Tournement Report: ECQ Hungary 2007
Daneel
March 31, 2007
53 players
Budapest, Hungary
There were 53 participants at the Hungarian ECQ for 2007. The number of
foreign participants was an all-time low, at only 1 non-Hungarian player;
however, the honor was immense to have Hajakawa Hidetoshi from Japan
attend! About 13 people qualified for the EC (nobody was pre-qualified).
Rank Name PrelimGW PrelimVP FinalVP
1 Tibor Holhos 3 11 4
2 Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy 2 9 1
3 Milan Horvath 2 6
4 Peter Korsos 2 6
5 Tamas Kovacs Istvan 1 7
6 Gyula Erdos 3 10 (GL)
7 Jozsef Gal 2 9 (GL)
8 Martin Major 1 6
9 Arnold Farkas 1 6
10 Tibor Morocz 1 6
11 Ferenc Vasadi 1 5,5
12 Zoltan Komora 1 5
13 Balazs Sebestyen 1 5
14 Istvan Mecseri 1 5
15 Richard Farkas 1 5
16 Gabor Endler 1 4
17 Zsolt Gonda 1 3
18 Gergo Gyarmati 1 3
18 Tamas Albeck 1 3
20 Jovan Pavlovics 1 3
21 Ferenc Borbely 0 3,5
22 Balazs Kaloczkai 0 3
22 Peter Vadasz 0 3
24 Csaba Greguss 0 2
24 Norbert Broda 0 2
24 Zsolt Cziraki 0 2
27 Mate Andrasi 0 2
28 Tamas Csepregi 0 2
29 Tibor Molnar 0 2
30 Marcell Varjasi 0 2
31 Attila Ferencz 0 1,5
32 Miklos Danis 0 1,5
33 Laszlo Koti 0 1
33 David Kriston 0 1
35 Balazs Palffy 0 1
35 Peter Erdodi 0 1
35 Ferenc Gego 0 1
35 Tibor Bayer 0 1
35 Károly Albeck 0 1
40 Sandor Vicha 0 1
40 Hajakawa Hidetoshi 0 1
40 Balazs Pahi 0 1
43 Gyöngyi Tünde Hidegfoldi 0 1
44 Robert Abonyi 0 0,5
45 Oliver Toth 0 0,5
46 Tamas Bank 0 0
47 Attila Suhajda 0 0
48 Eva Fejszes 0 0
49 Jozsef Kuminka 0 0
50 Krisztian Tivadari 0 0
50 Adam Walter 0 0
50 Tamas Hofer 0 0
53 Zoltan Ivanyos 0 0
Unfortunately two players (originally ranked #2 and #4) recieved a Game
Loss penalty for incorrect decklists, and couldn't participate in the
finals. This changed the scene a bit, allowing the original #6 and #7
players to play. The finals came to a quick conclusion thanks to the
number of active decks present. Seating:
Tibor Holhos (DOM OBF stealth-bleed) -> Milan Horvath (a toolboxish take
on the weenie Saturday Night Special + Dragon Breath Roungs combo) ->
Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy (playing Giovanni Powerbleed) -> Tamas Kovacs
(Malkavian stealth-bleed) -> Peter Korsos (Tzimisce Wall).
Tibor started the game straightforward bleeding Milan, who had two
Intercept locations and so actually tried to block. I influenced out
Andrea Giovanni, who started with an unfortunate bleed for 6 (which never
connected thanks to Istvan's Archon Investigation), leaving me minionless
for a few turns. Istvan seemingly had no difficulty to bypass Peter's
Intercept, and he even removed the early Smiling Jack.
Milan shot and Graverobbed Tibor's Count Ormonde, and spent most of his
effort trying to fend off his predator. A bleed for 5 at 3 stealth was
bounced all the way to Peter, who had to make the choice whom to send it
to; he chose to send it back to his predator, thanks to which during my
next turn I succesfully ousted Istvan. During his turn Tibor just managed
to finished off Milan, apparently drawing just enough bleed to do it.
I tried to play my game, and made it a point not to allow any permanent
Intercept for my prey (using blocks and DI as needed to deprive him of
this bothersome resource), and at the same time used Le Dinh Tho's special
every turn on him. Although I never got through his transient Intercept,
my efforts were enough to completely deny my prey his Intercept. Tibor
managed to oust me (again, just barely; his hand clogged on stealth due to
my no-blocks policy), and proceeded to quickly eliminate Peter, whose hand
was full of wake cards, but at that point had no intercept comparable to
the vast amount of stealth Tibor could dish out.
The game was fun and brief, but all the better; Tibor gained a well-earned
tournament win. Here's the winning deck:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 17, Max: 28, Avg: 5,58)
----------------------------------------------
2 Gilbert Duane AUS DOM OBF 7 Malkavian
2 Mariel aus tha DOM OBF 7 Malkavian
2 Didi Meyers aus cel obf DOM 5 Malkavian
1 Zebulon aus dom pro OBF 5 Malkavian
1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian
1 Count Ormonde dom pre ser OBF 5 Followers of Set
1 Badr al-Budur cel dom qui OBF 5 Assamite
1 Ozmo dom obf AUS 6 Malkavian
1 Reverend Blackwood obf DOM THA 6 Tremere Antitribu
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
3 Blood Doll
4 Perfectionist
2 Sudden Reversal
1 Momentum`s Edge
1 Pentex Subversion
1 Anarch Troublemaker
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
Action (18 cards)
15 Govern the Unaligned
3 Far Mastery
Action Modifier (37 cards)
5 Seduction
12 Conditioning
4 Cloak the Gathering
4 Domain of Evernight
4 Faceless Night
4 Lost in Crowds
4 Spying Mission
Reaction (17 cards)
9 Deflection
3 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
5 On the Qui Vive
Combo (4 cards)
4 Swallowed by the Night
Thanks to Gabor Balazs, the prince of Budapest for organizing and judging
the event, and to Tibor Morocz for the additional support! ...and thanks
for the attendance to all those, who showed up! :)
--
Regards,
Daneel
as...@hotmail.com
> Unfortunately two players (originally ranked #2 and #4) recieved a Game
> Loss penalty for incorrect decklists, and couldn't participate in the
> finals. This changed the scene a bit, allowing the original #6 and #7
> players to play.
This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price
sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic?
atomweaver
@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious cheating,
the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification.
I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Peter D Bakija
as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price
> sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic?
As noted in many other discussions about this in there here forum, many
folks think this is an absurdly draconian rule (i.e. deck lists and
penalty game loss due to typo). But if it works for them, well, there ya
go.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
atomweaver
D005E9.162...@news-server.stny.rr.com:
> In article <1176103830.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> This rule is... interesting. Especially in a game with almost no price
>> sums. They was obviously cheating or just dyslectic?
>
> As noted in many other discussions about this in there here forum, many
> folks think this is an absurdly draconian rule (i.e. deck lists and
> penalty game loss due to typo). But if it works for them, well, there ya
> go.
>
Ya know, as I've been giving the circumstances of this topic a recent
think, I suspect that the problem lies in needing some further detail in
the VEKN tourney rules as to how you go about using decklists... Here is
all that we have to go on;
VEKN Rules:
6.3. Constructed Deck Registration
The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register
their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the original
composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a player's
decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly register a deck
will result in the head judge applying the appropriate provisions of the
V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that organizers check a
reasonable number of decks against their decklists each round.
That last line is the only guide as to when and how to implement decklist
checking, and its vague. It seems like a general habit has been developed,
if decklists are used at all, the decklists of finalists are checked.
This results in the inherently unfair situation, that clerical errors are
penalized only _after_ the preliminary rounds are completed.
Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error been
discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of the
finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him from
participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a correction of
decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2 GW, and some
significant number of VPs. The same may have held true for Jozsef Gal,
too, depending upon the round of discovery for the discrepancy.
And this seems to come from the arbitrary determination someone made
somewhere along the line that 'Reasonable'=5 when the finals and decklists
are concerned. By this point in the tournament, a Game Loss penalty is IMO
a much higher penalty than the Judge's Guide intends (since the Judge's
Guide considers a generic "round" independent of which , as it is only
being consistently applied for the Final Round.
As a hypothetical, if a Judge could apply two different penalties;
1. Preliminary Round Game Loss, or
2. Final Round Game Loss
Written out that way, it becomes clear that the latter is an incredibly
stiff penalty (nearly as bad as a disqualification, IMO), whereas the first
is certainly bad, but not insurmountable. The policy of checking
finalists' decklists, only, creates just such an artificially high penalty,
and only by virtue of the timing of implementation.
For certain, Finalist decklist checks are, strictly speaking, a legal
interpretation of the Rules, but that seems to me to be only because the
rules are so vague on the subject. I think it would be really beneficial
if some further detail were written into the VEKN Rules to prevent this
from occuring (either by differentiating between GLs in prelims vs. finals
in terms of penalty level, or by providing additional guidelines on
implementing decklist checks). Choosing to implement this part of the VEKN
Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest
competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES
players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game
play.
Done, now... sorry if I crushed somebody's soapbox ;-)
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
librarian
I know it's not kosher nettiquette to just say "Yeah, what he said!",
but I think this what you said needs saying a multiple number of times.
Especially your last sentence - "exclude... on the basis of clerical
skills, and not game play". It's like American Football's college
championship series (the BCS), but worse.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Peter D Bakija
atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Choosing to implement this part of the VEKN
> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest
> competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES
> players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game
> play.
Yeah, I'd think that if these rules (i.e. deck list checks) were going
to be used and then result in folks being excluded from the finals as a
result, that either:
A) The actual deck list/check rules should be written more
comprehensively.
or
B) The deck checking should happen across the board and not right before
the finals. Check everyone's deck before the first round, see if they
match, and if they don't, make them fix them. And then check the
finalists again before they hit the final round if you really want.
The second option is much more of a pain in the ass, but if you are
going to insist on deck lists and deck checks, you should do this in
such a way as to not penalize folks too much for typos, and checking a
deck right before the final round, discovering a typo, and then kicking
someone out of the finals as a result seems like a really less optimal
way to handle this sort of thing.
Kushiel
> Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error been
> discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of the
> finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him from
> participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a correction of
> decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2 GW, and some
> significant number of VPs. The same may have held true for Jozsef Gal,
> too, depending upon the round of discovery for the discrepancy.
Wow. The way that the decklist checking has been implemented is REALLY
screwed up, in light of that.
John Eno
Joscha
> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest
> competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES
> players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game
> play.
Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar
cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it
one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that
kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just
before tournament be concentrated and change the list.
Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the
best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have
to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond
to the metagame. I don't know what's better.
James Coupe
Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> writes:
>Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
>difficult to write a correct list?
(The following post is purely in the abstract, since I know nothing of
the particulars of this tournament.)
It depends, particularly if you're in a hurry because you didn't realise
that it was going to be necessary and are scribbling it down in a few
minutes when arriving later that expected for a tournament.
Also, when taking notes on a deck, I've been known to put a mark in an
ambiguous place on a deck listing by accident, or get two very similar
cards confused.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Alias
in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't
know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example,
if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics,
because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not
enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. On the other
hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I
wouldnt punish him at all.
is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the
rules?
Salem
>> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of honest
>> competition, since they more often than not exclude the _proven_ best VTES
>> players of the tournament, on the basis of clerical skills, and not game
>> play.
>
> Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
> difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar
> cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it
> one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that
> kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just
> before tournament be concentrated and change the list.
> Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable.
check a random sample after letting people know _before_ the first round
that if they get checked, and they fail, they'll get a game loss for the
first round? That'd put a bee up my butt to make me make sure i got my
decklist right if i was a player.
and _then_ check the finalists decks when it gets to there. but use your
judgement. like, "hey, your deck list says you have an extra Haven
Uncovered, but it's not in your deck", i would put that down to someone
else grabbed it while picking up their cards during a previous round,
and i'd find the card and fix it.
if, however, it was something like "hey, you have 2 Fear of Mekhets in
your deck that aren't on the list, and that Arika deck everyone's been
talking about all day that swept all three prelim games is also in the
final. umm...sorry mate, but i have to DQ you."
> Maybe the
> best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have
> to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond
> to the metagame. I don't know what's better.
erm, accept that some people might try to cheat. not every tournament
will actually have cheaters, and not all cheaters will only cheat by
tweaking decks between rounds.
I'd like to think a good judge would use judgement, and just do their
best to make sure everything looks like it would look if we played in a
perfect world where no one would even think of cheating, rather than
decidedly DQing *every* decklist infraction.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Peter D Bakija
> Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
> difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar
> cards together and write their number on a paper.
Sure. It isn't that difficult to write a correct list. But you also
can lose cards, accidentally leave cards in your box, leave a Haven
Uncovered on someone, write "scouting mission" as opposed to "spying
mission", or whatever. Or just change your deck at the last second and
forget to adjust the list.
> Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the
> best solution is to play without decklists at all.
It probably is. I have never in my life been to a tournament that
required deck lists. Ever. In playing competetive VTES for, like, 12
years. Anywhere. And never have I felt as if my opponents were going
to cheat as a result.
> But then you have to accept cheating through the tournament and
> deckchanging to respond to the metagame. I don't know what's better.
I don't know that I actually have to accept that. Do you honestly
think that *that* many people are changing their decks in mid
tournament? Really?
Given the situation at hand--the guys that got DQed from the final had
already turned in deck lists. Do you think they specifically and
intentionally changed their decks *after* turning in deck lists?
Knowing that if they got into the finals, their decks would be checked
against their lists? Does it really seem likely that they
intentionally changed their decks in mid tournament? I mean, yeah, ok,
it is certainly *possible*. But it strikes me as wildly unlikely. So
the end result is that these guys get DQed from the finals due to a
clerical error. Which seems kind of extreme.
I know this has come up before (again and again), but do folks really
think that there are so many people out there who are going to change
their decks mid tournament that deck lists are helpful? And even if
they think they are helpful:
A) People can be DQed for clerical errors.
B) If folks know that they only are going to get checked if they get
into the finals, what is to stop them from changing their decks until
they get in the finals, and then changing it back?
C) Folks can cheat in many, many other ways that have nothing at all
to do with deck changing. If you are so worried about cheating, how do
you stop folks from other forms of cheating? Why laser focus on this
one, yet not, like, force everyone to count their opponent's pool at
the start of each game or make sure a judge observes whenever someone
moves their pool when they are bled?
-Peter
as...@hotmail.com
I agree, there is a difference between writing "3 Faceless Night, 2
Cloak the Gathering" and having 2 Faceless Night and 3 Cloak the
Gathering int he deck (or write "3 Facless Night, 2 Cloak the
Catering"). Or suddenly having 4 Entracement in the deck when
deckchecked before the final, when there was only 2 Entrancement in
the decklist, and *ooops* there are three ally-based decks in the
final.
If the tournament rules really are this insane, I suggest they are
rewritten. I would go f********* if I got a game loss in a final due
to a typo.
(As a side note: At this weekends swedish ECQ there was no deckchecks,
and this was ANNOUNCED prior to the tournament. Very weird, but surely
better than ejecting somebody just because of him being bad at
spelling or counting his cards.)
atomweaver
news:1176196547....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 10, 7:26 am, "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 5:17 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Consider the current tournament. had Gyula Erdos' decklist error
>> > been
>> > discovered at any point _other_ than by a check of the decklists of
>> > the finalists, his game loss penalty would _not_ have prevented him
>> > from participating in the finals, _at all_. A game loss and a
>> > correction of decklist (or deck) would still have left him with 2
>> > GW, and some significant number of VPs. The same may have held
>> > true for Jozsef Gal, too, depending upon the round of discovery
>> > for the discrepancy.
>>
>> Wow. The way that the decklist checking has been implemented is
>> REALLY screwed up, in light of that.
>>
>> John Eno
>
> in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't
> know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example,
> if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics,
> because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not
> enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate.
But, what you describe here is not "decklist error, penalty-game loss".
You are describing "Cheating, penalty-disqualification". There is a
seperate set of judge's guidelines and rules for this, irrespective of
the fact that a decklist check was the means by which the offense was
discovered... Had Daneel discovered cheating, I know he would have
applied the correct penalty (with glee, even ;-).
> On the other
> hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I
> wouldnt punish him at all.
> is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the
> rules?
This is what I'm pushing for here, for further development of the
guidelines. I don't blame anyone for the way in which they've chosen to
implement the decklist checks. I'm just looking for some extra wording
to address this somewhat accidental result of creating an artificially
high penalty for what is usually a minor transgression.
When we find a discrepancy (unfairness, overpowered, etc.) in the
game's cards, we push for change to address that discrepancy. I'm just
doing that here with the tournament rules.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
news:1176191997.4...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of
>> honest competition, since they more often than not exclude the
>> _proven_ best VTES players of the tournament, on the basis of
>> clerical skills, and not game play.
>
> Hmm, that's really a good point.
Thanks. :-)
> On the other hand is it really that
> difficult to write a correct list?
I'll counter your question with a question. What do you consider an
appropriate (fair) penalty for an error in a decklist? I'd accept a
preliminary round game loss as being an appropriate penalty, but in
practice that is not how this section of the rules is being implemented.
> You just have to order similar
> cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it
> one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that
> kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just
> before tournament be concentrated and change the list.
What does this have to do with playing VTES? If I happen to be bad at this
kind of thing, but great at VTES, is is fair or appropriate that I be
excluded from the finals on the basis of these skills?
> Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the
> best solution is to play without decklists at all. But then you have
> to accept cheating through the tournament and deckchanging to respond
> to the metagame. I don't know what's better.
Just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea... If you're really concerned about
cheating through deck changes, a more effective (and expedient) system
would be to have the Judge hold all decks between rounds, and provinding
proxies the few times when player resources are left behind after an oust.
Instead of a decklist (or in addition to), you would come to the tournament
with a box with your name on it. Its a lot easier to implement a system
which prevents this sort of cheating, than it is to even check a limited
number of decklists.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
news:461b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
> Joscha wrote:
>>> Rules in this manner, though, is not in keeping with the spirit of
>>> honest competition, since they more often than not exclude the
>>> _proven_ best VTES players of the tournament, on the basis of
>>> clerical skills, and not game play.
>>
>> Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
>> difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar
>> cards together and write their number on a paper. Then go through it
>> one more time. If you are extremely susceptible to mistakes of that
>> kind let some buddy go through it once. And if you change sth. just
>> before tournament be concentrated and change the list.
>> Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable.
>
> check a random sample after letting people know _before_ the first
> round that if they get checked, and they fail, they'll get a game loss
> for the first round? That'd put a bee up my butt to make me make sure
> i got my decklist right if i was a player.
>
> and _then_ check the finalists decks when it gets to there. but use
> your judgement. like, "hey, your deck list says you have an extra
> Haven Uncovered, but it's not in your deck", i would put that down to
> someone else grabbed it while picking up their cards during a previous
> round, and i'd find the card and fix it.
I agree. This should be a specific example in the rules.
> if, however, it was something like "hey, you have 2 Fear of Mekhets in
> your deck that aren't on the list, and that Arika deck everyone's been
> talking about all day that swept all three prelim games is also in the
> final. umm...sorry mate, but i have to DQ you."
>
Again again again. Please don't conflate these two issues. They are
totally separate. The continued mixing of the two is part of why we have
excessive penalties being applied for typos. A decklist error on its own
is not evidence of cheating. Cheating is horrible. Cheating is bad. If
you catch a cheater, punish them as Cheaters. DISQUALIFY CHEATERS, and
report them as such. The fact that you catch them through their decklist
does NOT mean you are supposed to apply a deck error-game loss. If we
separate the catching of cheaters from the checking of decklists, then it
becomes more clear that decklist checks (again, without associated
evidece of cheating) are being over-penalized.
Decklist error alone != cheating, as you've made clear by your two
examples above.
Decklist error, plus other evidence may = cheating.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Joscha
> > On the other hand is it really that
> > difficult to write a correct list?
>
> I'll counter your question with a question. What do you consider an
> appropriate (fair) penalty for an error in a decklist? I'd accept a
> preliminary round game loss as being an appropriate penalty, but in
> practice that is not how this section of the rules is being implemented.
If it is just an writing error I'd give no penalty at all. Why should
I give a GL in preliminary rounds because he listed Earth Meld instead
of Earth Swords or something like that. If the minions in the crypt
cannot use the cards it is clearly a writing error.
Spying Mission and Scouting Mission in a deck with dom/obf is a huge
problem, because someone could have reacted to a deflection-heavy or
interceptheavy metagame. That is cheating (DQ). If it is in a dem/obf-
deck it is no problem, because it is clearly a mistake. If one Haven
Uncovered (or Disarm, Pulled Fangs, Derange and so on) is missing (or
are added) I'd try to find it at the other player's decks (or return
it to the owner). For me missing cards are no problem, the changed and
the added cards are, if they are not clearly nonsense.
<Given the situation at hand--the guys that got DQed from the final
had
<already turned in deck lists. Do you think they specifically and
<intentionally changed their decks *after* turning in deck lists?
<Knowing that if they got into the finals, their decks would be
checked
<against their lists? Does it really seem likely that they
<intentionally changed their decks in mid tournament?
It doesn't seem likely to me that they intentionally changed it.
BECAUSE they know they get checked and DQed for a mistake. If you
change that penalty to a softer consequence people might try to change
decks in tournament brakes and state it was only a writing error.
We (in Germany) don't play with deck lists in small tourneys. We
demand for them in important events like Championships or Qualifiers.
There the urge to cheat could be higher because of what you can
achieve. Nobody cares for somebody who cheats with cards in a 10-
person meeting with your friends. If you go to an important event you
know you have to have a decklist with you, which has to be 100% right.
> Just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea... If you're really concerned about
> cheating through deck changes, a more effective (and expedient) system
> would be to have the Judge hold all decks between rounds, and provinding
> proxies the few times when player resources are left behind after an oust.
> Instead of a decklist (or in addition to), you would come to the tournament
> with a box with your name on it.
That could do the trick. As an organizer you have to face the
responsibility for many decks though, some of them worth 100+ Dollars.
Daneel
wrote:
> The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious
> cheating,
> the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification.
>
> I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were.
Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and
had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the former
wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change control are bound
to get lost every now and then), and later the card was found mingled in
someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on the missing registration of
the Lifes.
Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the decklist),
and was GL-ed based on this.
Concerning the points made... I think it's easy to see the reasoning why a
final GL is too harsh for a clerical error. Although I'm probably among
the more organized players, and haven't yet made any errors in decklists,
I fully understand that typos and errors in counting can happen to
everyone, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to lose the chance to play in
the finals because of a typo. Therefor I'm not very married to the idea
of decklists myself.
However, there are a number of counterarguments to be made, even in
tournaments where the decklists are only checked before the finals.
My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation
(remember,
issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then you are
basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations. Saying
that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less equal to
saying "you can change 3 cards for the final". Same goes with all types of
transgressions. Especially since in a tournament of sufficient size there
is little reason to change anything on one's deck before reaching the
finals, as until then there is probably zero knowledge of the opponents
decks.
I'm still not too happy about GLing players for clerical mistakes, however,
I'm not sure how to reasonably go about having decklists if there is no
consequences for a discrepancy. One possibility is to look at the decklist
and have the player restore it fully, with no penalty issued (though this
may encourage illegible decklists). Another is to simply drop having
decklists at all, and assume that the harm done by disqualifying a player
who makes an honest mistake is more than the benefit from the deterrent
factor of players knowing that their decklists will be checked.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
wrote:
>> in the light of what? how could you judge what was right, if we don't
>> know anything specific about that decklist error? I mean, for example,
>> if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics,
>> because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not
>> enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate.
>
> But, what you describe here is not "decklist error, penalty-game loss".
> You are describing "Cheating, penalty-disqualification". There is a
> seperate set of judge's guidelines and rules for this, irrespective of
> the fact that a decklist check was the means by which the offense was
> discovered... Had Daneel discovered cheating, I know he would have
> applied the correct penalty (with glee, even ;-).
Ok, I see I have a reputation to defend. :)
I wasn't judging the event, just merely playing. But more importantly,
I'm never glad to issue any penalties on tournaments, especially not
penalties concerning sportsmanship. I generally prefer if all players
play in a fully sportsmanlike manner, and there's so much love in the
air, that you find it difficult to announce a bleed. :-)
Well, maybe not that much love, but for me VtES is still a game I play
with friends, for fun. I pretty much like to keep the game fair and
- if possible - enjoyable to all.
--
Regards,
Daneel
atomweaver
Thanks for the reply, Daneel...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:22:05 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The odds favor some variation on the latter. If it were obvious
>> cheating,
>> the appropriate penalty would have been to issue a disqualification.
>>
>> I'm curious, too, what the specific errors were.
>
> Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and
> had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the
> former wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change
> control are bound to get lost every now and then), and later the
> card was found mingled in someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on
> the missing registration of the Lifes.
>
OK. I know you weren't the judge, but do you know if anything more was
investigated? Was the deck list 88 cards, plus the 2 LitC (implying a
forgotton entry), or was the deck 92 cards, and thus illegal? Given the
'generic' nature of LitC, I wouldn't tend to see this as a GL-worthy
offense (what in-game advantage stands to be gained from two LitC, if it
were a change, and not merely an omission?), but your judge was operating
well within the guidelines.
> Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the
> decklist),
> and was GL-ed based on this.
>
Hmm. Sounds like some number of RKs were listed, but the deck contained
one more than the decklist. I'd probably have corrected the decklist (or
the deck, if illegal), and issued a warning. But, as I've learned from
Johannes, it is tough, if not impossible, to issue differential rulings for
similar infractions and not have it look like preferential treatment,
_especially_ with respect to the finals. This GL was most probably
unavoidable, in light of the penalty that Gyula received.
Thanks again for the info...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
gpett...@gmail.com
> My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation
> (remember, issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then you are
> basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations. Saying
> that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less equal to
> saying "you can change 3 cards for the final". Same goes with all types of
> transgressions. Especially since in a tournament of sufficient size there
> is little reason to change anything on one's deck before reaching the
> finals, as until then there is probably zero knowledge of the opponents
> decks.
Daneel states quite clearly a mentality that is to assume that every
single person is cheating at all times unless proven otherwise. The
issue we're having is that the American mentality is to assume that
every single person is playing fairly at all times unless proven
otherwise. This is a fundamental law & order philosophical sticking
point.
> Another is to simply drop having
> decklists at all, and assume that the harm done by disqualifying a player
> who makes an honest mistake is more than the benefit from the deterrent
> factor of players knowing that their decklists will be checked.
>
That's the philosophical point behind "Innocent until Proven Guilty".
More importantly, there's no compelling reason to believe that
*anyone* whose decklist had a mismatch just before the final was
cheating without previously knowing if their decklist matched before
round 1.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Peter D Bakija
> It doesn't seem likely to me that they intentionally changed it.
> BECAUSE they know they get checked and DQed for a mistake. If you
> change that penalty to a softer consequence people might try to change
> decks in tournament brakes and state it was only a writing error.
(you realize that you are responding to 2 different people in your
post, right? I wrote what you are responding to here, and Dave wrote
most of what else you were responding to...)
In any case, yeah, someone might try and change decks in the
tournament in the face of softer penalties. But in all likelyhood,
most people won't. 'Cause it is stupid to cheat, and most folks just
aren't going to do so. And if someone is inclined to cheat, if you
stop them from cheating by checking to see if they changed their
decks, they'll just cheat in some other way that you can't so easily
prevent. But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no
intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical
error. Why is that worth it?
> We (in Germany) don't play with deck lists in small tourneys. We
> demand for them in important events like Championships or Qualifiers.
> There the urge to cheat could be higher because of what you can
> achieve.
It could be, sure. But in all likelyhood, for most people, it probably
isn't. People aren't more likely to cheat in a large tournament if
they aren't likely to cheat in a small tournament. 'Cause cheating is
stupid, and most folks just aren't going to do it. And the ones that
are willing to cheat at all will find a way to cheat, even with deck
checks and all.
> If you go to an important event you know you have to have a decklist with you, > which has to be 100% right.
And if you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut in your card box when
you pull your deck out to start the tournament and never notice? Is it
acceptable to be DQed from the finals for such an incredibly minor and
inconsequental infraction?
-Peter
Kushiel
> in the light of what?
In light of someone being kicked out of the finals due to a clerical
error.
> how could you judge what was right, if we don't
> know anything specific about that decklist error?
I don't understand this question. The people who organized the
tournament obviously knew what was specifically wrong with the
decklist. The fact that *the way they chose to implement decklist
checking* resulted in someone being kicked ouf the finals is
sucktastic. It's got nothing to do with what the specific errors were.
> I mean, for example,
> if his deck differed from his decklist by say 3 more Delaying Tactics,
> because he prepared for a vote-heavy finals, even a game-loss is not
> enough and a kick in the teeth would be more appropriate. On the other
> hand, if he only mistook Spying and Scouting Mission or something, I
> wouldnt punish him at all.
Again: it's got nothing to do with what the specific errors were, and
everything to do with how the judge(s) chose to implement decklist
checking.
> is it really so hard to follow the SPIRIT, not just the wording of the
> rules?
Apparently, it was.
John Eno
Kushiel
> I agree, there is a difference between writing "3 Faceless Night, 2
> Cloak the Gathering" and having 2 Faceless Night and 3 Cloak the
> Gathering int he deck (or write "3 Facless Night, 2 Cloak the
> Catering"). Or suddenly having 4 Entracement in the deck when
> deckchecked before the final, when there was only 2 Entrancement in
> the decklist, and *ooops* there are three ally-based decks in the
> final.
No, there's not.
If the judge(s) had implemented decklist checking in a fairer manner,
they would have caught the totally theoretical cheater you're
referring to here, and two players wouldn't have been kicked out of
the finals for clerical mistakes.
> If the tournament rules really are this insane, I suggest they are
> rewritten. I would go f********* if I got a game loss in a final due
> to a typo.
Totally agreed. That's what I was referring to as being incredibly
crappy.
> (As a side note: At this weekends swedish ECQ there was no deckchecks,
> and this was ANNOUNCED prior to the tournament. Very weird, but surely
> better than ejecting somebody just because of him being bad at
> spelling or counting his cards.)
Good for them!
John Eno
as...@hotmail.com
> Jozsef was missing a Coven from his deck that was on the decklist, and
> had two Life in the Cities that weren't. As I understood it, the former
> wouldn't have been reason to GL him (cards that change control are bound
> to get lost every now and then), and later the card was found mingled in
> someone elses deck. He was DQ-ed based on the missing registration of
> the Lifes.
>
> Gyula was missing a Reunion Kamut from his deck (compared to the decklist),
> and was GL-ed based on this.
And this judge is alive today?
gu...@postmaster.co.uk
> But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no
> intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical
> error.
Agree. Some people will write the deck lists in very late (like night
before tournament) and occasionally in very tired or even drunken
state. They shouldn't be overly punished for minor mistakes. Even in
big tournaments, nobody should be right away DQed because of missing
cards like Haven uncovered or Disarm.
In recent EC's side tournament, one finalist was DQed because of
mistake in the deck list. I don't know what was wrong with the deck,
but deck lists for finalists were gathered after three preliminary
rounds. At that point, all the finalists could have changed most of
their decks and wrote the changes to deck lists. In this kind of case,
it is difficult for judges to prove even actual cheating (like adding
2 Fear of Mekhets).
Let the people play the game. Feed the real cheaters to Setites.
Ector
Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here,
since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and
their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic
several years ago. Looks like they didn't change at all since the
times when V:TES was a game of Wizards.
Actually, the penalties' meaning is quite different, though. In Magic,
typical tournament is 4-6 Swiss rounds, and each round can have up to
3 games, so the term "Game Loss" is much less a penalty than in VTES.
The VTES "Game Loss" is closer to the Magic "Match Loss", but as long
as we're playing only 3 rounds, it's even more harsh.
Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this
case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. When a
player writes "Scouting Mission" instead of "Spying Mission", and
there is no Dominate in his deck, this is a clerical error. If a
player wrote 11 Giant's Blood (instead of 1), it's a clerical error.
If some cards are missing, it isn't.
The decklist is the most important document of a player. Its existence
should force players to forget about the "last changes" made upon the
deck scouting, the "sideboarding" and similar things. A good judge
should make deckchecks at least sometimes, and the tournament rules
recommend the judge to check the legality of all decklists during the
first round - at least, you can check number of cards (60-90), number
of vampires (12+) and existence of banned cards. You can also notice
the most obvious clerical errors (like the mentioned 11 Giant's
Bloods). You can also ask your players to count and write the number
of cards in their libraries, and then check whether your number
correspond to theirs or not.
The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the
deck all the time. It's like a passport or driving license. A document
issued to Adam Baker will not work if you are Adam Maker - so why a
decklist with 6 Governs should work for a person with 5 Governs? You
may wonder why the penalty for Illegal Deck and Illegal Decklist is so
harsh, but I don't. Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line"
against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a
legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to
the decklist. Yes, some cards like Haven Uncovered are usually played
on the other player's minions, so they can be lost - but, again, each
player is responsible for collecting them after each game. No excuses
here! After all, in Magic cards are often moved between the main deck
and the sideboard, but the penalty for "Procedural Error: Failure to
De-Sideboard" is still the same - Game Loss.
Considering that Game Loss in VTES means much more than in Magic, I
wouldn't probably issue it in a small tournament, but ECQ with 53
players is not a small tournament! In Magic terms, it should be REL 3
or 4 (REL stands for Rules Enforcement Level). Current Magic Penalty
Guidelines recommend to issua a GL for Illegal Decklist and Illegal
Deck at all RELs, but a few years ago they recommended Match Loss at
higher RELs, which is close enough to the GL in VTES. I've issued such
Match Loss at the Russian Nationals to a player with 59 cards in his
decklist. Yes, I know that Magic is a different game, but who said
that VTES players should not be as organized as Magic players are?
All that said, a judge should do his best to discover deck problems
BEFORE finals. Check all decklists during the first round - I've
found countless errors during such checks. Make the deckchecks. A good
way is asking all players to count their cards at the beginning of
round 2 and compare the values with your results during the decklist
checking. You should examine the decks with differences immediately,
and so on. But if the problem was encountered only prior to the final
round, a judge really should issue Game Loss.
On Apr 10, 3:57 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:59 am, "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, that's really a good point. On the other hand is it really that
> > difficult to write a correct list? You just have to order similar
> > cards together and write their number on a paper.
>
> Sure. It isn't that difficult to write a correct list. But you also
> can lose cards, accidentally leave cards in your box, leave a Haven
> Uncovered on someone, write "scouting mission" as opposed to "spying
> mission", or whatever. Or just change your deck at the last second and
> forget to adjust the list.
In all these cases you DESERVE a Game Loss, at least at the large
tournament. Check your decklist twice prior to passing it to the
judge, make sure that your deck corresponds to your decklist, count
the number of cards after each round. Not difficult at all.
> > Checking ALL decklists before first round is not manageable. Maybe the
> > best solution is to play without decklists at all.
>
> It probably is. I have never in my life been to a tournament that
> required deck lists. Ever. In playing competetive VTES for, like, 12
> years. Anywhere. And never have I felt as if my opponents were going
> to cheat as a result.
I guess that stakes weren't high enough for cheating, eh? :) I'm also
quite sure that many persons *willing* to cheat with their decks could
remain uncatched in these 10 years. Playing without decklist is like a
country without any documents! This is typical for the anarchic and
criminal countries.
>
> I know this has come up before (again and again), but do folks really
> think that there are so many people out there who are going to change
> their decks mid tournament that deck lists are helpful? And even if
> they think they are helpful:
>
> A) People can be DQed for clerical errors.
Missing cards are NOT clerical errors. It's too easy to cheat with
"forgetting" Fear of Mekhet, for instance, if you don't expect IC/
Justicars in the next round. So, the recommended penalty is GL, which
is right.
Once I've issued a GL to my friend's wife - she wrote "22 Lands"
instead of "22 Mountains" in her decklist. Though both my friend and
his wife later pretended that it was a clerical error, actually it
wasn't: with "22 Lands" in your decklist you can put ANY lands in your
deck, which is a way to the potential cheating. Writing "Scouting
Mission" instead of "Spying Mission" IS a clerical error, if it's
obvious that Scouting Mission cannot be in that deck.
> B) If folks know that they only are going to get checked if they get
> into the finals, what is to stop them from changing their decks until
> they get in the finals, and then changing it back?
Surely, a good judge should try to discover the possible problems
ASAP. And he should inform the players that he can make a deckcheck in
EACH round.
> C) Folks can cheat in many, many other ways that have nothing at all
> to do with deck changing. If you are so worried about cheating, how do
> you stop folks from other forms of cheating? Why laser focus on this
> one, yet not, like, force everyone to count their opponent's pool at
> the start of each game or make sure a judge observes whenever someone
> moves their pool when they are bled?
>
Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are
going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge. First time the
judge may believe that it was unintentional, second time he will DQ
the cheater.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
>
> In any case, yeah, someone might try and change decks in the
> tournament in the face of softer penalties. But in all likelyhood,
> most people won't. 'Cause it is stupid to cheat, and most folks just
> aren't going to do so. And if someone is inclined to cheat, if you
> stop them from cheating by checking to see if they changed their
> decks, they'll just cheat in some other way that you can't so easily
> prevent. But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no
> intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical
> error. Why is that worth it?
most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes. Make crimes more
easy, and you will get more criminals, since getting money (or VPs)
with crimes is much easier than without them.
Please, don't consider the judges (and VEKN Officials that issued the
Penalty Guidelines) stupid. A badge "we are armed" is intended to
frighten possible criminals, as well as the judge's warning: "I will
make deckchecks, and everyone having illegal deck or decklist can get
a Game Loss". And it really works: people learn to write their
decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their
decklists.
>
> People aren't more likely to cheat in a large tournament if
> they aren't likely to cheat in a small tournament. 'Cause cheating is
> stupid, and most folks just aren't going to do it. And the ones that
> are willing to cheat at all will find a way to cheat, even with deck
> checks and all.
Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway,
let's make his life easier? :)
There are ALWAYS some people that want the victory too much. Sometimes
they even don't realize that they cheat. I had several such players.
> > If you go to an important event you know you have to have a decklist with you, > which has to be 100% right.
>
> And if you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut in your card box when
> you pull your deck out to start the tournament and never notice? Is it
> acceptable to be DQed from the finals for such an incredibly minor and
> inconsequental infraction?
>
If you accidentally leave a Reunion Kamut, you will get GL. If not
accidentally, DQ. Adopt the shuffling that should allow you to count
cards at the time (dividing to 6 piles, for instance), and you will
immediately notice the decreased number. You MUST play the whole
tournament with the same deck. Failure is really a big enough "crime"
for a GL.
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here,
> since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and
> their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic
> several years ago.
Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I
mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself?
> Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this
> case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error.
That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after
a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like
"Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of
y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I
accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn
in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I
intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss
penalty?
> If some cards are missing, it isn't.
Again. Happens all the time. Either accidentally left a card in the deck
box. Or I diablerized a vampire with a Magnum and accidentally left the
gun in my deck last game--both me and the other guy are now playing with
illegal decks. Should we be given a game loss of a judge discovers this
before we do?
> The decklist is the most important document of a player.
Well, assuming there is a deck list in the first place. As noted, I have
never been at a VTES tournament in my life that required a deck list.
Ever. Anywhere in the US. At any size tournament, from 5 players to 50+
players. And have never felt that one was necessary. And never felt that
somehow my opponents were going to cheat as a result. Or have felt that
*I* was going to cheat as a result. It is very possible that, as Gregory
mentioned above, that it is a cultural difference that will never result
in folks from the US and folks from Europe seeing eye to eye on this
issue. But maybe not.
> The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the
> deck all the time.
Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many
people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so
desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth
punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to
hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous?
> You may wonder why the penalty for Illegal Deck and Illegal Decklist is so
> harsh, but I don't.
No, I wonder why anyone cares in the first place.
> Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line"
> against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a
> legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to
> the decklist.
And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked
cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the
game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are
bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt?
I don't want you to actually answer any of these. I just want you to
realize that if someone is intent on cheating, they are going to find a
way to cheat, deck list or card sleeve or whatever. So why assume that
*everyone* is trying to cheat all the time and make the 98% of players
who have no intention of cheating jump through stupid hoops to try and
catch the 2% of players who are probably going to find a way to cheat
anyway?
> In all these cases you DESERVE a Game Loss, at least at the large
> tournament. Check your decklist twice prior to passing it to the
> judge, make sure that your deck corresponds to your decklist, count
> the number of cards after each round. Not difficult at all.
It is also not difficult at all to run a tournament with no deck lists
and no deck checks at all. I go to them all the time. And never feel the
need to cheat. Nor do I feel the fear that my opponents are cheating.
And the tournaments work just fine.
> Playing without decklist is like a country without any documents!
> This is typical for the anarchic and criminal countries.
Remember where I called your thinking "crack addled"? Yeah, that again.
> Missing cards are NOT clerical errors. It's too easy to cheat with
> "forgetting" Fear of Mekhet, for instance, if you don't expect IC/
> Justicars in the next round. So, the recommended penalty is GL, which
> is right.
I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them.
Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast,
vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once
and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no
amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating.
> Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are
> going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge.
No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or
accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on
your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks
engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny
minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification,
they'll just cheat in some other fashion.
Ector
> In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here,
> > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and
> > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic
> > several years ago.
>
> Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I
> mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself?
the similarity himself. The philosophy of the penalties is completely
the same. The only difference is meaning of GL, but I've already
mentioned it.
> > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this
> > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error.
>
> That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after
> a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like
> "Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of
> y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I
> accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn
> in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I
> intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss
> penalty?
If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if
you forget your card in another player's library. If you ride too
fast, will you create a accident? Not necessarily, but the police
officer will make you pay for the POTENTIAL accident. Absolutely the
same thing here. Though I admit that GL may be too harsh for some
cases, it may be appropriate at the large tournaments.
>
> Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many
> people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so
> desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth
> punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to
> hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous?
I know some players that are really "that desperate to win". Aren't we
all playing to win?
Nobody talks about "punishing 98% of the players" - it's just adopting
the serious attitude to your deck and your decklist. Even the young
Magic players quickly learn that these things are very important, and
I cannot see why VTES players cannot do the same.
>
> > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line"
> > against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a
> > legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to
> > the decklist.
>
> And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked
> cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the
> game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are
> bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt?
Marked cards: other players will eventually report this.
31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this
is nearly impossible here.
Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the
other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during
shuffling.
Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool
there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched.
Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the
obvious attempts to the judge.
And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals
will always find a way to do their crimes :)
>
> I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them.
> Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast,
> vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once
> and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no
> amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating.
Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking
really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic.
> > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are
> > going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge.
>
> No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or
> accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on
> your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks
> engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny
> minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification,
> they'll just cheat in some other fashion.
And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. Everyone
can do it once or twice, but he will eventually be catched if he will
continue. The same thing with cheating in any CCG.
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> This is a completely faulty logic. Make crimes more difficult, and
> most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes. Make crimes more
> easy, and you will get more criminals, since getting money (or VPs)
> with crimes is much easier than without them.
We aren't talking about *crime*, we are talking about potential cheating
in a recreational card game. As it is highly likely that the vast
majority of players simply neither have the inclination or intention of
cheating, why assume that they do?
> Please, don't consider the judges (and VEKN Officials that issued the
> Penalty Guidelines) stupid.
I don't consider judges stupid. I consider draconian rules that exist to
treat all players as cheaters, as opposed to treating all players as not
cheaters, stupid.
> And it really works: people learn to write their
> decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their
> decklists.
And playing without any deck lists at all really works too. And doesn't
automatically presume that your player base is unscrupulous to begin
with, as it isn't really necessary.
> Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway,
> let's make his life easier? :)
Again, not talking about crime. And sure, you can invent all the ways in
the world to make a cheater's life harder. But why saddle all the honest
players (who are easily the vast majority of players) with extra hoops
to jump through when it isn't really necessary?
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if
> you forget your card in another player's library.
But the high likelyhood is that I am not cheating. Why assume that I am?
> Marked cards: other players will eventually report this.
You saw the part where I specifically said I didn't want you to actually
answer those questions, right?
> And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really.
Sure. And yet still, the vast majority of people in the world aren't
stealing stuff from the shop. Or whatever. Most folks don't cheat at
VTES. Even if they aren't afraid of being caught. It isn't the fear of
punishment that keeps people from cheating at cards. It is that they
aren't inclined to do so in the first place. 'Cause it is stupid to
cheat at cards.
It is likely that this discussion is bound to veer way off course into
the inherent nature of man or some such foolishness. But I am really
beginning to buy completely into Gregory's theory that this is simply a
cultural issue (i.e. in the US, folks are socialized to inherrently
think others are on the up and up unless they prove otherwise, where in
other cultures, folks may be socialized to inherrently think folks are
criminals unless they prove otherwise) that isn't likely to be resolved.
Kushiel
> On Apr 11, 2:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself?
>
> To get beat for what?
I'll volunteer for this.
This isn't the Magic newsgroup, Ector. Stop talking about the wrong
fucking game. It makes you look like a moron.
In case that wasn't clear enough:
Do not bring up Magic on this newsgroup. There's got to be at least
one other newsgroup out there on which you can talk about Magic if you
want to. This newsgroup isn't the place for it.
John Eno
Ector
(in this thread), but the sense will remain the same. Absolutely the
same. I just wanted to explain the philosophy of these penalties in
detail.
Each sport game has its rules, and players must obey the rules. It's
really sad to know that VTES players are so badly organized and
trained - and they are mostly mature men and women! Thus, training
them is the local judge's responsibility. I always require the
decklists from my players, and nobody even complains about that - even
the most anarchic "roleplayers". Rules are not stupid, and if everyone
will follow them, no problems will arise.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> In article <1176246929.697115.111...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> We aren't talking about *crime*, we are talking about potential cheating
> in a recreational card game. As it is highly likely that the vast
> majority of players simply neither have the inclination or intention of
> cheating, why assume that they do?
WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"??? When it
comes to the ECQ level, it's a sport game. No "recreation" at this
level, but a fierce competition. That's why rules enforcement must be
stronger at such events, and that's why GL is appropriate here.
Besides, I don't consider VTES a "recreational" game at ANY level. It
isn't Munchkin. And I like it for being a wonderful sport game.
>
> I don't consider judges stupid. I consider draconian rules that exist to
> treat all players as cheaters, as opposed to treating all players as not
> cheaters, stupid.
When you go to the supermarket, you can see the security man
(detective or such) that should consider the possibility of stealing
of you. Everyone knows that he exists, and everyone knows the
punishment for stealing - and that actually prevents a lot of crimes.
When you go to the tournament, everyone knows that the judge exists,
and he must consider the possibility of cheating. It's his job.
Everyone knows the rules, so avoiding the penalties isn't very
difficult.
> > And it really works: people learn to write their
> > decklists carefully and make sure that their decks correspond to their
> > decklists.
>
> And playing without any deck lists at all really works too. And doesn't
> automatically presume that your player base is unscrupulous to begin
> with, as it isn't really necessary.
Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make the
players more serious and more responsible. They make judging much
easier. And, yes, they also help to prevent possible cheating AND
unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for
instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's
decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament.
> > Aha! As long as the criminal would find a way to do his crimes anyway,
> > let's make his life easier? :)
>
> Again, not talking about crime. And sure, you can invent all the ways in
> the world to make a cheater's life harder. But why saddle all the honest
> players (who are easily the vast majority of players) with extra hoops
> to jump through when it isn't really necessary?
>
Actually, those "hoops" HELP those players most of the time. If all
players will train to ALWAYS count their cards and ALWAYS check their
deck & decklist before registering, they will avoid such problems as
"leaving the Coven", "forgetting about Fear of Mekhet" and so on. If
you don't cheat, you will want to play the same deck in all rounds. So
do it, very carefully, and you will never get any penalties.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> In article <1176248552.828279.21...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if
> > you forget your card in another player's library.
>
> But the high likelyhood is that I am not cheating. Why assume that I am?
of cheating of any player. He doesn't have to talk about this, sure,
but he must think about this. And in any case like this, he should
think according to the following pattern:
1). Do I believe that player cheated? If yes, DQ him.
2). Do I believe that player's improper behaviour could possibly lead
to the cheating (or can be a well-masked cheating)? If yes (and in
most cases it's so), apply the recommended penalty (GL in this case).
3). If the player's behaviour could not possibly lead to the cheating,
a small penalty should be issued (warning, for instance). This is a
niche of "clerical errors" and similar things.
>
> > And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really.
>
> Sure. And yet still, the vast majority of people in the world aren't
> stealing stuff from the shop. Or whatever. Most folks don't cheat at
> VTES. Even if they aren't afraid of being caught. It isn't the fear of
> punishment that keeps people from cheating at cards. It is that they
> aren't inclined to do so in the first place. 'Cause it is stupid to
> cheat at cards.
>
And it's stupid to steal in shops. But there are still people who do
this. And there are security men who must prevent such behaviour, even
in USA. Isn't it stupid to blow up airplanes? But some people do it,
and there are guardians to prevent this.
As well, I cannot believe that all VTES players are angels that are
genetically incapable of cheating, and there are judges to prevent
such behaviour. Nothing to complain about, they just do their job. And
if you try to go onto the airplane with your old trusted .44 Magnum,
you are going to have serious problems - as well as if you try to play
an incomplete deck in VTES tournament. You know the rules, you know
their sense, and obeying them isn't that difficult.
Yours,
Ector
James Coupe
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes:
>As you wish. You may simply skip all references to Magic in my posts
>(in this thread), but the sense will remain the same. Absolutely the
>same. I just wanted to explain the philosophy of these penalties in
>detail.
So long as you keep trying to force V:TES to fit your Magic experience,
no, the sense won't remain.
Just as you got many things about rewinding V:TES wrong because you
tried to force it into a Magic-shaped box, you'll get vast numbers of
things about when and how to penalise players for potential cheating
wrong if you try to treat V:TES as though it were Magic.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
gab...@gmail.com
Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot
to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not
corrected his list.
Jozsef had a hangover when wrote his list.
Sure they are not cheated, but this is a sensitive issue here...
It has a past, almost since the first EC finals... where some of the
finalist had a wrong decklist too.
So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As
somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they
got that, and not a DQ.
But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
Gabor Balazs
VEKN Prince of Budapest
Salem
> My main concern is that if you accept a certain type of deviation
> (remember,
> issuing anything below GL has no effect once in the finals), then
> you are
> basically tolerating/encouraging people to commit those deviations.
> Saying
> that "up to 3 cards difference is only a Warning" is more or less
> equal to
> saying "you can change 3 cards for the final".
Or you make sure they've submitted their decklists _before_ round 1.
and then not only issue a tracked warning, but make them correct their
deck to match their list, as required.
Then they haven't gotten their free "3 card swap" for the final (as you
undo their swaps), plus they get a warning.
And, as always, if as a judge you judge them to be cheating rather than
making a clerical error (you know, using your judgement), you can still
issue a GL or DQ if you want.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem
> Decklist error alone != cheating, as you've made clear by your two
> examples above.
>
> Decklist error, plus other evidence may = cheating.
I agree. My apologies for not stating _why_ i thought the judge was
issuing a DQ in my second example.
I indeed meant to illustrate the difference between a decklist error,
and someone who was cheating, that was found out through checking the
deck list.
Ector
>
> Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot
> to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not
> corrected his list.
This is an unbelievable sloppiness of him. Does he know the rules ("If
the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the
deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to
reflect the decklist.") or not? I guess not. Should the judge perform
a deckcheck in round 1 and discover the difference, he would play the
rest rounds without the Heart, even if the judge would spare him and
not issue GL. You need to train your players better!
> So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As
> somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they
> got that, and not a DQ.
The judge did his job as it's recommended in the VEKN Judges'
Guidelines. No need for excuses here.
> But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
> the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
WHAT??? I cannot believe my eyes. Do I really read these words???
Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments,
even small ones. You should make your players got accustomed to
filling them correctly, and you will never have such problems again.
You have to make the regular deckchecks to enforce the discipline and
organization.
You should check all decklists during the first round to find the most
obvious bugs ASAP. If you have no time or staff to perform deckchecks,
try counting the number if cards during that first round checking and
ask your players to count cards in their prey's libraries at the
beginning of round 2. This will minimize the chances of encountering
the problem before the finals.
No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO.
Yours,
Ector
LSJ
> On Apr 11, 10:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Well, Gyula had a Heart of Nitzchetus in his deck too, that he forgot
>> to write to his decklist - he traded that on that morning, but did not
>> corrected his list.
> This is an unbelievable sloppiness of him. Does he know the rules ("If
> the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the
> deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to
> reflect the decklist.") or not? I guess not. Should the judge perform
> a deckcheck in round 1 and discover the difference, he would play the
> rest rounds without the Heart, even if the judge would spare him and
> not issue GL. You need to train your players better!
>
>> So this solution could be the only one what the rules allowed. As
>> somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they
>> got that, and not a DQ.
> The judge did his job as it's recommended in the VEKN Judges'
> Guidelines. No need for excuses here.
>
>> But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
>> the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
> WHAT??? I cannot believe my eyes. Do I really read these words???
>
> Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments,
> even small ones.
Not true.
VEKN rules: "may"
If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks
be checked "each round".
> No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO.
Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists.
Ector
> > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments,
> > even small ones.
>
> Not true.
>
> VEKN rules: "may"
>
> If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks
> be checked "each round".
OK, they may not be actually recommended, but, IMHO, they should be
recommended, as they're recommended in Magic. Judging a tournament
without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the
decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you
agree?
> > No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO.
>
> Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists.
Maybe. But if we aren't talking about sport, then we should also
forget about judges and penalties, right? :)
Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as
a "recreation game".
Yours,
Ector
Jon
IMHO a card game cannot be considered a sport. VTES is a game. It is a
fun, serious competitive game at times, but still it's a game. Then
again, I've always had trouble with golf being considered a sport as
well...go ahead flame away :) I consider both to be enjoyable games of
skill, but if the activity itself isn't enough physical exertion to
make you sweat (playing cards without air-conditioning in the summer
doesn't count) then it really can't be considered a sport.
Now to get back on topic for a second; I do agree that rules exist for
a reason and dislike playing with people that intentionally disregard
the rules (especially play to win). I have no problem making a
decklist if it is required for a tournament, but I do not agree that
it is a prerequisite for a serious game of VTES. But if decklists are
going to be used to verify deck contents I think it could be done in a
better manner than only checking decks prior to the finals. If
decklist checks are going to be done, have it as part of the
registration process. Check all decks when the decklist is turned in.
Then do a few random (or targeted if you suspect deck changing) checks
(whatever time permits) at the beginning of each round. This way you
can catch the accidents and clerical errors up front instead of
kicking people out of the finals and you also show that you are
serious about people not changing decks during the tournament if that
happens to concern your playgroup.
jon
LSJ
> On Apr 11, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps, but a CCG can be a serious CCG (emphasis on G) without mandating decklists.
> Maybe. But if we aren't talking about sport, then we should also
> forget about judges and penalties, right? :)
No.
> Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as
> a "recreation game".
"sport game", cute.
I agree.
Not mandating decklists is compatible with that.
Peter D Bakija
> WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"???
Yep, 'cause that is what it is. One that folks take seriously, which
is fine, but it is still a recreational past-time.
> When it comes to the ECQ level, it's a sport game. No "recreation" at this
> level, but a fierce competition.
Fierce competiton is fine. Just because it is firece competition
doesn't mean that folks are more likely to cheat if they aren't
inclined to cheat otherwise. Again, I have been to many, many
qualifier tournaments. And none of them had deck lists or deck checks.
And I suspect that no one took this as liscence to cheat.
> Besides, I don't consider VTES a "recreational" game at ANY level. It
> isn't Munchkin. And I like it for being a wonderful sport game.
That's you. When Bridge becomes an Olympic sport, you might have an
argument. But till then, not so much.
> When you go to the supermarket, you can see the security man
> (detective or such) that should consider the possibility of stealing
> of you.
I don't shop in supermarkets that have security men or detectives.
> Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make the
> players more serious and more responsible.
No they don't. I go to plenty of tournaments with plenty of serious
responsible players. Who don't provide deck lists.
> They make judging much easier.
I judge plenty of tournaments, and never once have I felt that having
a deck list would have made my life easier. Many times, I have felt
that having a deck list would make my life as a judge harder.
> And, yes, they also help to prevent possible cheating AND
> unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for
> instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's
> decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament.
'Cause someone is going to play Tragic Love Affair?
> Actually, those "hoops" HELP those players most of the time.
If you want to look at the world like this, go ahead. It strikes me as
bordering on insanity, but that is me.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> And it's stupid to steal in shops. But there are still people who do
> this. And there are security men who must prevent such behaviour, even
> in USA. Isn't it stupid to blow up airplanes? But some people do it,
> and there are guardians to prevent this.
And this is where the discussion stops being sane. Yes. People commit
crime. But do you arrest everyone, put them all in jail, and then make
them prove they are innocent to get out of jail?
> As well, I cannot believe that all VTES players are angels that are
> genetically incapable of cheating, and there are judges to prevent
> such behaviour.
I don't think all VTES players are angels that are genetically
incapable of cheating. But I do think that the vast majority of
players are not inclined to cheat, and so it is foolish to impliment
draconian measures to stop a small minority of players from cheating
when the vast majority of players are not planning on cheating in the
first place.
Peter D Bakija
> But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
> the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
It can't hurt to try it out--again, I'm yet to hear of any tournament
in the US using deck lists (it seems likely that some have happened,
but not such that anyone notices), and they always work out fine. Have
a big qualifier or something, don't have deck lists, and see what
happens. If it turns out to result in ramapant cheating, then require
deck lists next time. If not, try it again.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> You need to train your players better!
See, this here is indicating a significant (and recurring) error in
your judgement. Players are not to be "trained", as they are cognizant
grownups (assuming 18+) who are going to do what they are going to do.
Judges are not at tournament to "train" people. They are there to
facilitate an event and make sure it runs well.
> Look, decklists are needed.
Except that tournaments run all over the world, all the time, without
decklists. And they run fine. And likely have no more cheating than
they would if deck lists were required. So to state that they are
"needed" is a wild overstatement.
> No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO.
Fair enough. Luckily, VTES isn't a serious sport then. It is a game.
People take it seriously, which is good. But it is a recreational game
none the less.
-Peter
atomweaver
news:1176288182....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 11, 1:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all
>> > tournaments, even small ones.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>> VEKN rules: "may"
>>
>> If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number"
>> of decks be checked "each round".
> OK, they may not be actually recommended, but, IMHO, they should be
> recommended, as they're recommended in Magic.
I've got tremendous issues with a comment like _that_... for obvious
reasons
> Judging a tournament
> without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the
> decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you
> agree?
>
Indeed, I do not. As a means of preventing cheating, decklists are sketchy
and inconsistent. As this latest example illustrates, the over-
penalization of clerical errors is the more common result of the current
way decklist checks are being implemented. A vastly better preventative
measure against cheating would be to have an "impound" for all decks
between rounds. How can
Tell me, what other "highly competitive sport game" would disqualify its
best participants from the finals of a tournament (specifically after
allowing them to participate in the bulk of the event), on the basis of
errors on their admission form?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Peter D Bakija
> Judging a tournament
> without decklists is much more difficult than judging it with the
> decklists, and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you
> agree?
I don't agree, no.
A) Requiring deck lists is an imposition upon players, and is not at
all unlikely to chase the less committed players away. And makes the
judges life more difficult, in that he needs to collect deck lists and
check them regularly.
B) Deck lists and deck checks certainly make changing your deck
between rounds easier, but as that doesn't actually help you that much
(you have played in a VTES tournament, right? You realize that you
don't know what kind of deck you are going to be sitting next to till
you sit down, correct? And as such, "sideboarding" or "cheating" by
changing your deck isn't really likely to help you in any given
situation, right?) the advantage to doing so is incredibly minimal.
And it is still easy to cheat in a myriad of other ways that aren't
prevented by deck lists. If someone really wants to cheat, they are
gonna cheat. But luckily, the vast majority of folks playing in a VTES
tournament aren't gonna cheat in the first place.
> Personally I like VTES as a highly competitive sport game, not just as
> a "recreation game".
I like VTES as a highly competetive game too. But that doesn't mean I
think deck lists are necessary at tournaments.
-Peter
James Coupe
Oh, the irony.
>Look, decklists are needed.
The vast number of tournaments that survive happily without them
suggests that they're not necessary everywhere.
They can also cause significant complications in a number of situations
- multi-judge tournaments, for example, may leave some players feeling
that the game is spoiled when a judge-player knows the exact contents of
their deck.[0] In a multi-deck tournament, for small numbers of
players, one thing that some players like to do is tweak the deck
they're playing in between rounds: "Oh, I wonder what this deck would
look like if I took these ten cards out, and put these ten in." If you
want decklists for such a tournament (posterity, say), some players will
be in the situation of having to scribble in between rounds, which is
quite the worst time to have them do this.
Additionally, not every tournament can even cope with decklists and deck
checking properly. Having judged quite a number of reasonably large
tournaments as the only judge, 3 rounds + final can take a LONG time to
play. It's 8 hours, plus probably another half hour to an hour of faff
in between rounds (allowing players who timed out to go and get a drink
or have a toilet break, if nothing else), and registration at the start
adds extra time too. Adding a check of more than a very small number of
decks can cause vast, vast problems in terms of time - and more time is
not something V:TES wants to take.
What is actually needed is people who understand that V:TES is V:TES,
and not Magic.
>No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists, IMHO.
V:TES isn't a sport. Never has been, never will be.
[0] Even if you take steps to try to prevent this happening - such as
trying to make sure from the seating plans that Judge A will never sit
at the same table as Player Z, so they inspect the deck - this can still
happen. For example, drops may force a change of table layout, and the
two players may, of course, find themselves in the final together.
XZealot
> On Apr 11, 2:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> In article <1176245123.862196.205...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > > Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here,
> > > since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and
> > > their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic
> > > several years ago.
>
> > Sigh. You realize that you are going to get beat on for this, right? I
> > mean, not by me, but by someone. Why invite this on yourself?
>
> To get beat for what? Everybody can compare the rules and understand
> the similarity himself. The philosophy of the penalties is completely
> the same. The only difference is meaning of GL, but I've already
> mentioned it.
You should get beaten for being completely unreasonable, as in outside
the realm of science and into the realm of alchemy. This is where you
have spontaneous transmuted the action of someone accidentally
scooping up the Coven, which happens to to float around the table,
into cheating. Unbelievable! Yet you will state here that you are
saving the world by doing so.
> > > Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this
> > > case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error.
>
> > That is an incredibly crack addled viewpoint. On a regular basis, after
> > a game, I'll be shuffling my deck, count the cards, and I'll be like
> > "Huh. Why am I at 89 cards? Did I leave a Haven Uncovered on one of
> > y'alls decks?" and after monkeying around a bit, I'll discover that I
> > accidentally left a card in my deck box. Happens all the time. If I turn
> > in a deck list, and accidentally leave a card in my deck box, am I
> > intentionally cheating? Am I doing something that justifies a game loss
> > penalty?
>
> If you forget a card in your box, you CAN be cheating. As well as if
> you forget your card in another player's library. If you ride too
> fast, will you create a accident? Not necessarily, but the police
> officer will make you pay for the POTENTIAL accident. Absolutely the
> same thing here. Though I admit that GL may be too harsh for some
> cases, it may be appropriate at the large tournaments.
My first inclination would be to say, "Are you SERIOUS?", but
apparently you are, which is borderline insane. I find cards in my
decks that aren't mine all the time, both in casual play and in
tournaments. Usually, I just announce "hey is <player X> missing
<card X> that I got last round when I <diablerized/graverobbed/took
control of>", then that person says, "Gee, thanks you're right". I
then hand them that card which they put back in their deck (shuffle
deck), I then draw another card. AMAZING!
> > Why? Why is this necessary? Really? Do you really envision that so many
> > people who are playing this game are so inspired to cheat or so
> > desperate to win or so lacking in any sense of ethics that it is worth
> > punishing the other 98% of the players in any given tournament just to
> > hinder one possible path of cheating for the unscrupulous?
>
> I know some players that are really "that desperate to win". Aren't we
> all playing to win?
> Nobody talks about "punishing 98% of the players" - it's just adopting
> the serious attitude to your deck and your decklist. Even the young
> Magic players quickly learn that these things are very important, and
> I cannot see why VTES players cannot do the same.
You've got to be kidding me! What color is the sky in your world,
Green or Purple?
> > > Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line"
> > > against possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing a
> > > legal decklist and starting each game with the deck corresponding to
> > > the decklist.
>
> > And what are you going to do to stop people from playing with marked
> > cards? Or shuffling to stack their deck? Or "accidentally" starting the
> > game with 31 pool? Or "accidentally" only removing 4 pool when they are
> > bled for 5? Or looking at their prey's hand? Or stacking their crypt?
>
> Marked cards: other players will eventually report this.
> 31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this
> is nearly impossible here.
> Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the
> other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during
> shuffling.
> Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool
> there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched.
> Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the
> obvious attempts to the judge.
> And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals
> will always find a way to do their crimes :)
Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do
not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games.
Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID.
> > I am baffled that people are this suspicious of the world around them.
> > Why is anyone going to do this? Or more pressingly, why would the vast,
> > vast majority of people playing this game do this? I accept that once
> > and a while, there is some tool who wants to cheat at VTES. And no
> > amount of deck checking is going to stop them from cheating.
>
> Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking
> really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic.
Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do
not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games.
Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID.
> > > Because it's much more difficult to cheat these ways. Players are
> > > going to notice such behaviour and report to the judge.
>
> > No it isn't. It is really easy to look at your prey's hand. Or
> > accidentally start the game with 31 pool. Or look at the bottom card on
> > your crypt. Or have marked cards. And it is really hard to notice folks
> > engaging in these particular activities. If you prevent the tiny
> > minority of players who intend on cheating from deck modification,
> > they'll just cheat in some other fashion.
>
> And it's really easy to steal something in the shop. Really. Everyone
> can do it once or twice, but he will eventually be catched if he will
> continue. The same thing with cheating in any CCG.
What sort of morons do you play with? Really....
Let me repeat again....
Crime != VTES. It can never be. Do not mention the two together. Do
not mention Magic and VTES. Do not use analogies from other games.
Doing so makes you look exceptionally stupid. No, No REALLY STUPID.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
James Coupe
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>On Apr 11, 1:57 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>> WHAT??? Why do you call VTES a "recreational card game"???
>> unneeded discussions. Should anybody play Tragic Love Affair, for
>> instance, a judge can easily determine was it really in the player's
>> decklist or not. And such question can easily arise at the tournament.
>
>'Cause someone is going to play Tragic Love Affair?
That, and it assumes that players intent on cheating will cheat in an
egregiously stupid manner.
"Hey, I just happen to have one of the hosers no-one plays in my deck
and my prey is hosed by it!"
The vast majority of V:TES players I've played with and judged are *not*
that stupid. Not even close.
atomweaver
news:1176276713.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Wait a minute. Lets be clear, please. The rules allow for a whole
spectrum of solutions (Verbal Warning, Formal Warning, Game Loss, Disqual,
Disqual without Prize) at the Judge's discretion, considering the specific
circumstances of the infraction. The fact that the 'default' penalty was
applied doesn't mean that other solutions were not available.
The EC finals is in no way a precedent for other, different circumstances
regarding decklist errors. From your description above (errors due to a
last minute change witnessed by others, and, ahem ;) a mind-set not
compatible with accurate clerical duties) it seems like a finals-GL was
frankly a bit excessive. But again, I don't blame the judge, I blame the
lack of guidelines in the rules...
> As
> somebody already guessed, game loss was the lesser penalty, so they
> got that, and not a DQ.
By your description above, its seems apparent that duplicity was not even
contemplated by either party. I'm not seeing why a Disqual was
contemplated even for a second, here. Again, I'll consider this more
evidence that clarification and additional written guidelines are
absolutely required in this section of the rules.
> But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
> the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
>
That's one option. Even without my crusade for change, simply a different
strategy for decklist checks could be sufficient. How's this for a
different definition of 'Reasonable' wrt decklist checks?
Decklist checks: Before each of the three preliminary rounds, 15% of the
field of players will be randomly selected for decklist checks. All errors
discovered will result in issuing a formal warning penalty, and the
correction of the deck's contents to reflect the decklist (assuming said
decklist is legal).
Before the finals, all finalist decks will be submitted to the Head
Judge. Decks will be checked against decklist contents, and if errors are
discovered, a formal warning will be issued, and the deck contents will be
corrected to reflect what is written in the decklist (assuming said
decklist is legal). [In the case of illegal decklists, the judge will use
his discretion to adjust contents to make a legal deck.*] The Head Judge
will set up the Finals table, once the players have chosen their seating
order. No player may make contact with his deck before being seated for
the start of the final round. An additional 5 minutes is allowed for
shuffling between seating and the start of the finals.
There. The above achieves Perfect prevention of cheating in the finals
through changes to deck contents. No one can cheat through card changes in
the finals (unless they try to so under the scrutiny of the Judge during
the 5 minute shuffling period), as they will know their decks will be
checked and adjusted to reflect the decklist submitted at the start of the
tourney. No clerical errors will result in someone not being able to play
either (unless they already had a multitude of warnings in the prelims),
although they will rightly be forced to play with a perhaps sub-optimal
deck.
[*] This part needs further work, I recognize... Consider the brackets a
place-holder for a better defined policy.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> Looks like my past Magic judging experience is going to help me here,
> since the relevant VEKN Tournament Rules and Penalty Guidelines (and
> their philosophy) are almost completely the same as they were in Magic
> several years ago. Looks like they didn't change at all since the
> times when V:TES was a game of Wizards.
> Actually, the penalties' meaning is quite different, though. In Magic,
> typical tournament is 4-6 Swiss rounds, and each round can have up to
> 3 games, so the term "Game Loss" is much less a penalty than in VTES.
> The VTES "Game Loss" is closer to the Magic "Match Loss", but as long
> as we're playing only 3 rounds, it's even more harsh.
>
Interesting. I'd propose yet another possible option; a formal
intermendiate penalty between Warning and Game Loss should be added to
the Judge's Guide, to provide added flexibility; Victory Point Loss, and
make that the default penalty for 102 Deck Error - Illegal Deck (legal
Decklist). 4-6 swiss rounds of 2-3 games yields in Magic yields a
potential number of Magic games roughly equivalent to the total number of
VPs a player could earn in 3 prelim rounds of a VTES tourney (about 13-
15).
> Nevertheless, I completely agree with the judge's decision in this
> case. Missing ANY cards from the deck is NOT a clerical error. When a
> player writes "Scouting Mission" instead of "Spying Mission", and
> there is no Dominate in his deck, this is a clerical error. If a
> player wrote 11 Giant's Blood (instead of 1), it's a clerical error.
> If some cards are missing, it isn't.
In fact, the second player listed one less Reunion Kamut than was present
in his (legal) deck. That is a clerical error.
>snip rest
There is, as others have said, a draconian attitude towards the
participation in Magic tournaments that I would like to see NOT encroach
upon the VTES tournament scene. The fact that VTES is a game involving
significant multi-player social interaction in part requires that the
environment be somewhat favorable to dialogue. Strict adaption of M:tG
style tournament enforcement taints that significantly.
Whats more, such heavy-handed measures in VTES with respect to deck
errors are less necessary, owing to the fact that individual cards play a
lesser role in the overall strength of a VTES deck vs. a Magic deck.
Better to steal freely what works from MtG, with a closer eye towards
what one needs to preserve to make VTES appealing and functional. The
simple fact that something works for MtG doesn't make it automatically
right for VTES.
DZ
AW
atomweaver
news:1176246929.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 10, 10:17 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> But in the mean time, the vast majority of folks who have no
>> intention of cheating, risk getting DQed 'cause of a stupid clerical
>> error. Why is that worth it?
> This is a completely faulty logic. Make crimes more difficult, and
> most potential criminals will refuse to do crimes.
Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists? You
can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing GLs or DQs.
Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and announce that
you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted list
before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter your deck's
contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!) play
with any errors present in their decklist.
DZ
AW
gpett...@gmail.com
> Ector wrote:
> > Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments,
> > even small ones.
>
> Not true.
>
> VEKN rules: "may"
>
> If they are used, the VEKN rules recommend that a "reasonable number" of decks
> be checked "each round".
In a 53-person tournament, is 0 a reasonable number?
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
wumpus
Ector wrote:
> Rules are not stupid, and if everyone
> will follow them, no problems will arise.
I just wanted to excerpt this out, as it 1) was a very frightening
attitude to me, and 2) really seems to encapsulate the clash of
culture - more effectively, I think, than the 'innocent until proven
guilty' (or not) framing.
The assertion appears to be 'No rule is (ever) stupid, and, further,
if we all follow rules unquestioningly, everyone will be better off.'
This is totalitarian thinking at its most essential; it raises the
stakes over the familiar (Western) cliche 'if you're not doing
anything wrong, you have nothing to hide', as it seeks to validate
authority to the highest degree possible. I find it fairly
astonishing that anyone, even or especially someone who has presumably
directly experienced life in a totalitarian state, would endorse this
line of argument.
On the actual subject of decklists: I guess I agree that decklists
shouldn't be such a hurdle, and are a reasonable check against
cheating. OTOH, they are clearly an inconvenience as well, and the
implementation of checking seems to leave something to be desired. It
is a tradeoff (rather analogous to the security checking now in force
at US airports - it inconveniences everyone, some very greatly, for
limited benefit). The real question is whether the inconvenience is
worth the benefit.
Alex
Daneel
wrote:
> Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists? You
> can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing GLs or
> DQs.
> Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and announce
> that
> you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted list
> before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter your
> deck's
> contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!) play
> with any errors present in their decklist.
Dave, you *do* realize that this way you would be only preventing specific
changes countering specific decks, and are giving the flexibility to have
a different deck for the Finals than the preliminary rounds?
Like, it happened for a while with the local metagame (and can still be the
case more or less) that Walls were disproportionally overrepresented in
the finals. You had like 10% of the players play Walls, but in the finals
you had typically 2 Walls (40%). Knowing this you might pack more bounce,
Delaying Tactics and Secure Haven against active decks for the preliminary
rounds, and revert to a more tap-out deck for the finals.
There is a possibility that no wall will make the finals, but chances are,
you will be better off playing a slightly different deck for the finals
in a mostly predictable way.
--
Regards,
Daneel
atomweaver
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:55:09 GMT, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Do you really want to stop cheating through changes to decklists?
>> You can be absolutely efficient in achieving this, without issuing
>> GLs or DQs.
>> Take in decklists at the start of the tourney, as normal, and
>> announce that
>> you will be adjusting each finalists deck to reflect their submitted
>> list before the finals begin. Ta-da!! it is now IMPOSSIBLE to alter
>> your deck's
>> contents for the finals, but some finalists may have to (rightly!)
>> play with any errors present in their decklist.
>
> Dave, you *do* realize that this way you would be only preventing
> specific
> changes countering specific decks, and are giving the flexibility to
> have a different deck for the Finals than the preliminary rounds?
>
There I go again, assuming that Judges have an ounce or two of sense,
Judgement, and discretion. :-) You're right, of course, it reverses the
cheating scenario from one of altering deck contents to accomodate known
opponents into altering decklist contents against an attempt at
predicting what will be present at the finals table. In that reveral,
though, you end up with cheating through guesswork, and that makes it an
unlikely method for smarter cheaters to take. As Peter is fond of
pointing out, there are a myriad of ways to cheat, I think since this
change leaves the cheating up to guesswork at what will be in the finals,
its still at least better than the current system...
> Like, it happened for a while with the local metagame (and can still
> be the
> case more or less) that Walls were disproportionally overrepresented
> in the finals. You had like 10% of the players play Walls, but in
> the finals you had typically 2 Walls (40%). Knowing this you might
> pack more bounce, Delaying Tactics and Secure Haven against active
> decks for the preliminary rounds, and revert to a more tap-out deck
> for the finals.
>
Yeah, I anticipated this in a "tidied up" post I just submitted before
seeing this post. The "gray areas" of variation against decklist content
needs to be better defined for Judges in general, that doesn't change
under this scenario, either, I suppose. Decklist manipulations like you
describe above should be caught and penalized for the cheating it is...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Salem
but what if it results in rampant cheating, but you don't notice,
because there weren't any decklists to check to help spot it?
--
salem
would rather hope it doesn't, though
Peter D Bakija
Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> but what if it results in rampant cheating, but you don't notice,
> because there weren't any decklists to check to help spot it?
Well, then you are no worse off than before--if there was going to be
rampant cheating, there will still be rampant cheating even if you got
deck lists.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
Kevin M.
> Look, decklists are needed. They are recommended at all tournaments,
> even small ones.
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
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
Kevin M.
> A badge "we are armed" is intended to frighten possible
> criminals, as well as the judge's warning: "I will make
> deckchecks, and everyone having illegal deck or decklist
> can get a Game Loss".
So your intent is to frighten players? I see.
Kevin M.
> Decklists bring several very important advantages. They make
> the players more serious and more responsible.
You have no evidence to prove this unsubstantiated claim.
> They make judging much easier.
You forgot to add "...for me."
> And, yes, they also help to prevent possible
> cheating AND unneeded discussions.
You have no evidence to prove this unsubstantiated claim, and you are a
weak judge if you actually believe that decklists help you to make
judgements.
Perhaps decklists *are* necessary for you, then.
Kevin M.
> Looks like my past Magic judging
> experience is going to help me here,
HINT: If you don't learn from past experiences, you are doomed to repeat
those errors.
> A good judge should make deckchecks at least sometimes,
> and the tournament rules recommend the judge to check the
> legality of all decklists during the first round [...]
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
> The decklist MUST be filled correctly and it MUST correspond to the
> deck all the time. It's like a passport or driving license.
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
> Decklist mechanism is "the primary defense line" against
> possible cheating, and everyone is responsible for providing
> a legal decklist [...]
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
> After all, in Magic [...]
You're repeating...
<sigh>
Kevin M.
> Even the young Magic players
You're repeating...
<sigh>
> Marked cards: other players will eventually report this.
> 31 pool: the same. We adopted filling the pool in the 5*6 box, so this
> is nearly impossible here.
> Stacking the deck/crypt: our players shuffle their decks, and the
> other players see them. They will report any unusual behaviour during
> shuffling.
> Removing less pool: The bleeding player usually knows how much pool
> there were. Nobody would cheat this way - too easy to get catched.
> Looking at prey's hand: Simply don't allow this, and report the
> obvious attempts to the judge.
> And so on. Don't try to say that police isn't needed since criminals
> will always find a way to do their crimes :)
So all players are criminals? I see.
> Everyone wants to win. Some people want it too much. And deck checking
> really reduces cheating attempts. At least, it worked in Magic.
You're repeating...
Kevin M.
You're repeating...
<sigh>
> Judging a tournament without decklists is much more
> difficult than judging it with the decklists,
No, it isn't, unless you are a weak judge and actually believe that
decklists help you to make judgements.
Perhaps decklists *are* necessary for you, then.
> and cheating without decklists is much easier. Don't you agree?
No, unless you are a weak judge and actually believe that decklists help
you to make judgements.
Kevin M.
> Nothing to complain about, they just do their job.
> You know the rules, you know their sense, and
> obeying them isn't that difficult.
And trying to imply that the VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules say that
decklists are forced by judges "just do[ing] their job" and that decklists
are "you know[ing] the rules,... obeying them isn't that difficult" makes
you a liar.
Kevin M.
> Each sport game has its rules, and players must obey the rules.
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
> It's really sad to know that VTES players are
> so badly organized and trained [...]
It's really sad to know that a liar like you can't learn from his past
errors and not repeat them.
> Thus, training them is the local judge's responsibility.
> Rules are not stupid, and if everyone
> will follow them, no problems will arise.
The VEKN Tournament Rules
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules do not say that
decklists are "recommended at all tournaments, even small ones."
You are a liar.
LSJ
Please stick to constructive comments.
ira...@gmail.com
> On Apr 11, 10:31 am, gabo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > But we were seriously thinking about to drop the decklist checking for
> > the next ECQ, or greater tournaments.
>
>
> Look, decklists are needed.
Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I
wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully:
1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly
strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is
more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and
are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging
in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience
creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES
judging.)
2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require
decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not
require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even
at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or
higher level than ECQ.)
In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is
not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide. Since I
consider LSJ to be the best VTES judge (by definition), I think it's
reasonable to follow his example.
Ira
Ector
>
> Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I
> wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully:
I've read in the other messages, but as long as your message is
civilized, it deserves an answer.
> 1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly
> strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is
> more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and
> are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging
> in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience
> creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES
> judging.)
Can you tell me how the good tournament organization and good self-
discipline (writing a decklist and ensuring that the deck is the same
in each round) prevent the game from being "more relaxed"? It's very
simple, and even my completely disorganized players (they tend to be
late for an hour or more, for instance) are already accustomed to
this.
>
> In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is
> not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide.
What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of
paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count
them? Moreover, my players often bring the printed decklists - aren't
we all using deckbuilding programs? And if the player decides to
change the deck at the last moment, he can fix the printed list in a
minute.
Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do
if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of
cards at the beginning of the round? My players just ask their
decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player
would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you
determine whose is the card without the decklists? Several players
could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and some
of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their decks.
> 2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require
> decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not
> require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even
> at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or
> higher level than ECQ.)
I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of
my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a
serious sport. When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that
only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional
players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But
LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? It's almost the
same as if the Pope would run the Easter events without the cross. At
least in my eyes.
No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. Holy shit, my 10-
years-old players filled the decklists without any complains! My
current VTES players fill them even at the tournaments with 10
players! D&D Miniatures tournaments require the proper warband sheets,
too! How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious
tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, but if LSJ
himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT anymore,
and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future.
This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's
Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was
supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore. A
Hungarian judge issued a penalty according to the rules, so why would
anyone complain about this? A good sportsman should think: "Those
players are obviously should train better to avoid being penalized for
such violation of the rules", but there are no good sportsmen here.
Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and
this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical
errors" and so on - instead of learning by example.
Please look at the current VEKN Judge's Guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------
102. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist)
Definition:
This penalty applies to tournaments in which decklists are being used.
This penalty applies to players who have misplaced cards from their
deck or have cards from a previous game in their deck.
<....skipped...>
**** The contents of the main deck do not match the decklist. ****
Philosophy:
The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist
indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not
match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the
decklist. If the judge can determine with complete confidence that the
deck/decklist discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player
is using an all Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed
on the decklist instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide
to fix the decklist instead. A warning should be issued in this case.
Penalty:
Game loss, and then be instructed to make any changes necessary to
make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist.
The changes must be complete before the next round begins for the
player to continue in the tournament.
------------------------------------------------------------
Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? It's absolutely
clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't
tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit.
It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? Why can
anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a
Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round? Careful
tracking of your deck is your RESPONSIBILITY as a player at serious
event. Failure to restore the deck to its original status (as stated
in the decklist) is a dangerous behaviour that's potentially
disruptive to the event, without even talking about the possible
cheating, and it MUST be penalized.
I can agree that GL may be too harsh penalty, but not at the highest-
level events like ECQ or Nationals where all participants are supposed
to be the best sportsmen available. And note that even without GL the
guilty player would be forced to restore the deck to reflect the
decklist. The rule also describes what is the "clerical error", and
what isn't. "Campground Hunting Ground" instead of "Zoo Hunting
Ground" is a clerical error, 6 Reunion Kamuts instead of 5 isn't.
According to the rule, extra RK should be removed from the deck EVEN
if the judge decides to issue a warning instead of GL.
I must also note that GL in the finals is still very, very different
from the DQ, since DQ should lead to the further investigation by VEKN
officials and the investigation usually leads to BANNING the guilty
player for some period of time.
Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players
(even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of
trying to change their playstyle. If the road police officer would
issue you a fine for driving too fast, would you try to change the
laws? Would you demand to remove the road policemen from the streets?
Or to take their radars away, so they couldn't measure your driving
speed? I guess not, since this would be extremely stupid. But players
actually DO assault the good judge for issuing the RIGHT penalty, they
are actually trying to change the rules, and they SERIOUSLY advice to
remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play
undetectable!!!
And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour. He is responsible to
protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty
talks. "The law is harsh, but it's the law". When the good judges
become subjects of such pressure, it's impossible to enforce the rules
anymore. But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without
decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody
considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost,
and nothing to do here for me.
Yours,
Ector
coincoi...@hotmail.com
> > Look, decklists are needed.
>
> Except that tournaments run all over the world, all the time, without
> decklists. And they run fine. And likely have no more cheating than
> they would if deck lists were required. So to state that they are
> "needed" is a wild overstatement.
If there are no decklists, you cannot be sure than there is no
cheating. All those tournaments might be full of players who change
their decks before the Finals.
If there is a decklist, you cannot know if a player who has a decklist
problem cheats or not, but you can be sure that a player whose deck
and decklist match each other doesn't change.
Jeroen
> I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of
> my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a
> serious sport.
duh...Serious sport. Laughable.
>When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that
> only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional
> players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But
> LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists??? It's almost the
> same as if the Pope would run the Easter events without the cross. At
> least in my eyes.
You need new eyes then...
> No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists. Holy shit, my 10-
> years-old players filled the decklists without any complains! My
> current VTES players fill them even at the tournaments with 10
> players! D&D Miniatures tournaments require the proper warband sheets,
> too! How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious
> tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination, but if LSJ
> himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT anymore,
> and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future.
Why don't you quit?
> This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's
> Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was
> supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore.
??? No, it was based on the ground rules of Magic tournements. Never
before has V:TES been a 'serious sport'
>A
> Hungarian judge issued a penalty according to the rules, so why would
> anyone complain about this? A good sportsman should think: "Those
> players are obviously should train better to avoid being penalized for
> such violation of the rules", but there are no good sportsmen here.
You're always asking people to be polite and now you're making group
attacks? Nice....
> Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and
> this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical
> errors" and so on - instead of learning by example.
Yes, because the Great Ector can read minds through the internet.
<snip>
> Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule? It's absolutely
> clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't
> tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit.
> It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it?
Because it doesn't address WHY deck lists are good for tourneys. And -
in most cases- a warning should suffice.
>Why can
> anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a
> Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round?
Because you can't control everything. Fr.ex: I played The Coven and
get ousted. Do I have to stay until the coven is removed from the
game? Or can I just say, give it back to me after this game. Say that
we forget it. Next game, I'm playing with an illegal deck (-1 Coven)
and someone else is likely playing with an illegal deck (+1 Coven)
How does that equal to 2 GLs?
>Careful
> tracking of your deck is your RESPONSIBILITY as a player at serious
> event. Failure to restore the deck to its original status (as stated
> in the decklist) is a dangerous behaviour that's potentially
> disruptive to the event, without even talking about the possible
> cheating, and it MUST be penalized.
why? Cheating must be punished, not possible cheating.
> I can agree that GL may be too harsh penalty, but not at the highest-
> level events like ECQ or Nationals where all participants are supposed
> to be the best sportsmen available. And note that even without GL the
> guilty player would be forced to restore the deck to reflect the
> decklist.
Unless it's an obvious typo in the decklist....
>The rule also describes what is the "clerical error", and
> what isn't.
It doesn't, it gives an example.
>"Campground Hunting Ground" instead of "Zoo Hunting
> Ground" is a clerical error, 6 Reunion Kamuts instead of 5 isn't.
Depends, IMO. If someone has a decklist that says that his deck is 90
cards and has 6 Reunion Kamut and the actual deck is 89 cards and has
5 RK. Is it Clerical? or obvious cheating? or has he lost a card?
> According to the rule, extra RK should be removed from the deck EVEN
> if the judge decides to issue a warning instead of GL.
Unless the deck list is obviously in error....
> I must also note that GL in the finals is still very, very different
> from the DQ, since DQ should lead to the further investigation by VEKN
> officials and the investigation usually leads to BANNING the guilty
> player for some period of time.
QUE?
>
> Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players
> (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of
> trying to change their playstyle. If the road police officer would
> issue you a fine for driving too fast, would you try to change the
> laws? Would you demand to remove the road policemen from the streets?
> Or to take their radars away, so they couldn't measure your driving
> speed? I guess not, since this would be extremely stupid. But players
> actually DO assault the good judge for issuing the RIGHT penalty, they
> are actually trying to change the rules, and they SERIOUSLY advice to
> remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play
> undetectable!!!
Yes, of course, we are all cheaters who want to change te rules to
cheat even easier. Go the fuck back to Magic. Idiot.
>
> And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour. He is responsible to
> protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty
> talks. "The law is harsh, but it's the law". When the good judges
> become subjects of such pressure, it's impossible to enforce the rules
> anymore.
I weep for you, if that's your word view. And if the players you play
with are like that: get some new friends.
>But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without
> decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody
> considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost,
> and nothing to do here for me.
No problem. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Jeroen
Also not true. You can only check that if you do deck checks during
play. There are ways enough to change your deck right before play and
restore it right after it.....
Janne Hägglund
Decklists do not, and cannot, stop cheating.
All they do is they stop *one kind* of cheating.
If a player really wants to cheat to win, would he really be so stupid he
couldn't think of any other ways of cheating?
A real life example: lots of computer games, music and movies have copy
protection. Has that stopped piracy for good? Or have people simply found
out other ways to extract the copyrighted material?
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
Janne Hägglund
> I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of
> my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a
> serious sport.
> But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without
> decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore, and nobody
> considers VTES a serious sporting game. Everything is already lost,
> and nothing to do here for me.
>
> Yours,
> Ector
Well, you have now learned an important lesson:
you can't always get your own way.
You posted some good stuff, and I'll miss that. Feel free to come back, if
you ever want to discuss non-serious-sporting VTES.
Goodbye, no hard feelings from me.
Ector
wrote:
>
> Well, you have now learned an important lesson:
> you can't always get your own way.
the rules. Judges are the keepers of the order, and when there are no
order around, judges are simply not needed :)
> You posted some good stuff, and I'll miss that. Feel free to come back, if
> you ever want to discuss non-serious-sporting VTES.
>
Thanks. There are good people here. I would miss them.
Yours,
Ector
LSJ
> On Apr 12, 1:32 pm, h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid (Janne Hägglund)
> wrote:
>> Well, you have now learned an important lesson:
>> you can't always get your own way.
> I don't even have "my own way" in this case. I'm a judge, and I follow
> the rules. Judges are the keepers of the order, and when there are no
> order around, judges are simply not needed :)
The absence of decklists is not the same as "no order".
We still play a very serious, competitive game with no decklists.
Teeka
strongly believe in the need for clear rules and strict enforcing of
those rules when playing competively, in order to ensure optimal game-
quality. Not just in games like this, but sports as well. So here's my
2 cents:
For what it's worth, I agree with Janne on the point that decklists
don't stop cheating, only one form of cheating.
I do think, however, that any measures possible to stop a possible way
of cheating should be enforced. To go with his copy protection thing:
just because there's other ways to break the law, doesn't mean we
should just abandon all laws. That would be the worst possible thing
to do.
Same with VTES: we must try and do anything we can, and issue as many
laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real
life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways
of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead.
That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or
reacting to that.
I agree strongly with Ector on this: players should look after their
decks. I mean, come on, how hard is it to count (and re-count) the
amount of cards in your deck after a game?! How hard is it to double-
check the card-names and amounts you've written down on a form? We're
talking about being able to correctly write down, and check, what 102
game cards you have with you. It will take you 3 minutes max to make
absolutely sure everything is in order, so what's the problem?
The "Haven Uncovered-thing" can easily be resolved by keeping your
cards in sleeves that have coloured backs. You can spot a cards that's
not yours (and find the deck it's supposed to be in) instantly just by
turning your decks over. If it so happens two players use the same
colour sleeves, that's just more incentive to count and re-count after
a game. Again, how hard is it to do this?
I think that failing to do a few simple things like filling in a form
correctly and making sure your deck is in order means you're either
cheating, or incredibly lazy/sloppy. In both cases I think you
shouldn't complain if you get DQ'd.
F1 drivers get DQ'd if their car is not in order. Soccer players
cannot enter the field if their outfit is not in order, or if they're
not on the team list. Boxers cannot enter a match if they're too
heavy. So they make sure everything is ok beforehand, as they know no
possible excuse will make things different. It's perfectly normal for
any competition to have such rules.
Teeka
atomweaver
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 12, 8:23 am, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ector, most people have already replied with the key points, and I
>> wanted to add just two ideas that you might not have considered fully:
> I have no time and no intention to answer to all that stupid stuff
> I've read in the other messages, but as long as your message is
> civilized, it deserves an answer.
>
>> 1) Your past experience in Magic may be causing you to be overly
>> strict in VTES punishments and tournament judging in general. VTES is
>> more relaxed than Magic. I know you've already talked about this and
>> are aware of it, but you've made several references to Magic judging
>> in this thread; you might be forgetting that your previous experience
>> creates a significant bias in you (which isn't ideal for VTES
>> judging.)
> Can you tell me how the good tournament organization and good self-
> discipline (writing a decklist and ensuring that the deck is the same
> in each round) prevent the game from being "more relaxed"? It's very
> simple, and even my completely disorganized players (they tend to be
> late for an hour or more, for instance) are already accustomed to
> this.
>
>>
>> In my opinion as a VTES judge, the hassle of requiring decklists is
>> not worth whatever anti-cheating benefit they provide.
> What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of
> paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count
> them?
I think you mis-understand here. By 'hassle', I believe ira meant the
hassle of extra time spent by the judge (not the players) in decklist
checking, which has an apparent effect of over-penalizing clerical errors,
and a minor impact, if any, on cheating overall.
> Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do
> if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of
> cards at the beginning of the round? My players just ask their
> decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player
> would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you
> determine whose is the card without the decklists?
This happens in tournaments without decklists... frequently even. The
Judge investigates, solicits information from the Archon (to find prior
opponents) and from the players, and uses his Judgement to find out where
the card belongs. I've never heard of a complaint with the results of that
process. Ever.
> Several players
> could play the Haven Uncovered, probably in different rounds, and some
> of them may fail to recall the correct number of them in their decks.
>
Since decks are typically built to an even number of cards (80 or 90), the
answer is typically blatantly obvious from a fast deck count.
>> 2) If the US Championship, run by LSJ himself, did not require
>> decklists, then I think it's OK for any other tournament to also not
>> require decklists. Clearly LSJ did not feel they were necessary, even
>> at the highest level of tournament in the US (which would be on par or
>> higher level than ECQ.)
>
snip
The problem is not in the rule, but in the lack of further definition of
the Judge's discretion in implementing the rule. Also, the point which
started this all, there is almost no, as you call them, "orders" for how
decklist checks should be implemented, and the traditional method that's
been developed by the field, paired with a severe default penalty, is
resulting in the over-penalization of clerical processes.
"I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for the
last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that you spelled
you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days ago. We must insist
that you withdraw from the Tour..."
> It's absolutely
> clear and simple, its philosophy is explained well enough, and don't
> tell me about "draconian rules", "Magic experience" and similar shit.
> It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it? Why can
> anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a
> Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round?
Quite simply, Ector, VTES players take a stronger hand in determining what
rules are fair, just because other games' processes may or may not apply
appropriately to our own game. In Magic, were some random player to raise
a point which he thought was unfair, and _really_ try to get things
changed, there would be nothing but ridicule for his efforts, as all of the
rules processes operate internally within WotC. Not so for VTES players,
the tournament rules are the VEKN rules, not the White Wolf rules, and when
unfairness is discovered, you can post here, make your case, and possibly
motivate a positive change in the game. It is that exact process that
results in the positive refinement of borrowed rules into an infrastructure
more appropriate for VTES...
snip rest, I think I addressed this in the new thread.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Peter D Bakija
> What is the "hassle"? Really? Your players cannot find a sheet of
> paper and a pen? Or they cannot sort cards in their decks and count
> them?
It is a hassle to write a deck list and count all your individual
cards and make sure the list is super correct so that you avoid
getting DQed in the final round, yes. It generally requires folks to
plan ahead of time, know exactly what deck thay are playing before
they show up, and not modify that deck at the last second. And it is
another hurdle for less commited players to have to jump over to enter
the event which might be one hurdle too many.
> Moreover, my players often bring the printed decklists - aren't
> we all using deckbuilding programs?
No.
> Decklists benefits aren't limited to anti-cheating. What would you do
> if your player will notice that his deck has a different number of
> cards at the beginning of the round?
I'd say "Huh. What do you think is missing? Ok. Fix that."
> My players just ask their
> decklists in such cases to determine what's wrong. If some player
> would find an extra Haven Uncovered in his deck, how would you
> determine whose is the card without the decklists?
"Hey! Who lost a Haven Uncovered?"
> I'm completely depressed now - by the fact that I wasted two years of
> my life trying to spread the game that's never going to become a
> serious sport.
*Boggle*
VTES is a collectible card game that is about make believe vampires.
And devil dogs. And Werewolves on morotcycles with machine guns. Did
you honestly think that it was going to make it to they Olympics?
Bridge isn't even in the Olympics.
Ok, now that that is out of the way, VTES is a game that people take
seriously, yes. Which is good. I vastly prefer playing VTES against
serious competition than against folks who aren't particularly
invested in it. This doesn't mean, however, that, I feel the game
needs to be treated like a "serious sport" (I don't play "serious
sports" for a reason).
> When I started to play VTES, I was completely sure that
> only our local players are so disorganized, but there are professional
> players and professional judges in the Europe and USA, and so on. But
> LSJ run the US Championship without the decklists???
I'm pretty sure that no tournaments in the US use deck lists. Maybe
once and a while someone will use one, but I have never been to a
qualifier that used Decklists, no. The US championship does not use
decklists, no. This might indicate that many folks seem to feel that
it is perfectly reasonable to run a serious, high level, competetive
tournament without decklists.
> No CCG can be a serious sport without decklists.
You seem to be under the impression that people want VTES to be a
"serious sport". People want it to be a serious, competetive game,
sure. But apparently, that can happen without deck lists.
> How can a serious judge even think about playing a serious
> tournament without decklists is beyond my imagination,
You seem to have a very limited imagination. Serious VTES tournaments
happen all the time that have no decklists. Because Decklists don't
serve to actually do much other than occasionally catch someone trying
to cheat in a very dubious and unlikely to be helpful fashion and
occasionally get folks DQed for clerical errors. I suspect at about
the same level of occurance. That, and waste people's time.
> but if LSJ
> himself runs such tournaments, the game ISN'T A SERIOUS SPORT
> anymore,
> and it isn't going to become a serious sport in the near future.
Again with the "serious sport". No one claims that VTES is a "serious
sport". It is a game that folks take seriously and play competetively.
> This is the real reason of all this hassle. The game has Judge's
> Guidelines written in times when it was a real sport (or at least was
> supposed to be a real sport), but it isn't a real sport anymore.
What are you talking about here?
> Most people here think: "I could be penalized such way as well", and
> this makes them write stupid things about "draconian rules", "clerical
> errors" and so on - instead of learning by example.
Learning what by example? That it is somehow useful to saddle your
playerbase with a need to turn in deck lists when they don't actually
accomplish that much?
> Now tell me ANYBODY, what's wrong with this rule?
Nothing, if you are into that sort of thing. But it is optional and
unecessary.
> It's a rule of YOUR game. Why don't you wish to obey it?
It is optional and unecessary.
> Why can
> anybody even think that he shouldn't get a GL if he would forget a
> Haven Uncovered in other player's deck in the previous round?
'Cause it is absurd to get a GL for forgetting a Haven Uncovered. It
is much less absurd to say "Huh. I forgot a Haven Uncovered. How bout
I pick that up and put it back in my deck now..."
> Now, I'm completely pissed off to see how the disorganized players
> (even the most experienced) are trying to change the rule instead of
> trying to change their playstyle.
This has nothing at all to do with disorganization. It has to do with
rationality. Decklists don't actually accomplish much other than
provide another hurdle to folks who are already on the fence about
going to a tournament. And occasionally result in folks getting
effectively DQed for misplacing cards by accident.
> and they SERIOUSLY advice to
> remove decklists to make the bad and disorganized play
> undetectable!!!
Bad and disorganized play does not become undetectable due to a lack
of decklists. What becomes undetectable is the occasional
mislplacement of cards and the occasional dubious attempt to gain
advantage by swapping cards around which very few people are going to
do in the first place, and for the people who do do this, it is rarely
actually going to help them. You have played in a VTES tournament
before, right?
> And the worst part of it is LSJ's behaviour.
What--he pointed out that the decklist rules are optional, 'cause they
are?
> He is responsible to
> protect the good judge against these stupid "suggestions" and dirty
> talks.
"Dirty talks"? What are you even talking about here? The general
consensus here is that decklists are mostly unecessary. 'Cause they
are. What are "dirty talks"?
> But as long as LSJ himself runs tournaments without
> decklists, I guess that the law isn't working anymore,
The "law" works just fine. The VEKN tournament rules don't require
decklists. And most folks running tournaments (well, at least in the
US--I can't really speak for the rest of the world) tend to lean
towards the optional nature of this rule and ignores it. 'Cause they
realize that it doesn't accomplish much, is a hassle, and can cause as
much damage as it prevents.
-Peter
luis....@gmail.com
> Tibor Holhos (DOM OBF stealth-bleed) -> Milan Horvath (a toolboxish take
> on the weenie Saturday Night Special + Dragon Breath Roungs combo) ->
> Daniel Hadik-Barkoczy (playing Giovanni Powerbleed) -> Tamas Kovacs
> (Malkavian stealth-bleed) -> Peter Korsos (Tzimisce Wall).
>(...) Here's the winning deck:
>
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 17, Max: 28, Avg: 5,58)
> ----------------------------------------------
> 2 Gilbert Duane AUS DOM OBF 7 Malkavian
> 2 Mariel aus tha DOM OBF 7 Malkavian
> 2 Didi Meyers aus cel obf DOM 5 Malkavian
> 1 Zebulon aus dom pro OBF 5 Malkavian
> 1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian
> 1 Count Ormonde dom pre ser OBF 5 Followers of Set
> 1 Badr al-Budur cel dom qui OBF 5 Assamite
> 1 Ozmo dom obf AUS 6 Malkavian
> 1 Reverend Blackwood obf DOM THA 6 Tremere Antitribu
>(...)
Amazing!
A 53-player tournament in 2007 won by a 10-years-old deck! (i assume
that those 3 On the qui vive and those Final Nights vampires don't
really make the difference).
Also amazing is that all 5 finalist none have a new type of modern
deck or strategy!
10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals... where are
those new types like the Imbued and Group 4 decks??
I'm really out of scene but every 6 months i like to see what's
happening out there in VTES and surprises me a lot a result like this.
Congratulations for the 53 players in one tournament. I don't know if
this number is also common nowadays...
atomweaver
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
*rolls eyes* you couldn't keep that topic on the WW forum, could you?
;-)
> 10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals... where are
> those new types like the Imbued and Group 4 decks??
Welcome to Qualifiers. Expect people to play Stuff That Works(TM).
> I'm really out of scene but every 6 months i like to see what's
> happening out there in VTES and surprises me a lot a result like this.
Heh. I suggest you don't come here and fixate on one tournament result,
then. Look at the TWDA, which is rich with novel decks winning myriad
tournaments of all sizes. Its _good_ news that solid established decks
occasionally still win tournaments, its also good news that new concepts
win their fair share, as well...
> Congratulations for the 53 players in one tournament. I don't know if
> this number is also common nowadays...
>
for an EC Qualifier? Its typical, and the Hungarian group is still in a
growth phase, AFAIK.
DaveZ
AW
Teeka
> "I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for the
> last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that you spelled
> you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days ago. We must insist
> that you withdraw from the Tour..."
>
I think there's a big difference between the inpact of a typo in a
word, and a typo in a number. Writing down "Zoo Hunting Groond"
doesn't make much of a difference. Writing down a wrong amount does.
And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and
the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms. Not
because of a single typo in a name though.
Jeroen
> Also amazing is that all 5 finalist none have a new type of modern
> deck or strategy!
> 10 years ago we could find all those decks in the finals...
nit-picking:
Not true. You couldn't play concealed weapon without obf 10 years ago.
Not that you needed, because you could play DBR on zip guns.
Old concept: yes,
old deck: not really.
luis....@gmail.com
Hi Jeroen.
Yeah yeah but you know what i mean: Malk G1 still rules even after all
this time. I'd prefer to see a new strategy winning or so...
luis....@gmail.com
> Heh. I suggest you don't come here and fixate on one tournament result,
> then. Look at the TWDA, which is rich with novel decks winning myriad
> tournaments of all sizes. Its _good_ news that solid established decks
> occasionally still win tournaments, its also good news that new concepts
> win their fair share, as well...
I did that check on TWDA and i must admit i got in fact another view
about it.
You're absolutelly right: Malk S&B don't rule anymore and there are
plenty of new winning strategies out there. My mistake. Sorry all.
Top20 on TWDA (sort by date, newest to oldest):
Malk G1 S&B
Salubri G2 Spirit Marionette
Nossie G3 Toolbox
Imbued
Giovanni Powerbleed+Puppeteer
Tremere G2+G3 BB
Nossie G2+G3 Vote
Inner Vote
Imbued
Stanislava Garou
Ravnos G4 Toolbox
Ahrimanes G2 BB
Malk antitribu G2+G3 Call/Bleed
Nossie/Pander G4 LoP Vote
Black Hand Bloat&Bleed
Toreador G1 BB
Setite G2 Bleed
Guruhi Vote&Bleed
Jaroslav Wall
Turbo Lucita Bleed
atomweaver
news:1176386007.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On 12 apr, 15:08, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "I'm sorry, Mr. Armstrong, I know you've kept the yellow jersey for
>> the last six legs, and there's only one leg to go, but we see that
>> you spelled you first name 'Vance' on your application twenty days
>> ago. We must insist that you withdraw from the Tour..."
>>
>
> I think there's a big difference between the inpact of a typo in a
> word, and a typo in a number. Writing down "Zoo Hunting Groond"
> doesn't make much of a difference. Writing down a wrong amount does.
>
I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of
drawing it.
Can a stats genius answer this? What is the difference in liklihood of
drawing one of 5 Reunion Kamut in an 89 card deck, vs. drawing one of 6
Reunion Kamut in a 90 card deck (lets assume a player goes through 75% of
their deck, or Teeka can assign a different value)...
> And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and
> the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms.
I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled from
the event for a form error, after being allowed to start (nevermind almost
finish) the race.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> Yeah yeah but you know what i mean: Malk G1 still rules even after all
> this time. I'd prefer to see a new strategy winning or so...
>
You fail to see the real story... The fact that a G1/2 sneak bleed deck
can occasionally win a tournament, _and_ the tournament scene still
continues to also produce wins for novel strategies is Strong Evidence that
escalation is _not_ occurring in VTES. Unlike a game where escalation can
be dealt with by obsoleting old sets, escalation is important to design
against, if older cards are to remain useful.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
gpett...@gmail.com
> If there are no decklists, you cannot be sure than there is no
> cheating. All those tournaments might be full of players who change
> their decks before the Finals.
> If there is a decklist, you cannot know if a player who has a decklist
> problem cheats or not, but you can be sure that a player whose deck
> and decklist match each other doesn't change.
In Poker, there is a standard uniform decklist: one of each of 52
cards. On occasion, people play with illegal decks and they are very
hard to catch. If you actually remember which cards you're adding to
your deck, it's easy to get them out of sight when the Judge arrives.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Teeka
> I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of
> drawing it.
That's not the point. The point is that certain agreements (if not
rules) are made about the material used to play the game. Of course
one extra or missing card in a 90 card decks does not make a huge
difference. But if you'd allow that, then how about two cards? How
about three? If no clear line can be drawn as to the specific point
where these things start giving a player an advantage , then you have
no choice but to disallow them altogether.
> > And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and
> > the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms.
>
> I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled from
> the event for a form error, after being allowed to start (nevermind almost
> finish) the race.
>
There'd be none, probably, because the whole form-business gets done
REAL carefully. I know for sure that if Lance's team-boss had
forgotten to put his name on the appearence-list for the final day,
he'd be screwed. So the boss makes 100% sure that doesn't happen.
Entire (less careful) teams have been disallowed to start because of
clerical errors though. Other "minor" errors, like a bicycle that's
not been built to regulations, or missing a urine-test, have been
known to DQ a cyclist even at the final day.
Cyclists have also been known to get DQ'd even during a race, due to
other rule-breaking such as changing to a non-regulation bike during
the race or not keeping a "straight course" during a sprint to the
finish.
You shouldn't compare the decklist-thing to filling in a form at the
Tour. Instead, you should compare tinkering with your bike during a
Tour (or missing a urine-test or something) to changing your deck
during an event. It's not enough that things are ok at the start,
things get checked during the course of a Tour on a daily basis. And
it also doesn't matter if you actually gained an advantage or if you
did things deliberately. Breaking the rules = breaking the rules.
gpett...@gmail.com
> Same with VTES: we must try and do anything we can, and issue as many
> laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real
> life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways
> of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead.
> That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or
> reacting to that.
>
In that case, Teeka, we should ensure that all tournaments have 2
Judges for every player: One to handle their hand, and one to handle
all their cards and counters in play. That way, no players are able to
modify the contents of their deck, the quantity of their pool, the
amount of blood on their minions, etc. All cheating will be stopped.
Oh, also, all players will be required to communicate with their hand-
judge one at a time in an opaque soundproof booth to prevent them from
being scouted. Oh, also, all Judges must wear opaque masks and gloves,
vocal distorters, lumpy clothing to further help disguise their
identities, and everything a Judge says must be recorded and replayed
by the head judge to help prevent collusion.
Or did you perhaps mean we should do anything *reasonable* to stop
cheating? If you look at the amount of work all players have to do to
make decklists and the amount of work a judge must do to collect and
secure them and the amount of work the judge must do to check them
against decks and the amount of time the players have to waste waiting
for the judge to check them and the cost of the judge having to
penalize players whose decklists do not match their decks due to error
and compare that with the amount of cheaters caught by decklist
checking and the amount of cheaters dissuaded by decklist checking, I
am confident that the costs of decklists are NOT reasonable under
almost any circumstances.
atomweaver
news:1176391588....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On 12 apr, 16:31, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd be curious how much difference one card makes in the liklihood of
>> drawing it.
>
> That's not the point. The point is that certain agreements (if not
> rules) are made about the material used to play the game. Of course
> one extra or missing card in a 90 card decks does not make a huge
> difference. But if you'd allow that, then how about two cards? How
> about three? If no clear line can be drawn as to the specific point
> where these things start giving a player an advantage , then you have
> no choice but to disallow them altogether.
>
Clearly correct. They are disallowed, and I do not seek to change that.
>> > And FYI, people have been disqualified from the Tour de France (and
>> > the like) lots of times because of incorrectly filled out forms.
>>
>> I challenge you to find one, though, where the participant was pulled
>> from the event for a form error, after being allowed to start
>> (nevermind almost finish) the race.
>>
>
> There'd be none, probably, because the whole form-business gets done
> REAL carefully.
... _and_ the event organizers review paperwork _before_ the event gets
underway. This is my point. IMPLEMENTATION is all screwed up with this
section of the VEKN rules, because its been left un-defined, and Judges
are leaving it until the end of the event to check a few who likely
haven't had their decklists reviewed up till that point, and then they're
furhter applying the default penalty at a point where it is having an
effect which is closer to a total DQ...
> I know for sure that if Lance's team-boss had
> forgotten to put his name on the appearence-list for the final day,
> he'd be screwed. So the boss makes 100% sure that doesn't happen.
> Entire (less careful) teams have been disallowed to start because of
> clerical errors though.
Examples, please.
> Other "minor" errors, like a bicycle that's
> not been built to regulations, or missing a urine-test, have been
> known to DQ a cyclist even at the final day.
>
> Cyclists have also been known to get DQ'd even during a race, due to
> other rule-breaking such as changing to a non-regulation bike during
> the race or not keeping a "straight course" during a sprint to the
> finish.
>
Sure. I've issued Game Losses for rules infractions, unsportsmanlike
conduct, etc., too...
> You shouldn't compare the decklist-thing to filling in a form at the
> Tour. Instead, you should compare tinkering with your bike during a
> Tour (or missing a urine-test or something) to changing your deck
> during an event.
Your analogy to bike-tinkering fails, because that is cheating.
Decklist error (only) != cheating, nor does it, alone, provide sufficient
evidence that the deck was changed, specifically because of the way
decklist checks are being implemented (finalist deck checks, random
prelim checks).
Until you've got more evidence than a discrepancy in a form, the
assumption of cheating is just that, an assumption. Should a Judge
Penalize on the basis of the actual evidence, or on assumptions about
what the evidence might imply? As it currently stands, it seems like the
assumption is that (regardless of the specific infraction) the player is
cheating. At the very least, the default penalty of Game Loss is
excessive, and looks like particularly unfair Judging when it is being
selectively applied just before the Finals.
> It's not enough that things are ok at the start,
> things get checked during the course of a Tour on a daily basis.
Right, which is what is _not_ being done with many decklists, although we
certainly are penalizing players as if a more thorough job _were_ being
done.
> And
> it also doesn't matter if you actually gained an advantage or if you
> did things deliberately. Breaking the rules = breaking the rules.
You oversimplify. Take it further. Does the punishment suit the
infraction? Answer; no.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Joscha
> obvious bugs ASAP. If you have no time or staff to perform deckchecks,
> try counting the number if cards during that first round checking and
> ask your players to count cards in their prey's libraries at the
> beginning of round 2. This will minimize the chances of encountering
> the problem before the finals.
Hey Ector, how do you want to check decklists DURING the first round,
dude? Players tend to play with their cards then. In the break between
round 1 and round 2 there is, according to my experiences, too less
time and people to check all decks at such a big event (and you don't
want to let check other players, because they could be biased, you
need neutral persons out of the tourney).
Checking some of the decks per round and before finals should suffice.
gpett...@gmail.com
> laws as we can, to stop cheating as much as possible. Same with real
> life: laws expand and update constantly, along with the breakers' ways
> of breaking them. And yes, the cheaters will always be one step ahead.
> That doesn't mean the law-abiding should stop caring about, or
> reacting to that.
Looks like Google ate this reply earlier:
We can stop cheating entirely if we give every player their own judge.
That way, the judge sleeves, shuffles, and handles all the player's
cards, pool, and other tokens for them. We'd also need an opaque
soundproof booth for players to ask rules questions in. Oh, and the
judges would have to wear opaque masks, gloves, lumpy clothing, vocal
distorters, and be randomly assigned. Oh, and... Or did you mean we
must try and do anything *reasonable*?
Now, if you add up all the effort *all* the players have to take to
get their decklist in order, sometimes while hungover, jet-lagged,
overtired, and trading cards mere seconds before the tournament
begins; the effort it takes the judge to collect and secure the
decklists; the effort it takes the judge to examine a reasonable
number of decks every round; the time *all* the players must wait for
decklists to be checked; and the headaches of players being penalized
for innocent deck/decklist errors and weigh that against the number of
cheaters actually caught plus the number of cheaters dissuaded from
cheating, you might then have a means of determining if decklists are
reasonable. The way I see it, lots of work for no gain.
librarian
>
> ... if decklists are
> going to be used to verify deck contents I think it could be done in a
> better manner than only checking decks prior to the finals. If
> decklist checks are going to be done, have it as part of the
> registration process. Check all decks when the decklist is turned in.
> Then do a few random (or targeted if you suspect deck changing) checks
> (whatever time permits) at the beginning of each round.
I think the rules changes should be that if you require decklists, you
should be required to do exactly what you detail above:
Check decks at the beginning of tournament. All players must have a
deck that matches their decklist at that time - either by modifying
their deck, or modifying their list.
Then spot checks throughout, with at least 5% of decks checked between
rounds - whether random or due to suspicion is up to the the judge.
Then all finalists decks are checked.
And players are encouraged to count their decks between each round, just
to be sure they picked up all their Disarms, Sense Deps, etc etc.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com