From The Mouths of Champs
Kushiel
Jay Kristoff on how his day went at the US Championships. Check it out
here:
http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-us-championships.html
John Eno
echia...@yahoo.com
>
> John Eno
Eh, just some clarifications:
"Round two was a four-player table with Connor Bell as my prey, John
Bell as my predator, and Eric Chiang as my cross-table "ally," playing
his Tupdog deck. Eric destroyed Connor (playing DEM bleed with lots of
Sudden Reversal) first. He then smashed John (Toreador-anti breed/
boon) next. I was soon to follow when Eric torped and then Graverobbed
my Josef von Bauren. Connor was wise enough to stay in the game
(rather than transfer out, despite my request). His decision to
persevere gave him the chance to play S.R. on Eric's Fame that would
have allowed Eric to sweep the table. That gave me an extra turn to
assemble Eric's oust (with a combo of vote damage, bleed damage, and
Cam. Seg. pool loss)."
First off, I didn't really kill that many of John or Connor's vampires
to begin with. Having gotten a heads-up from Mindy Bell (who was in
Round 1 with me), they already knew I was playing Tupdog and had
already decided to bring few vampires out at all.
I torporized John's Nicholas Chang and Embrace (and at the very end,
Jost Werner). And I torporized Connor's Morel and Quentin King III.
John and Connor didn't bring out any other vampires.
I was trying a new (very untested) recipe for my Tupdog deck, which
ended up with a terribly clogged library and crypt. It was really like
a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Tupdog deck.
The Sudden Reversal'ed Fame had actually no effect on the game. By
that time, I never was able to torporize any of Jay's vampires (I had
a terrible hand) so it didn't make any difference at all (which is why
I am perpetually confused why people keep saying the SR was a key
play. It didn't matter because I wasn't able to put down any more of
Jay's vampires anyway). Connor was in a lost position so he was free
to do whatever he wanted (which I specifically acknowledged, and I was
okay with whatever he decided he wanted to do). So it wasn't wise (nor
unwise) to stay in the game (or transfer out). It was just whatever he
felt like doing (and whoever he wanted to help win).
I made two mistakes in the mid-game which cost me the game. I let John
Bell burn my Anathama'ed Morel. And I decided to conserve an IG when
fighting Cock Robin (which let him S:CE) when I should have guaranteed
to torporize him. Later on, by the time the Fame was played (and
SR'ed) my position was already quite tenuous (I was really nowhere
close to sweeping) and I was quite certain that Jay would win on the
one-on-one.
Oh and on another clarification, John Eno mentioned that I was new to
Battlestar Galactica but that is certainly not the case. I was already
quite experienced with the Battlestar base game, but that had been the
first time I had actually played the expansion (though I was familiar
with the new concepts, having read about it online).
squidalot
wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:58 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I pulled off some backroom power-brokerage and got an exclusive from
> > Jay Kristoff on how his day went at the US Championships. Check it out
> > here:
also clearly you only got the 1-1 time with Jay by buying him a beer
Eno?
Kushiel
> also clearly you only got the 1-1 time with Jay by buying him a beer
> Eno?
I did buy him a beer, but what's a little graft between friends?
Actually, he departed from our table rather soon after he arrived, as
your own photographic evidence shows. How I got my one on one time
with him isn't something that would be appropriate to print.
John Eno
Kushiel
> http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-us-champio...
There's actually been some discussion following this post about how
legal pre-finals discussion between players is or isn't. Anonymous has
said that he thinks there was collusion happening because Jay and
James talked before seating took place. I've seen this kind of thing
take place before, without anyone getting upset by it, but now I'm
curious. I couldn't find anything about it in the VEKN tournament
rules, one way or the other.
John Eno
Rhavas
I think discussions like; "what deck is so and so playing", "what are
you playing", etc are ok, but any kind of agreement, per the
definition of collusion, is a violation of the rules. Jay and James
agreed to work together as 'vote-buddies' and to try and stop Hugh
from winning. That's two secret agreements. Whether they were
sucessful is irrelevant, so long as the goal of the agreements is to
have an effect on the result of the game, simply making the agreement
is against the rules.
In reading Jay's comments, it appears he has heard and been affected
by these kinds of discussions before, and they have gone unpunished/
unstopped, so it would be understandable that he think they are ok.
In cases like Jay pointed out, something should be done at the time
(seating rearranged) but in a situation where the collusion is
discovered later, its hard to say. Do you strip Jay of his
championship for cheating? He didn't think what he did was a
violation of the rules, but ignorance of the rules is often not a good
defense (at least not in US criminal law). I don't think Jay did what
he did with any malice, but that may not be enough.
Like John said, a reinforcement of what is and is not allowed in the
way of pre-game discussion should be done prior to each game/tourney/
final, but the definition of the word collusion seems to make it clear
enough: no pre-game agreements that could affect the result of the
game.
alex fnurp
> Jay and James agreed to work together as 'vote-buddies' and to try and stop Hugh
> from winning. That's two secret agreements.
The Hugh-part was partially a joke, or at least thats how i read it.
Not letting Hugh win should be written in the rules anyway ;)
But this however:
"James and I sat down and cautiously spoke. Though he and I are
friends and members of the same playgroup, we have a history of
betraying each other at the V:TES table. I told him I needed a vote-
buddy, and that he should be it. I also
told him that my number one goal was to win the Championship, and that
my number two goal was to make sure an American won it."
Is textbook collusion. It might not have been in the way it is
described here, but if it is - that is cheating. This requires
clarification.
alex fnurp
Nvm i just read Jays comment on the blog:
"Jay said...
My understanding is that those sort of pre-finals discussions are
legal and common. Earlier this year I was ousted quickly from a final
table after the other finalists arranged to place the stealth/bleed
deck to my right. "
haha, wow. Most buddies at the final table win: The eternal struggle?
Xaddam
I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal and
common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends to outnumber
the american players.
Hope this misinformation about the rules have been cleared up until I
want to tour the western isles. :)
Matthew T. Morgan
I wouldn't say it's common. Most of the time finalists in the US are
there to win and don't really care that much who wins if they don't win
(barring the appearance of a hated deck like Una or something, which is
another matter entirely).
As for the US Championship going to Hugh vs. going to an American. I
think it should go to an American if an American earns it (such as
happened this year - whether or not collusion was intended, it didn't
alter the outcome of the game from what I saw; James was out too fast).
Let us not forget that the NAC 2009 featured a German, a Hungarian, a
Swiss, myself and that Hugh character. I was the only American to earn
even a single game win that day. Clearly we didn't deserve to win.
Playing to keep Europeans out of finals/keep them from winning American
events is a pretty foolish notion when good ol' USA can only score one
game win all day (out of 16 possible).
So I'm not sure how serious Jay was about denying Hugh the win on the
basis of his pedigree, but hopefully in the future we'll all keep in mind
that the best way to deny him the win is to beat him, as evidenced by the
USA Championship final this year.
Rhavas
The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
rules, whether or not a party is sucessful in carrying it out is
inconsequential. It is like a charge of conspiracy in US criminal
law, the agreement itself is the violation. The fact that the two
parties had no chance to utilize their agreement or make an effort to
prevent Hugh from winning doesn't matter, they went in with the intent
to do so if the opportunity arose. If I colluded with a friend of mine
that he would throw me the final, but we both got ousted prior to
being able to doing anything meaningful, we would both still be
violating the rules due to our intent.
It is easy to overlook a violation when it has had no impact, but to
do so greatly reduces the weight of the enforcement when it does have
an impact. Selectively enforcing rules can be very problematic. This
kind of violation is probably very rare to be exposed, but this is a
case where one party of the agreement has laid it out, apparently with
the misbelief that this kind of agreement was not a violation.
At the very least, this opportunity should be used to promote the fact
that agreements such as this are rules violations. As to what to do
in this case, I haven't the foggiest idea.
Matthew T. Morgan
> The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
> rules
Was it? Maybe I missed were that ruling was handed down.
I agree that this is a good opportunity to get a ruling on the matter. The
purpose of my post was not to judge Jay and James one way or the other,
but to say that kind of thing is rare in my experience anyway and to
chastise my fellow Americans for being in the position where it's actually
quite likely that foreigners will come and win our tournaments for us!
John P.
> On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> > So I'm not sure how serious Jay was about denying Hugh the win on the
> > basis of his pedigree, but hopefully in the future we'll all keep in mind
> > that the best way to deny him the win is to beat him, as evidenced by the
> > USA Championship final this year.
>
> The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
> inconsequential.
"Making the agreement" means a lot of things. In the case of collusion
and in order to assess collusion as cheating, there has to be serious
intent to actually follow through with the collusion, and in VTES
there must be evidence of them actually doing so. I do not believe for
one minute that either Jay or James would have actually rolled over
for the other, both are too competitive for that. As a result I view
the comment in Jay's interview as near meaningless.
In VTES a judge does not arbitrarily skulk around before and during an
event listening for possible collusion. A collusion penalty can only
be assessed if the judge has reason to believe *in game* that the
involved players are not playing to win or have colluded. Unless Hugh,
David, or Pete felt James and Jay were not playing in their own
interest then there was no cheating. None of them brought the matter
to Kevin, none have mentioned it since (that I have seen). You're
beating a dead horse. There must be an in-game event for a judge to
rule on, as outside the game, the judge is just another person.
Now if, from this thread this type of conversation is forbidden or
explicitly discouraged, then perhaps something useful will have come
from this thread. I'll admit I was surprised to have seen the comment
in the blog post, but as someone actually at the event in question, I
saw no evidence that either followed through.
Kushiel
> I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
> time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal and
> common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends to outnumber
> the american players.
I hope you don't ever play with Hugh Angseesing, then, given how often
he tells the table who should be ousted first based on their
nationality, even if those people aren't his successive preys.
Collusion!
John Eno
Kushiel
> The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
> rules, whether or not a party is sucessful in carrying it out is
> inconsequential.
The agreement that they were both trying to win? I'm having a hard
time parsing how that counts as collusion, given that it's a
tournament rule that they both have to try to win anyway.
I'm not being twee here, but I'm having a difficult time understanding
this accusation of collusion. From what Jay wrote, there wasn't any
agreement to roll over for one another or to help each other win in
any way that wouldn't have been dictated by seating anyway. And since
Jay had final choice of seat, I'm not seeing how his discussion with
James was any different than this one:
[pre-finals, we bump into each other in the hallway]
Me: "Hey, I'm first seed in the finals. I'm going to try my best to
win. If I end up in a lost position, such that I have no reasonable
chance of getting VPs, I'm going to do something else."
You: "Okay."
Is that collusion? We agreed on something in that conversation, after
all.
John Eno
Rhavas
a result, I am discussing this purely as a take on the rule.
On Jul 6, 4:45 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2:50 pm, Rhavas <anthony.lun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
> > rules, whether or not a party is sucessful in carrying it out is
> > inconsequential.
>
> The agreement that they were both trying to win? I'm having a hard
> time parsing how that counts as collusion, given that it's a
> tournament rule that they both have to try to win anyway.
The agreement to work together as 'vote-buddies' is one agreement.
The agreement to try and prevent Hugh from winning is another
agreement which may qualify. The rule doesn't say you have to collude
to have one person win, you just can't collude to alter the result.
>
> I'm not being twee here, but I'm having a difficult time understanding
> this accusation of collusion. From what Jay wrote, there wasn't any
> agreement to roll over for one another or to help each other win in
> any way that wouldn't have been dictated by seating anyway. And since
> Jay had final choice of seat, I'm not seeing how his discussion with
> James was any different than this one:
>
> [pre-finals, we bump into each other in the hallway]
> Me: "Hey, I'm first seed in the finals. I'm going to try my best to
> win. If I end up in a lost position, such that I have no reasonable
> chance of getting VPs, I'm going to do something else."
> You: "Okay."
>
> Is that collusion? We agreed on something in that conversation, after
> all.
>
> John Eno
LSJ said the following in the other thread on pre-game discussion:
"Coming to a secret agreement about how to work together for a common
goal is the definition of collusion." You can argue that James and
Jay did not have a common goal (one person winning) but you could also
argue that their common goal was to get the game down to a duel. That
only covers the 'vote-buddies' agreement. The secondary goal of
preventing Hugh from winning seems pretty clear, even though it wasn't
their primary goal, it was a common goal. How serious they were in
their dedication to that goal is impossible to judge from events that
transpired (they never had any chance or need to work toward the
agreement), seriousness can only be judged by Jay's feelings through
his posting on the blog. It seemed serious enough to me, considering
the discussion of Hugh's previous two wins. Thats one of the
difficulties of this medium. Again, I am not sure it matters,
considering simply making the agreement is a violation. If Jay and
James hadn't won, and they had gone at Hugh, in even remotely
questionable moves, and we had then seen Jay's comments, I don't think
there would be much debate.
John, in your example of our hallway discussion, we haven't agreed on
anything about working together. You've told me something you are
going to do, and I have said I understood, something I would
understand from you anyway (You're going to try and win and if you
can't you're going to do soemthing else) as normal game state. If you
said "I'm going to try and win and at the same time, I think you
should help me make sure no Malkavian Anti decks win any more
tournaments" and I said "OK, lets do X and Y," even with no Malk Anti
decks at the table, we've colluded. I don't see how there can be any
question of whether this was collusion, the conversation that was had
easily meets the definition.
The question then becomes, what is the punishment? I haven't made any
suggestion of punishment, considering this is such a tough thing to
judge. This is such a hard rule to enforce due to the a) secret
nature of the agreement and b) the difficulty in saying there was any
impact. That may be why the rule itself is "no colluding to alter the
result" and not "no colluding that actually does alter the result".
Whether the later should be the rule is another discussion.
Jay and James agreed to work towards preventing Hugh from winnning.
While they didn't have to, in a case of collusion, its not "No Harm,
No Foul" the agreement alone violates the rule. Now, the giant caveat
I put on this is, this is solely my understanding of how the rule is
written. I reiterate my point that in generating the discussion, if I
am wrong, and I certainly may be, I would like to know where my
interpretation is misguided so as to use this as a learning
experience. Others don't see collusion, I think it seems pretty clear
Rhavas
There is nothing secret, and no agreement is being made in Hugh
spouting whatever he wants at the table. In fact, I believe its meant
to be part of the game. If I am not mistaken, there is no PTW at a
final, so if Hugh say's "Anthony please oust all the other Americans"
and I do so, giving Hugh the game, thats not a violation of any rule?
If so, that would seem to lessen the weight of a no collusion rule,
since, if someone is so easily swayed or controlled, you can just do
your 'colluding' in open and you avoid breaking the rules. Meaning,
if Jay and James had simply sat down at the table and said "We are
going to play to win, but if we can't or if doesn't hurt along the
way, we are going to make sure Hugh doesn't win" that doesn't seem to
be a violation of the collusion rule.
It seems like the goal of the collusion rule is to give everyone the
opportunity to discuss or make known any deals or intentions. Again,
that's my take on it.
Haze
but there was no common goal. each player's first priority is to win
the game for themselves. the second priority is to kingmake. as long
as the second priority doesn't interfere with the first, I don't see
how this is cheating. in fact, isn't this the very definition of the
PTW rule?
besides, the only actual agreement in the report was to be vote-
buddies. and if being vote-buddies is cheating, most everyone's been
playing VTES wrong for years. sometimes it even happens between cross-
table players without any words exchanged. how strange, I suspect
telepathic collusion!
"Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or
regulate deals made between players."
and I remember this recent post made by Kevin M on the topic of deals
> I had something like this happen at a final table some years back,
> and the player was a high-level pro who had made such a BAD deal
> that the other three players at the table asked me to judge the PTW
> of the deal. I took him aside and asked him wtf he was doing. His
> answer? "I'm lying." We went back to the table and I allowed the
> play to continue while verifying it was PTW. The three players were
> perplexed but that was only because they had gotten too caught-up
> to realize that "I'm lying" was one of that player's PTW options.
no harm, no foul, eh?
James Coupe
>The agreement to work together as 'vote-buddies' is one agreement.
>The agreement to try and prevent Hugh from winning is another
>agreement which may qualify. The rule doesn't say you have to collude
>to have one person win, you just can't collude to alter the result.
Neither of these things need necessarily be collusion.
It is perfectly ordinary, in any game, to see two people say "Oh crap,
that deck's going to stomp us. Let's help each other and get rid of it.
Then we go back to doing our own thing." That's just ordinary play.
As a tournament progresses - say, second or third round - that
conversation may come much earlier than in the first round, because
people may have knowledge of the decks around them. "Holy crap, did you
see that Turbo-Frederick the Weak deck? Insane, man. I can't stand up
to it. Can you?"
The intent of pretty much all deals is to:
a) agree a course of behavior between two (or more) Methuselahs
b) change the outcome of the game thereby.
The main difference is in duration of a) and the magnitude of change in
b). Me rescuing you so you can torporize LSJ's fearsome Turbo-Frederick
right now, before it gets going, will change the outcome of the game.
It will probably make LSJ lose. But it's a perfectly ordinary deal, and
one which you cannot reasonably prevent players from making in any
sensible way.
Two low stealth vote decks might sensibly come to the conclusion that
neither of them wants to sit next to the perma-Auspex wall, and that
they'd both like it off the damn table. Similarly, the star vampire
decks might prefer to not sit within a sensible range of the Ravnos
lockdown deck, and might want to do something about it. Similarly, the
vote decks and the !Ven vote denier. Or the 4 decks against the Nergal
deck (not rated, but ordinary collusion should still be punished). Not
*compulsory* that they play that way or make those deals, but perfectly
sensible.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Kushiel
> The agreement to work together as 'vote-buddies' is one agreement.
> The agreement to try and prevent Hugh from winning is another
> agreement which may qualify. The rule doesn't say you have to collude
> to have one person win, you just can't collude to alter the result.
Whereas I'd personally define "collude" to mean "doing something to
alter the result," because talking doesn't actually alter the result
unless it's backed up by action. I also think that my definition is
the only one that's workable in terms of rules enforcement, since I
can talk in secret to any number of people before every game of VTES,
but
a) that talk doesn't matter if it's not acted upon and
b) it's impossible to prevent.
> LSJ said the following in the other thread on pre-game discussion:
> "Coming to a secret agreement about how to work together for a common
> goal is the definition of collusion."
I don't remember reading that, but I'll take your word for it.
> You can argue that James and
> Jay did not have a common goal (one person winning) but you could also
> argue that their common goal was to get the game down to a duel.
Well, strictly speaking, no. Jay didn't actually write that anywhere
in his report. "Being vote buddies" does not equal "table-splitting
deal," even implicitly. I'm vote-buddies with people during a five-
player game all the time, and oust them or get ousted by them before
the endgame duel all the time, too.
> That
> only covers the 'vote-buddies' agreement. The secondary goal of
> preventing Hugh from winning seems pretty clear, even though it wasn't
> their primary goal, it was a common goal. How serious they were in
> their dedication to that goal is impossible to judge from events that
> transpired (they never had any chance or need to work toward the
> agreement), seriousness can only be judged by Jay's feelings through
> his posting on the blog. It seemed serious enough to me, considering
> the discussion of Hugh's previous two wins. Thats one of the
> difficulties of this medium. Again, I am not sure it matters,
> considering simply making the agreement is a violation.
Fair enough. I'm not convinced that there was collusion, but at least
I understand your point of view now. Thanks.
> If Jay and
> James hadn't won, and they had gone at Hugh, in even remotely
> questionable moves...
But they didn't. I think that's the crux of our disagrement, now that
I see where you're coming from. I don't see how it's at all useful to
even attempt to enforce a "no collusion" rule if that supposed
collusion doesn't result in any effect on the actual game, since
trying to enforce that would just end up in a lot of hearsay-based
witch hunts.
John Eno
Kushiel
> There is nothing secret, and no agreement is being made in Hugh
> spouting whatever he wants at the table. In fact, I believe its meant
> to be part of the game.
I was just making a joke at Hugh's expense, which I do every chance I
get. Sorry that wasn't clear.
John Eno
Nick M
Yes, it would be good to get a ruling on this. The rules as I
understand them is that no deals can be made outside the game. As soon
as the game starts then deals can be made. (I don't have any rules to
cite, this is just the rules as I have understood them from playing
tournaments)
Nick M
squidalot
I thought you were clear John!
And I took it in the same light that I took Jay's comments and as
intend people to take my comments (normally on a table of me and 4
swedes for instance where I encourage the swedes to oust their natural
enemy - other swedes and let the Britisher win).
Jay wanted to win, Pete wanted to win, James wanted to win, I wanted
to win and David wanted to win.
No-one said or did anything that altered that, there was no convulted
plan with James and Jay, there was just two cross table vote decks
trying to get lock to pass their votes. Nothing special about that -
pretty normal in VTES.
As LSJ and others say - play the game - don't get worked up about
nothing.
It's a good game don't ruin it over analysing one paragraph which does
not mean what you think it means.
Kevin M.
> I gotta say..
>
> I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
> time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal
> and common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends
> to outnumber the american players.
I gotta say...
EVERY SINGLE EC THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF had the Germans sitting
in one corner, the Spanish in another, the Italians in another,
and the French in another, and they are ALL planning to team-up
and harm other players not of their nationality.
And, after the EC has ended, the nationality-based bitching continues.
I've heard this from multiple players.
I've heard this about EVERY EC that has ever taken place.
This exact thing happened at the single EC which I've attended.
So, I expect that you'll give up VTES, then?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Shade
> Yes, it would be good to get a ruling on this. The rules as I
> understand them is that no deals can be made outside the game. As soon
> as the game starts then deals can be made. (I don't have any rules to
> cite, this is just the rules as I have understood them from playing
> tournaments)
I wonder if you're reading a bit much into this dude.
So in the Aussie final Jason worked through all the permutations of
where you were going to choose to sit. I went through the same
calculations as Jason just not out loud. Does it really matter if I
ask you two whether you'll sit across table from each other because
you're both playing vote decks? I simply assumed that would be the
case and worked out which of my two options were least rubbish from
there
Sure I can ask - if I sit the other side of Justin will you two sit
either side of me on the basis neither of you wanted to be preyed on
by the choir deck? Or I could just assume that's the case and if I
sit there I'll have no cross table buddies (able to help that is) in
between two vote decks and likely dead quickly.
Pretty sure it doesn't really matter if you and Jason have a
discussion about your options, yeah good to be clear it's allowed or
otherwise, but fairly certain it makes no difference.
Ironically in this case I think you were harmed by having to choose
last. You probably wanted to be where Jason was because once he sat
there you really had to sit left of me to ensure you could pass votes.
(For those not familiar with the final Justin was playing a choir /
harmony deck which was fairly nasty, Nick was playing a Gangrel
Royalty, Tim playing !Malk bleed and Jason was playing AAA. I choose
third and had to choose which side of the choir deck to go.)
For the record, I've had plenty of sheep / accent / kiwi bashing jokes
in Aussie but never anyone teaming up to oust me just because I'm a
Kiwi. Besides, you don't team up to oust Hugh because he is a Pom,
you team up because he is Hugh and wins games all the time! Isn't that
right Hugh ;-)
Simon
alex fnurp
> Xaddam wrote:
> > I gotta say..
>
> > I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
> > time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal
> > and common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends
> > to outnumber the american players.
>
> I gotta say...
>
> EVERY SINGLE EC THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF had the Germans sitting
> in one corner, the Spanish in another, the Italians in another,
> and the French in another, and they are ALL planning to team-up
> and harm other players not of their nationality.
>
> And, after the EC has ended, the nationality-based bitching continues.
>
> I've heard this from multiple players.
>
> I've heard this about EVERY EC that has ever taken place.
>
> This exact thing happened at the single EC which I've attended.
Which doesnt make it fine and something that should continue, however.
Haze
whatcha gonna do about it?
squidalot
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's also not true in the strictest sense in that there's never been
any evidence of collusion - banter yes, collusion no
alex fnurp
Sounds like you challange me to do something personaly in a matter
that should concern the community, not just me. Did I understand you
correctly?
Brum
I feel there is an issue here from the start. Maybe this has been
discussed before, maybe not.
In VtES there's no reason for Championships to have a Nationality or
specific geographic name IF everybody can go everywhere.
I find this quality of the game positive, by the way. It's nice that
people can go to other countries to enjoy the company of local
players.
Matt's words and the (lets call it joking around) that was made by
these 2 players before the Final may come from what happened during
the last NAC. A little frustration, perhaps?
What Matt wrote might sound like "last year there was no collusion
because there was no chance for collusion."
I don't think that putting an emphasis on the fact that there was or
not a chance of collusion is useful here.
Matt, please tell us what you think about the subject, regardless of
nation, religion, color, or any kind of context.
What is collusion? Was it done? Should there be consequences?
Should one just change the name to US Open, Pro-Tour North America?
Should we make the Continentals be a World League with their own
parallel rankings?
Sure, the rankings in VtES are not based uniquely on merit.
He who has a chance to go to the biggest tournaments, has better
chances tho rise and become a better player. So what?
I say all of this because:
a) What I've seen / heard of Matt he seems like someone that would not
agree with collusion.
b) I think how we name things is very important and helps how people
feel about that.
c) In other sports a national championship is barred to outsiders.
France could never win the North American Confederation Cup in
football. Much less the US League. They could win the World Cup,
however.
It still baffles me how a team from Canada can win the US National
Basketball Association championship and the same about Ice Hockey.
I think that this episode might divert outsiders from going the extra
mile to play in the US. Also US nationals might think "If they do that
to outsiders, they may also do that to non-buddies."
I think that way of dealing with such rumors is wrong. We should all
trust in those that have the responsibility to judge and rule. And
then that's the end of it.
Scott?
Cheers,
Tiago
Kevin M.
> alex fnurp wrote:
>> "Kevin M." wrote:
>>> Xaddam wrote:
>>>> I gotta say..
>>>> I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA
>>>> some time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion
>>>> is "legal and common" in the US. At least not without lots of
>>>> friends> to outnumber the american players.
>>
>>> I gotta say...
>>
>>> EVERY SINGLE EC THAT I'VE EVER HEARD OF had the Germans sitting
>>> in one corner, the Spanish in another, the Italians in another,
>>> and the French in another, and they are ALL planning to team-up
>>> and harm other players not of their nationality.
>>
>>> And, after the EC has ended, the nationality-based bitching
>>> continues.
>>
>>> I've heard this from multiple players.
>>
>>> I've heard this about EVERY EC that has ever taken place.
>>
>>> This exact thing happened at the single EC which I've attended.
>>
>> Which doesnt make it fine and something that should continue,
>> however.
>
> been any evidence of collusion - banter yes, collusion no
My point exactly. Reductio ad absurdum.
Kevin M.
> It still baffles me how a team from Canada can win the US National
> Basketball Association championship and the same about Ice Hockey.
The NBA and NHL are "North American" sports (and companies).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_professional_sports_leagues_of_the_United_States_and_Canada
> I think that this episode might divert outsiders from going
> the extra mile to play in the US.
If those outsiders are now not going to play in the USA because
of this single incident, they were never going to come and play
in the USA in the first place.
> Also US nationals might think "If they do that
> to outsiders, they may also do that to non-buddies."
> I think that way of dealing with such rumors is wrong. We should
> all trust in those that have the responsibility to judge and rule.
> And then that's the end of it.
Well said. Which is why no judgement was made in the final, since no
player asked for a judge at any point in time. That seems to point
to the fact that, regardless of what was said pre-game, there was no
collusion by the two players, correct?
Or the other three players at the table were dopes... ;)
Xaddam
"Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities:
/.../
- Collusion to alter the results of a game"
Wiktionary.org:
"Collusion (plural collusions)
A secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy."
Agreeing is cheating. The rules do not care whether you act on the
agreement or not (other than where the PTW rule is applicable, of
course).
On 7 Juli, 02:49, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
> Please bid on my auctions!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Dear Mr. aggressive!
What got me worried was the sentiment that american players thought
this to be legal, which will of course increase the frequency and
obviousness of collusion actions. Where I normally play everyone knows
it's illegal to agree to _anything_ concerning the game before the
game, so if you want to collude it'll be with the knowledge that
you're risking disqualification and when it's done it'll be about
minor things which are harder to prove or disallow. This is alot more
comforting than being in a situation (the alleged state of play in the
US) where collusion is thought to be legal.
Meej
> V:EKN tournament rules:
> "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
> activities:
> /.../
> - Collusion to alter the results of a game"
>
> Wiktionary.org:
> "Collusion (plural collusions)
> A secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy."
You left out "to alter the results of a game."
"I'm going to try to win, as are you. If we're cross-table, and
therefore vote-buddies most of the time, we'll both have a better
chance of that. If one or the other of us isn't winning, here's what
I'm thinking I'll lean towards in king-making." That is, essentially,
a statement about PTW with a side discussion about typical table
dynamics, none of which would "alter the results of the game."
Collusion to alter the results of a game would, indeed, be a problem.
This doesn't look like a case of that in any way, shape, or form. (I
get the feeling Jay's statement was presented mock-seriously, too - as
Hugh himself, by his posts, seems to have taken it - but that's a side
point.)
> Agreeing is cheating. The rules do not care whether you act on the
> agreement or not (other than where the PTW rule is applicable, of
> course).
Agreeing in secret on a course of action to alter the results of the
game is cheating. Agreeing in secret that you're both planning to
abide by PTW, and discussing seating and the implications of that
seating, is a bit grey, but as it doesn't include agreeing to alter
the game's natural course (because all behavior agreed to is PTW),
it's not cheating.
> What got me worried was the sentiment that american players thought
> this to be legal, which will of course increase the frequency and
> obviousness of collusion actions.
If it becomes obvious, it's certainly not collusion, based on the
quoted definition including the word "secret," is it?
- D.J.
Xaddam
Sure, denying the agreement's impact on the game is easy and will be
effective on a judge without a back-bone.
If the agreement did nothing for either of them then they wouldn't
have had to make the agreement and neither would it have had to be
secret. Additionally, if it had nothing with his placement in the
final or his strategy to win, he'd not put it in his tournament
report. That's at least what I believe, actions speak louder than
words.
And anyway, it's altering the game because they know that their 'vote-
buddy' knows that they have agreed to be vote buddies, which the other
three players are not privy to; deals are open information for all
five players or for no players. The other three players might have a
strategy to create in-fighting between the vote decks and chooses a
seating based on this strategy. So withholding a deal from other
players' is equivalent of not showing your ashheap to other players
(denying open information).
Xaddam
> > this to be legal, which will of course increase the frequency and
> > obviousness of collusion actions.
>
> If it becomes obvious, it's certainly not collusion, based on the
> quoted definition including the word "secret," is it?
While my english might not be the best, it's still quite clear.
>the "obviousness of collusion actions"
I'm refering to whether or not a collusion-induced action is obvious,
not if the collusion is obvious.
Relevance: It's only a collusion-induced action which will tip off a
judge if both players don't admit to collusion.
Meej
Ah, OK - I misunderstood you, but I don't think it's your English's
fault (which seems quite good). Thanks for the clarification.
I'd suppose, though, that increasing the obviousness of a collusion-
induced action is a good thing, no?
Since otherwise how would it be prosecutable? (This is what threw me
off, since I originally thought you meant what you in fact meant, but
couldn't reconcile that with the fact that you seemed to be saying it
being easier to spot was a bad thing, so then I figured you must mean
something else, and came up with what I responded to.)
- D.J.
- D.J.
Xaddam
Yeah, I might have left a part out. More obvious actions (usually)
have more impact on the game. A less obvious action might be choosing
to rush minion A instead of B of the same Metusalah. An obvious action
might be rushing Metusalah A instead of B.
John Flournoy
> Sure, denying the agreement's impact on the game is easy and will be
> effective on a judge without a back-bone.
Assuming a judge is aware of it occuring in a timely fashion.
> If the agreement did nothing for either of them then they wouldn't
> have had to make the agreement and neither would it have had to be
> secret. Additionally, if it had nothing with his placement in the
> final or his strategy to win, he'd not put it in his tournament
> report. That's at least what I believe, actions speak louder than
> words.
And yet, a bunch of words were stated (and then later made public)
that led to no apparent actions of consequence (at least, none that
were clearly the result of the words spoken and not normal game
play).
-John Flournoy
John Flournoy
> On 6 Juli, 00:28, Rhavas <anthony.lun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jay and James agreed to work together as 'vote-buddies' and to try and stop Hugh
> > from winning. That's two secret agreements.
>
> The Hugh-part was partially a joke, or at least thats how i read it.
> Not letting Hugh win should be written in the rules anyway ;)
>
> But this however:
> "James and I sat down and cautiously spoke. Though he and I are
> friends and members of the same playgroup, we have a history of
> betraying each other at the V:TES table. I told him I needed a vote-
> buddy, and that he should be it. I also
> told him that my number one goal was to win the Championship, and that
> my number two goal was to make sure an American won it."
>
> Is textbook collusion. It might not have been in the way it is
> described here, but if it is - that is cheating. This requires
> clarification.
Actually, if you look at the text Jay posted, he doesn't actually say
this conversation took place in secret - he just says that he and
James spoke. For all we know (based on Jay's post), this conversation
could have taken place with the other finalists standing around them
in a circle.
Whether or not this was the case, just thought I'd point out that
people have been making an assumption in the remainder of the thread
without actually having been present (or getting more accurate info.)
(As a side note, at several different points during the USNat
tournament people explicitedly stated - including shouted cross-venue
to the table Hugh was sitting at - that Hugh needed to be denied any
chance to win. Which prompted joking conversations cross-tables about
how technically the Canadians should also be punished, etc etc.)
-John Flournoy
Meej
> Sure, denying the agreement's impact on the game is easy and will be
> effective on a judge without a back-bone.
Huh? How is it easy to deny the impact on the game when there's
nothing to deny, as there was no impact?
Or are you speaking in a generic case? If that's what's up, let's be
clear - I don't disagree at all that actual collusion as prohibited by
VEKN is potentially a problem, and that it's possibly difficult to
enforce restrictions against, and that it should be punished. What I
disagree with, is that this is AT ALL such a case.
> If the agreement did nothing for either of them then they wouldn't
> have had to make the agreement and neither would it have had to be
> secret. Additionally, if it had nothing with his placement in the
> final or his strategy to win, he'd not put it in his tournament
> report.
Fair enough. Or, he could have been trying to fit into John's self-
described "gonzo-journalism" reporting style, and making an off-the-
cuff mock-serious silly reference to shady backroom dealings. (Or Jay
might have a similar style on his own, I don't know him well enough to
say. John, on the other hand, I know well enough to know that you
can't take *anything* he says without a grain of salt, sometimes.)
> That's at least what I believe, actions speak louder than
> words.
An understandable position. Then why does it seem like you're judging
this on the words rather than the actions described by them?
> And anyway, it's altering the game because they know that their 'vote-
> buddy' knows that they have agreed to be vote buddies, which the other
> three players are not privy to;
They're sitting cross-table. Of course they're likely to be vote
buddies.
This whole conversation, essentially, was "I think we both stand the
best chance if we sit cross-table. Since I've got control of seating,
I wanted to check that assumption with you. Make sense?"
> deals are open information for all
> five players or for no players. The other three players might have a
> strategy to create in-fighting between the vote decks and chooses a
> seating based on this strategy.
Except that they didn't have that option, as Jay had the top seed and
choice of seat.
> So withholding a deal from other
> players' is equivalent of not showing your ashheap to other players
> (denying open information).
It became open information that Jay intended to sit cross-table,
presumably with the intent of maximizing voting power (to anyone who
knew the decks), as soon as he sat, and it's not as though the other
four finalists (James included) could have changed that if they wanted
to, though. And whether any previous discussion about that had
happened or not is kind of a moot point, since it's pretty clearly
blatantly obvious what the game impacts of the seating are almost
certain to be just from PTW rules.
- D.J.
Xaddam
> On Jul 7, 11:40 am, Xaddam <xad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure, denying the agreement's impact on the game is easy and will be
> > effective on a judge without a back-bone.
>
> Huh? How is it easy to deny the impact on the game when there's
> nothing to deny, as there was no impact?
> Or are you speaking in a generic case? If that's what's up, let's be
> clear - I don't disagree at all that actual collusion as prohibited by
> VEKN is potentially a problem, and that it's possibly difficult to
> enforce restrictions against, and that it should be punished. What I
> disagree with, is that this is AT ALL such a case.
OK.
> > If the agreement did nothing for either of them then they wouldn't
> > have had to make the agreement and neither would it have had to be
> > secret. Additionally, if it had nothing with his placement in the
> > final or his strategy to win, he'd not put it in his tournament
> > report.
>
> Fair enough. Or, he could have been trying to fit into John's self-
> described "gonzo-journalism" reporting style, and making an off-the-
> cuff mock-serious silly reference to shady backroom dealings. (Or Jay
> might have a similar style on his own, I don't know him well enough to
> say. John, on the other hand, I know well enough to know that you
> can't take *anything* he says without a grain of salt, sometimes.)
I conceed on this point. What really got me into this situation was
the sentiment that this behaviour in general is accepted in the US.
(Which it seems to be from the americans' replies in this thread.)
> > That's at least what I believe, actions speak louder than
> > words.
>
> An understandable position. Then why does it seem like you're judging
> this on the words rather than the actions described by them?
Yes, I have a poor position to pass any judgement. See above.
> > And anyway, it's altering the game because they know that their 'vote-
> > buddy' knows that they have agreed to be vote buddies, which the other
> > three players are not privy to;
>
> They're sitting cross-table. Of course they're likely to be vote
> buddies.
>
> This whole conversation, essentially, was "I think we both stand the
> best chance if we sit cross-table. Since I've got control of seating,
> I wanted to check that assumption with you. Make sense?"
"Likely to be" is not the same as "agreed to be". Whatever underlying
message was (un)spoken between the two players' is pure speculation or
interpretation, to be honest.
> > deals are open information for all
> > five players or for no players. The other three players might have a
> > strategy to create in-fighting between the vote decks and chooses a
> > seating based on this strategy.
>
> Except that they didn't have that option, as Jay had the top seed and
> choice of seat.
Seed 2 and 3 can choose a seating which will in turn force or trick
the next player in line to choose a different seating. (See his
report; he preferred hunting on a prey from an earlier game.) Giving
the first seed a lose-lose choice situation is a serious strategic
advantage. The third seed position is actually extremely good if you
don't plan on winning by a tie. Starting to derail, though, I realize.
Less game theory more V:EKN rules. :)
> > So withholding a deal from other
> > players' is equivalent of not showing your ashheap to other players
> > (denying open information).
>
> It became open information that Jay intended to sit cross-table,
> presumably with the intent of maximizing voting power (to anyone who
> knew the decks), as soon as he sat, and it's not as though the other
> four finalists (James included) could have changed that if they wanted
> to, though. And whether any previous discussion about that had
> happened or not is kind of a moot point, since it's pretty clearly
> blatantly obvious what the game impacts of the seating are almost
> certain to be just from PTW rules.
I'm going to be picky about these phrases.
>presumably
>to anyone who knew the decks
>pretty clearly blatantly obvious
None of these are as good information as the knowledge of a deal.
And, you're oversimplifying seating if you think it's obvious which
choice is a good one in seating situations.
John P.
> (As a side note, at several different points during the USNat
> tournament people explicitedly stated - including shouted cross-venue
> to the table Hugh was sitting at - that Hugh needed to be denied any
> chance to win. Which prompted joking conversations cross-tables about
> how technically the Canadians should also be punished, etc etc.)
>
> -John Flournoy
You mean that's why they were all attempting to oust me? [/kidding]
We all know there is a hell of a lot of trash talk at Origins. I heard
various half baked plots to oust team Newark, oust various people who
were not playing, deny the locals any tournament wins, oust the brits
(insert obligatory Hugh comment here), oust the cylons. Strangely all
of my predators got the "Oust the Canadians" memo. Apparently I missed
that one.
Oddly this year I did not manage to get anyone ousted other than my
prey, and the only real affect on the outcome of most games either
before or after getting a victory point, was being ousted myself,
usually by whomever was collecting the game win.
John P.
Winnipeg
squidalot
*hugs*
There were a lot of cylons - sadly every time (apart from the
accidental one cylon trip) team human died :(
Matthew T. Morgan
> We all know there is a hell of a lot of trash talk at Origins. I heard
> various half baked plots to oust team Newark, oust various people who
> were not playing, deny the locals any tournament wins
Yes, year after year the goal of non-Ohio players is to deny Ohio any
wins. That is, until we actually get involved in games and completely
forget about stupid, non-pertinent goals.
Also, I was born in Ohio so it's very confusing to me.
Kevin M.
> What really got me into this situation was the sentiment that this
> behaviour in general is accepted in the US. (Which it seems to be
> from the americans' replies in this thread.)
How do you non-Americans stop secret pre-final discussions?
Answer: You don't.
That's what people are trying to say, here. Sure, a judge could make
some kind of blanket rule announcement, but what is the method by
which you would enforce such a thing without some kind of judge-army
and player isolation? So why bother? Why not just judge the final
and police the actions perpetrated there?
And since in this particular case Jay and James didn't exhibit any
collusion-like tactics, they either abandoned their plan, didn't come
to any point where they could begin to cooperate, or Jay was lying
to James in the first place. So there was nothing to be judged.
p.s. Your English is excellent, we can understand you very well. =)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
jono
I am the anonymous first comment poster on John Eno's blog (i did
something bad so ended as anonymous).
I did not accuse anybody of collusion, i just expressed my view that
playing with keeping in mind that an american should be US champ is
unfair. Even more so that this intention has been clearly stated to
another player who more or less agreed.
Had Hugh been aware of this plan, he might have been able to table
talk himself out of the trap or at least adapt his play style. That's
why i think it 's unfair.
But ok, Hugh answered on John's blog that he didn't feel anything
special against him and the game went normal. This statement, plus
Jay's willingness to disclose his pre-game discussion in his report
make me think that there was no real intent of collusion, but since
the opportunity to set the backup plan in motion did not arise, maybe
if the situation had presented itself, we would have to deal with
facts that go against the spirit of the game.
If the US champ should be american, then the tournament should not
include foreign players.
Jon
PS : I beg your forgiveness for my bad english...
PS2 : I'll be glad to play my first EC in Paris, and will not do
anything to split VP's based on nationality...
PS3 : A spanish player won the 2008 French Champion
Mark
> PS3 : A spanish player won the 2008 French Champion
And I am sure such an abomination wil not occur ever again...
Ridiculous! A French tournament should be won by a Europ... oh,
wait...
A bit funny to read about people who should not win tournaments based
on nationality. Better be kidding, right? ;-)
GreenO
What on earth is this?
Jon's point was that if there is such a problem with the US
Championships being won by a foreign National, then exluding them from
the event is preferrable to concluding to prevent the win. His third
post script pointed out that the 2008 French champion is Spanish to
underline his point that he does not think that exlcuding foreign
nationals from country championships is the correct option and infers
that the final table of the 2008 French Championships did not collude
(or manage to do so effectively) to prevent the Spaniard winning. His
argument is totally cohesive.
The sentence: "If the US champ should be american, then the tournament
should not include foreign players." is prehaps ambiguous, but Jon's
English is a great deal better than my French and he even apologised
for it. The statement may have been better phrased as: "If the
[playbase has the opinion that the] US champ should be [a U.S
National], then the tournament should not include foreign players". I
don't know if you misunderstood that, but I can't see the sense or
purpose of you post.
Juggernaut1981
start...
I agree collusion does not require an effective action, all conspiracy/
collusions only require an agreement not even an action or even an
effective action.
Altering the outcome of a game sounds like it would catch any
agreement that would be worth making about VTES. Making a deal not to
buy Player A, B and C beer is not really a relevant agreement, even if
made in secret, etc, etc, etc. You potentially could make a deal with
others to knock out certain players from the final, if possible,
before a tournament and not actually neccessarily break the PTW as it
stands (as you are aiming to affect a tournament result and not the
result of any specific game... OR you intend to affect the result of
every game within your sphere of influence).
So, as it seemed, on paper, via email, out of a broader context than
the typed words of one of the people involved... it seemed like
collusion to me. I just didn't want to be the first to bring it up...
It would be nice to see a ruling to see if there needs to be a
provable in-game action or if the existence of an agreement between
players that was not made publicly to all players in the game is
enough to reach collusion.
squidalot
*paff* stop being an idiot and smell the grass.
Jason
The facts of this particular case aside, I personally find the notion
of having any discussions about finals seating without the presence of
all finals players deeply unsavoury. I don't do it, have never done
it, will never do it.
Tastes wrong imo.
jase