpwtQZlu3o7QpERAp+8AKDlLR2fT4Ei7TIQAOqHnZ/w8Yb4QgCfdm1F
0lfrayTwxz7xIdkEhNdpjrE=
=z+ua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Emmit Svenson wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|>Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation.
|>Each game should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions
|>in that game based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game
|>considerations.
|
| If that were true, then in an ideal game no one should be able to

It is true that each game SHOULD BE its own individual instance; taking
actions based on out-of-game considerations are not permitted.

It is not true that each game is; it's not possible for it to be. But
this doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

| profit from knowing other people's "tells", since being able to see
| when folks are telling the truth or bluffing is usually based on
| experiences with them from previous games. I think knowing other

There are an awful lot of poker-fad-chasers out there right now who are
willing to demonstrate that this statement is false -- these same green
individuals are the ones who sit down with nine strangers and act
surprised that experienced players never call when they bet their strong
hands, and always seem to raise back when they're bluffing.

Prior experience with the individual is always a plus, but it is hardly
necessary -- and is often simply not available. I can assure you that
it's very easy to read people, because most people simply don't have any
meaningful degree of self-awareness. Without that self-awareness, there
are dozens of little body-language tells available for someone who's
looking.

| people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making decisions
| based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game strategy,
| and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid strategy as
| well.

But it shouldn't be. The game should be about the game.

|>It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
|>out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
|>state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
|>deal-breaker;
|
| Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
| always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
| played.

And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.

It is clear that the ideal situation is intended to be for each game to
be a separate instance, and that "revenge for prior games" or "i must
slay bob, for he is a dealbreaker" is not to be tolerated.

We cannot reach the ideal situation, because reality will not let us.
So we must make the effort to approach that ideal as closely as
possible, instead.

|>...the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
|>information that persists between games to either gain his own
|>"advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. ...it certainly
|>makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
|>_relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
|>simply being good at the game itself.
|
| If by out-of-game you meant knowledge from a previous game, you'd be
| exactly right. But that last sentence suggests that you don't consider
| reputation a valid part of V:tES...a position that to me sounds a

Rather, you should phrase it thus: I consider it regrettable that there
is no way to separate reputation from V:TES, and simply play each game
as its own entity.

I have certainly taken my share of over-cautious upstreaming and
cross-table last-KRC-points for simply being a well-known, skilled
player. I know for a fact that many others have run into the same
problem. But THAT sort of thing is inherent in the nature of
multi-player games, so complaining about it will do little good; one
simply prepares for it as best possible and adapts.

A two-player game, of course, does not have this problem. You are
always attempting to defeat your opponent, and your reasons can be
whatever you like; any action to hinder your opponent automatically
helps you win.

| It's been established that if you make legal deals--deals you make with
| the intention of maximizing your VPs--then it is is legal to abide by
| those deals even if sticking to them will lessen your chance of taking
| VPs. So keeping and breaking deals are equally legal strategies.

For the current game.

| Therefore figuring out how likely other people are to keep deals is a
| part of the game. Therefore convincing other people that you're going

For the current game.

| to keep a deal is part of the game. Therefore establishing a reputation

For the current game.

| as someone who keeps deals (or punishes cross-table mischief, or
| whatever) is part of the game. And people who make their reputations
| work for them are good at this aspect of the game.

Ahhh, but it's NOT part of the game.. Establishing a reputation is
entirely based on prior-game... aka out-of-game... considerations.

People who spend their time developing "good reputations" are simply
attempting to compensate for their own lack of skill at the game itself.
~ If they were clever or well-spoken enough to convince others to accept
deals on those deals' perceived merits, they wouldn't need the
reputation -- witness those who have posted here in the past pointing
out that even though they have broken deals, people continue to make
deals with them. Why? Because they have something others need in the
current game, or they are clever and well-spoken enough to convince
others that they need the thing in question.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCPlhJtQZlu3o7QpERArS9AJ4qs+Jd+Q1VITk4OVVq42d7nm05lwCg4KaM
p6CM5JxKUdq4q5VMJp/K8OY=
=Q0IG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote

<snip>

Just a suggestion... why not have a special "fun day" where people are
actually *encouraged* to break deals and such? Call it "Sleaze Day" or
something. Make sure people realize it is just for that day and that it's
just for fun. My feeling is that if people stop taking deal-breaking so
seriously in the short run then perhaps these attitudes will eventually fade
away in the long run.

Like many who have contributed to this thread, I don't think I would want to
play in the environment you described either, to be honest. Perhaps this
fact should also be brought to your playgroup's attention. After all, if
they are so concerned with the individual reputation of deal-breakers in
your group, maybe they will also be concerned by the reputation of "immature
idiots" they just earned from the world V:tES community :)

It's only fair, really.

Cheers,
WES
Proud to be a Deal-breaker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom