Player refusing to give deck list?
Petri Wessman
tournament for the Nth time last weekend (93 players this year), and
things generally went great. As traditional, I have not demanded deck
lists from players beforehand since I feel that just adds to the
general hassle and provides little benefit, but I've always published
the finalist deck lists along with final round transcript. The
finalists were told (as is normal) before the final round started that
I want them to send me their deck lists as soon as possible (the
finals typically run from about 1am to 3am, so taking time off to
transcribe deck lists at that point isn't a fun option).
To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of
the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't
heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this
particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to
tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently
this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are
my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I
want the deck lists before the final round started.
I'm a bit mystified (and somewhat pissed off) here. It looked like a
fairly bog-standard old-school Stanislava & friends deck to me, it's
not like it's the secret to eternal youth or a cure for cancer we're
talking about here. :}
-Petri
extrala
> ..
> To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of
> the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't
> heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this
> particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to
> tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently
> this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
>
> Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are
> my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I
> want the deck lists before the final round started.
finalists of the german ECQ didn't want to have his deck list
published. The reason for this was that he didn't want to know other
players the *exact* contents of his deck, at least not before the next
big tournaments. Although if you saw him playing you had a pretty good
idea what the deck actually contained. The head judge & organizer back
then complied to the wishes of the player, although he had the
decklist in his hands and wasn't obliged to follow this player's wish.
The same happened after the First Chance Qualifier during the EC 2009;
here also the organizer & headjudge complied to the player's wish.
I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give
you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for
now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists
mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them
*before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to
enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing
decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules
in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist.
If he's the tournament winner: too bad he's not getting his deck
posted in Lasombra's tournament winning deck archive.
Best regards, Ralf
====================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
Asnek
Actually as i see the situation you have no way to force player to
provide you with decklist. yeah ok you can track him down and slap him
so many times until he wil write it to you...
This question of yours brings up one another question:
Why in the hell he have to give you decklist?
I understand this guy and in fact I do same as well, but in quite
different and polite way - say it in advance to the judge. To be
proper his decklist is his "intelectual property" and he don't have to
share it with anybody else once he is not willing to.
I agree with you that decklist in not cure for cancer or recepie for
eternal youth but once again: why he have to give it to you?
is he winner? uuuuh aaaah yeeeeah TWDA will miss one deck. that's
s(n)oooooooo big loss... :D
so please give me a logical and/or even relevant reason for such
request...
Petri Wessman
> I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give
> you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for
> now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists
> mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them
> *before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to
> enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing
> decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules
> in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist.
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid off. Oh well.
It does mean that from now on, I'll require deck lists from all
Ropecon finalists before the final round starts. If this means that
people will be forced to spend an extra 20+ minutes scribbling down
deck lists at 1am... well, it sucks but they'll know who to blame for
that.
I'll also be requiring a written deck list from this specific player
before the final round starts if he ever ends up in the finals of any
constructed tournament I run, since he's proven that I cannot trust
him to provide it later if needed. I hate to single out players, but
one of the responsibilities of a judge is to make value judgments --
and here there is ample past evidence for that.
All this assuming I don't get the deck list, as I'm now suspecting I
won't.
-Petri
JH
All the finalists in the tournament in question have traditionally
published their deck lists during the years gone. It is well known
fact that Petri publishes all the deck lists of the finalists. Maybe
next year Petri should make it mandatory for the finalists to pass
over their deck lists.
Petri Wessman
> request...
The relevant reason is: because I want to write a tournament report
which includes said decks (and final round transcript), and have done
so for ages now. If that's not "relevant" enough for you, please do
not play in any tournament I run.
Some tournaments require deck lists from everyone, and make them all
public later. Are you saying those tournaments somehow "don't have the
right"? Sheesh.
And "intellectual property"? Please. If you don't want people to see
your deck, don't play with it in a big and important tournament. At
least not one that I run.
-Petri
Petri Wessman
> All the finalists in the tournament in question have traditionally
> published their deck lists during the years gone. It is well known
> fact that Petri publishes all the deck lists of the finalists. Maybe
> next year Petri should make it mandatory for the finalists to pass
> over their deck lists.
Yeah. This forces me to demand finalist deck lists before the Ropecon
finals starts. It sucks, but it's apparently something I need to start
doing. To date I've been able to trust players on this, and I've been
running these for... dunno. 10 years? It's not like any of the local
players can claim ignorance, here.
If someone refuses to have their deck list be public, they are free to
choose to either not attend the Ropecon tournament, or to forfeit
their place in the finals if it comes to that.
-Petri
extrala
> ..
> I think, as a head judge & organizer you can't make that player give
> you decklist here and now. I would suggest that you just move on for
> now. In the end the only real chance you have is to make decklists
> mandatory for all participants in the tournament (and receive them
> *before* the tournament starts). After that it's really hard to
> enforce decklists, because it's either impractical (i.e. writing
> decklists before the final starts) and/or there are no explicit rules
> in tournament rules or the penalty guide for not providing a decklist.
To correct myself there *is* something about decklists in the VEKN
tournament 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.
Best Regards, Ralf
===================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
Petri Wessman
> I'll also be requiring a written deck list from this specific player
> before the final round starts if he ever ends up in the finals of any
> constructed tournament I run, since he's proven that I cannot trust
> him to provide it later if needed. I hate to single out players, but
> one of the responsibilities of a judge is to make value judgments --
> and here there is ample past evidence for that.
On second thought, the more fair variant is: I'll be requiring deck
lists from all the finalists in any constructed tournament where I do
not personally trust that the winner from among the finalists will
send me the deck list afterwards. Yes, this is a value judgment, but
that's why we have judges and not automatons. This means that either
there is someone at the table I know to be a potential problem case,
or someone I do not personally know and trust.
At Ropecon, I'll be requiring deck lists from all the finalists before
the final round starts (smart people will have deck lists already
printed out). This will be made very explicit in the tournament
announce, to avoid claims of "did not know". If the finalists have
their deck lists already printed out, this won't slow down things at
all. If they don't, well... then we wait.
-Petri
Petri Wessman
> To correct myself there *is* something about decklists in the VEKN
> tournament 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.
Yes, I checked that portion earlier, but that only talks about
decklists on registration, not later.
Like I said, on site before the finals started I very explicitly said
that I'm requiring everyone (of the finalists) to send me their deck
lists after the tournament, for the tournament report. People watching
the finals will be able to verify this. One player is now (possibly)
refusing to do so. The question is whether the tournament rules give
me any option to do anything about it, other that be pissed off and
change things in the next tournament(s) I run. Probably, no.
-Petri
Lönkka
> proper his decklist is his "intelectual property" and he don't have to
> share it with anybody else once he is not willing to.
Sorry, but that is not the case.
According to VTES tournament rules WW/tournament organizer can publish
this info:
1.6. Publishing Event Information
White Wolf, Inc. reserves the right to publish event information such
as the contents of any player's deck as well as transcripts or video
reproductions of any sanctioned tournament. The tournament organizer
is also permitted to publish event information.
Petri Wessman
> Sorry, but that is not the case.
> According to VTES tournament rules WW/tournament organizer can publish
> this info:
Heh, I was *just* about to publish the same quote but you beat me to
it :D
-Petri
Izaak
> to
> share it with anybody else once he is not willing to.
Can you actually say this out loud without laughing?
LSJ
> Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are
> my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I
> want the deck lists before the final round started.
Players must follow the guidelines set forth by the tournament
officials.
Including rules about deck lists.
Failure to do so could result in penalty, such as game loss or
disqualification.
Petri Wessman
Thank you. I'll go with the recommended penalty for bad decklist in
that case, i.e. issue an official warning along with the tournament
results. Anything more severe seems like overreaction, even though
it's a case of intentionally defying the organizer and not an
accident. I'll fix it in the future by demanding finalist decklists
before play starts.
All this assuming I don't get the decklist belatedly, of course.
-Petri
John P.
> On Jul 29, 3:10 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 4:46 am, Petri Wessman <or...@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> > > Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are
> > > want the deck lists before the final round started.
>
> > Players must follow the guidelines set forth by the tournament
> > officials.
> > Including rules about deck lists.
>
> > Failure to do so could result in penalty, such as game loss or
> > disqualification.
Scott, Can the penalty be applied *after the tournament is over*
assuming the results have not been submitted? It would seem if the
judge stated that he wanted decklists and this player did not provide
one in whatever time Petri feels is reasonable, that he could then be
a) warned that this could result in a DQ for the tournament and then
b) issued that DQ, even after the event.
Just wondering,
Jarkko Suvela
>
> To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of
> the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't
> heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this
> particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to
> tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently
> this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
>
I know who you mean, should he be talked to about this? It's really
sad if one fellow makes the easygoing Ropecon tournament a bit more
difficult.
Dunno if it helps at all or have you already tried to explain the
situation to him, but I'm pretty sure that he'd come around it if you
explain the whole deal.
With the deal I mean, that it has been traditional way to include
decklists in the tournament report. And that he'd be doing things more
difficult to future finalists.
-Jarkko
brandonsantacruz
even lets people know he wants the finalists' deck lists ahead of
time, it's extremely disrespectful to the organizer and the other rule-
abiding finalists to refuse to give over the list after the event. As
Kevin Mergen often says, shame is a good weapon with bad players. If
he doesn't turn it over, publishing the results on the newsgroup with
the warning and an explanation should be enough to let everyone know
what to expect from this person.
Brandon
Oko
> To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of
> the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't
> heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this
> particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to
> tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently
> this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
To clear matters, I never required him to post his decklist, merely
inquired if he wishes to let it be known. He declined.
I chose to not inquire more as to his reasoning, seeing how I have no
- absolutely none- suspicion of foul play.
No drama.
Petri Wessman
> To clear matters, I never required him to post his decklist, merely
> inquired if he wishes to let it be known. He declined.
Ah ok, I heard a different story through the grapevine. That's fine,
then.
> I chose to not inquire more as to his reasoning, seeing how I have no
> - absolutely none- suspicion of foul play.
I'll stress that the same goes for me, I have absolutely no suspicion
of foul play in this matter.
-Petri
TorranceCircle
> > so please give me a logical and/or even relevant reason for such
> > request...
>
> The relevant reason is: because I want to write a tournament report
> which includes said decks (and final round transcript), and have done
> so for ages now. If that's not "relevant" enough for you, please do
> not play in any tournament I run.
The TWDA and any posts or tournament write-ups have always been
implied to be a way to promote the game. (At least, that's how I have
understood it.) I think this is relevent and important.
>
> Some tournaments require deck lists from everyone, and make them all
> public later. Are you saying those tournaments somehow "don't have the
> right"? Sheesh.
>
> And "intellectual property"? Please. If you don't want people to see
> your deck, don't play with it in a big and important tournament. At
> least not one that I run.
Some gaming groups have a different culture. By this I mean, some
groups have a majority of players who don't want a deck published
until it wins a tournament and sometimes not even then. The playgroup
in Los Angeles has always seemed to operate this way (now I'm going to
get it from those guys!). I remember asking a player at an L.A. tourny
if I could look at and talk to him about his deck because I had a
similar deck. His prompt reply...."NO!" I guess what I'm saying is; if
you are at a tournament where the culture is to turn in a decklist
just do it. Its really not a big deal. And if your worried about
losing some prestige when someone else plays a similar deck, stop
worrying, there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in VtES."
Haven
Actually you said the same thing before the finals than Petri
that you want decklists from ALL the finalists posted to you.
Petri Wessman
> The TWDA and any posts or tournament write-ups have always been
> implied to be a way to promote the game. (At least, that's how I have
> understood it.) I think this is relevent and important.
Yeah. I'll expand on this: the reason I write a finals transcript and
include the finalist decklists is that it gives a snapshot into what
sorts of decks were played at the winning table of a very large
tournament, and how they were played. A snapshot into the local
metagame of that year, if you will. I think that's very interesting
and educational for other players, both local and foreign.
Also, please remember that "deck tech" isn't a universal constant, it
*heavily* relies on the metagame. A deck that might win the Ropecon
tournament might easily fail totally at the EC. Or vice versa.
Different metagames. It's not like you can "netdeck" something that
has won somewhere and just use it to easily win somewhere else. You
need to figure out how to play it, and also modify it for the local
metagame.
> Some gaming groups have a different culture. By this I mean, some
> groups have a majority of players who don't want a deck published
> until it wins a tournament and sometimes not even then. The playgroup
> in Los Angeles has always seemed to operate this way (now I'm going to
> get it from those guys!). I remember asking a player at an L.A. tourny
> if I could look at and talk to him about his deck because I had a
> similar deck. His prompt reply...."NO!" I guess what I'm saying is; if
> you are at a tournament where the culture is to turn in a decklist
> just do it. Its really not a big deal. And if your worried about
> losing some prestige when someone else plays a similar deck, stop
> worrying, there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in VtES."
Quite. To minimize misunderstandings, tournament organizers should
probably be more clear and specific about their intent to publicize
deck lists (in the tournament announcements etc). Some organizers want
to make the finalist decks public, some want to only make the winner
deck public, some allow for player choice in the matter... making that
stand public beforehand would clear up a lot of things.That way people
who are paranoid about their decks can simply choose not to play in
certain tournaments.
As a side note: while there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in
VtES", there is the kind of fame that comes from having other people
use your deck elsewhere -- polite players attribute the original
creator, and word spreads around. Being the originator of a new "deck
archetype" can be a very cool thing, too.
-Petri
Wilsoros
calling, because I have a lot in mind.
There is an EXTREMELY clear expectation of a decklist, I say you
require the winning product to be returned and the results voided
until the player complies with the rules of the tournament.
John Whelan
required, might be the concern that someone might remember its player
playing a card not on the list. Making successful decks public is, in
part, an anti-cheating safeguard.
salem
> As a side note: while there isn't a "Nobel Prize for deckbuilding in
> VtES", there is the kind of fame that comes from having other people
> use your deck elsewhere -- polite players attribute the original
> creator, and word spreads around. Being the originator of a new "deck
> archetype" can be a very cool thing, too.
If this player doesn't want other players to copy his deck, he doesn't have
to worry. It didn't win, why would people?
If he's worried that people would gain measurable advantage against him in a
subsequent tournament, either through detailed knowledge of his deck or even
specifically building their deck to counter it, then, well, he has some
serious ego issues (that, or people really hate him and want him to lose
really badly).
I just can't see it being a problem.
--
salem
John Whelan
> If this player doesn't want other players to copy his deck, he doesn't have
> to worry. It didn't win, why would people?
Maybe because it made the finals in a 92 person tournament. That
makes it as good as most TWDs in my book.
Matthew T. Morgan
Yeah. Knock me down with a feather, but I agree with you! However, it's
still very silly. Decks do not play themselves, particularly not in a 92
player tournament. As someone who's both copied and been copied, as well
as someone who enjoys borrowing and freely lends decks, I can tell you the
player matters quite a lot.
Now you could memorize (or even write down and carry around) a decklist
and thereby have a significant advantage over that deck should you happen
to see it again, assuming the deck hasn't been changed. But doing this
simply isn't practical. In a 92 player tournament, you're fairly unlikely
to come up against any one player. And assuming it's not a total
noob-fest (and this is Finland we're talking about - vtes is their
national sport), there are no guarantees about which players will be seen
in the final. For my money, doing this is wasting effort on one dangerous
foe at the expense of ignoring the other 90.
LSJ
> Now you could memorize (or even write down and carry around) a decklist
> and thereby have a significant advantage over that deck should you happen
> to see it again, assuming the deck hasn't been changed. But doing this
> simply isn't practical. In a 92 player tournament, you're fairly unlikely
> to come up against any one player.
And whatever statistical advantage you might gain that way would be
brought back to zero (or less) by the disadvantages you would have
visited upon you when you mistakenly identify a different deck as that
deck.
Pullen
Damn it, I was gonna say this (shakes fist in the air) but yeah, if a
player breaks a rule, then a punishment should be given.
Wedge
The last deck that was held back was very good.
Deck Name: saveurs et arômates de France
Created By: TTC
It would not surprise me that this one is also. The fact that he does
not want it posted leads me to believe that he is running a couple of
small combos that work well together. I would say it is vote/DOM with
House of Sorrow, Enkil Cog, Gather, Golconda and some events. Perhaps
Lilith's Blessing found a space in there as well.
Matt
Kevin M.
> To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four
> of the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one
> I haven't heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard
> that this particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists
> to tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer
> (apparently this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
>
> that I want the deck lists before the final round started.
I don't encounter complete fucking assholes like this anywhere that
I judge, but what I would suggest that you do in the future is to say
to everyone the same thing you always do, that you will ask for
a decklist when the finals are over, blah blah, but that prizes and
tournament reporting will be withheld until you get the decklist from
each player. If anyone has a problem with that you can point them
to the VEKN rules, and I personally would also tell everyone the name
of the guy who caused this issue with his bad behavior and point him
out to everyone at every event ever, so that the bad feelings toward
you get redirected to the real problem -- players like that asshole.
But that's just me. ;)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Are13
and the rest of you, for not sending the decklist promptly. I sent it
to Petri (orava"at"iki.fi) just a few minutes ago, when I first
learned of this being a problem. Petri asked for the decklists (to be
sent within the next week) before the final and I agreed to give it by
not disagreeing then. Petri's method of judgeing has always worked at
Ropecon before, and there is really no reason not to continue with the
same method.
I have been on vacation so I have not monitored the boards or
anything. Same would have been with email, but I did not receive any.
A call or a text message reminding me of the decklist would have done
the job just fine. I am not saying that Petri should call 90 people
for decklists, but if only one is missing from the report, and it is a
big deal, maybe one message would not be so bad?
Thanks a lot, Petri, for Ropecon this year and I hope I can play again
next year.
Nice thread though ... "complete fucking asshole" ... as it happens, I
am still in time with the decklist too. For this weekend it is still
"within the next week" as you requested. Also I have never previously
refrused to give out my decklist either. I have asked if it is
compolsory to give out one and when it was not, decided not to give it
out.
salem
> I don't encounter complete fucking assholes like this anywhere that
> I judge,
Don't hold back Kevin, tell us what you _really_ think of this guy. :D
--
salem
wouldn't have said it myself, but was thinking along those lines.
salem
> Nice thread though ... "complete fucking asshole" ... as it happens, I
> am still in time with the decklist too. For this weekend it is still
> "within the next week" as you requested. Also I have never previously
> refrused to give out my decklist either. I have asked if it is
> compolsory to give out one and when it was not, decided not to give it
> out.
To be fair, he was probably* just calling someone who would intentionally
refuse to give in a decklist, even when told it was required, a 'complete
fucking asshole'. The fact that you don't actually match that description
(not intending to intentionally withhold the list) would, I hope, help you
to not take his insult personally.
* I hope.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
echia...@yahoo.com
> Ok, I'm in a bit a weird position here. I ran the big Ropecon
> tournament for the Nth time last weekend (93 players this year), and
> things generally went great. As traditional, I have not demanded deck
> lists from players beforehand since I feel that just adds to the
> general hassle and provides little benefit, but I've always published
> the finalist deck lists along with final round transcript. The
> finalists were told (as is normal) before the final round started that
> I want them to send me their deck lists as soon as possible (the
> finals typically run from about 1am to 3am, so taking time off to
> transcribe deck lists at that point isn't a fun option).
>
> To date this has worked fine, but this year there is a glitch. Four of
> the finalists send theirs promptly (thanks, guys :), but one I haven't
> heard from despite nudges (via Otto). Now I just heard that this
> particular guy has in the past refused to give deck lists to
> tournament organizers despite being asked by the organizer (apparently
> this happened to Otto in the Finnish championships).
>
> Assuming the guy really does refuse to send me his deck list, what are
> my options as head judge & organizer? I stated quite clearly that I
> want the deck lists before the final round started.
>
> fairly bog-standard old-school Stanislava & friends deck to me, it's
> not like it's the secret to eternal youth or a cure for cancer we're
> talking about here. :}
#1. It looks like the situation has pretty much sorted itself out.
(But it does touch upon larger issues that I'd like to address)
#2. If the player had refused to send a deck list despite your
official request and despite the official rules, I agree with you that
he is being a bit of a jerk. But some people are okay with being a
jerk and that's fine.
#3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk
(though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the
player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've
always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to
write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round
transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it
wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing
a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney
report with a general description instead of an exact deck list.
I do applaud tournament organizers for all their hard work. That being
said, I've known quite a number of tournament organizers (this isn't
specifically addressed to anyone in particular) who are actually also
control freaks. Everything has to be done a special way - their way,
or they get really upset. I can sympathize with that - I can be a bit
like that at times as well. But ultimately, it's a bit self-centered
(which isn't necessarily a bad thing) to expect or force everyone to
do things *your* particular way.
It was mentioned that:
1.6. Publishing Event Information
White Wolf, Inc. reserves the right to publish event information such
as the contents of any player's deck as well as transcripts or video
reproductions of any sanctioned tournament. The tournament organizer
is also permitted to publish event information.
--> Although the rules *allow* tournament organizers to publish deck
information (even without the player's permission), it certainly does
not *require* them to do so. There's a big difference between can and
should.
There are many things that players (and organizers) can do, which are
permitted by the rules, but invoking such a rule is still a jerk thing
to do. Plus, there are plenty of rules which aren't always strictly
followed....
2.4 Spectator Responsibilities
All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a
game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way
while a game is in progress.
--> "Quiet Dave! I'm in a game with Robyn right now and the rules say
you're not allowed to ask for car keys / cell phone / money / hotel
key card / food / whatever. Rules say no communicating at all. Sorry."
Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should
inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game.
--> Oftentimes when spectators observe an obvious rules violation
(sorry, Timothy Crowley can't play superior Govern because he only has
inferior Dominate) they simply point it out. Strictly speaking, the
rules actually prohibit that. They're technically supposed to relay
that to a judge (though most of the time, by the time you've dragged a
judge over and explained the mistake, it's a big hassle to "rewind"
things back to that point).
3.1.2. Preliminary Rounds Seating
The judge will group players randomly and impartially, using prepared
index cards, a computerized system for generating random groupings, or
another impartial randomizing method.
--> Seen several tournaments where judges number players based on
their arrival/registration order (which means that people who arrive
together in the same carpool end up playing at the first table
together).
3.1.5 Multi-Deck System
Players are prohibited from making modifications to their decks
between rounds unless the tournament uses the following multi-deck
rules.
--> Brings up the interesting issue of what happens when Player A's
card (like a Fame) accidentally ends up in Player B's library for the
next round. What sort of penalty should occur? Heck, a really jerky
player could intentionally bring a deck full of cards that get passed
around to other players. Surely some cards will fail to get returned.
Talk about a "Vampiric Disease" deck - you can try to infect everyone
else's libraries with your cards! (Works best if no one plays with
sleeves).
4.1. Cards Allowed
All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The Eternal
Struggle or Jyhad cards.
If cards with distinct backs are used in the same deck (e.g., Jyhad
and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards, or upside-down 3rd Edition
cards and right-side up cards, or mis-cut cards) are used, in order to
prevent a significant advantage, all cards from the different sets,
printings, etc. must be of sufficiently mixed card type.
--> Strictly speaking, this section does not seem to factor in
sleeves. Based on the wording, a sufficiently mixed combination must
be present even if all the cards are in opaque sleeves.
--> I've never seen the provision used in practice. But a jerky player
or organizer could demand to inspect a deck for sufficiently mixed
card types.
4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition
Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface.
--> Never seen anyone invoke this. Say someone has a medical condition
that affects the placement of their hands. Technically, you could
invoke this rule (though you'd be a jerk to do so).
4.6. Card Sleeves
Once a game begins, players may request that the judge inspect an
opponent's card sleeves. The judge may disallow a player's card
sleeves if the judge believes they are marked, worn, or otherwise in a
condition that interferes with shuffling or game play.
--> Never seen this either. But a jerk player technically could make
such a request. (The rules are hazier whether the judge could refuse
to inspect the sleeves. 2.4 specifically allows the judge to refuse
requests involving spectators as they see fit).
4.7. Tapped Cards
If a card must be tapped as a part of the game rules, it must be
turned approximately 90 degrees from the normal position.
--> "Sorry, 45 degrees just doesn't cut it. I want a full 90 degree
rotation." Ha ha. I guess this one doesn't even count as stalling -
it's just invoking the proper rules.
8.1. Sanctioning Deadline
To ensure sanctioning approval, tournament organizers must apply for
V:EKN sanctioning at least twenty-eight days prior to the event.
8.2. Sanctioned Tournament Advertising
Sanctioned tournaments should be announced/advertised at least twenty-
eight days prior to the event. Announcements should include the time
and place of the event.
9.1. Organizer Records
Tournament organizers are required to keep copies of all tournament
reports for V:EKN-sanctioned events they run for a period of one year.
These records serve as backups in case event results are lost.
9.2. Event Report Deadline
Event reports are due to the V:EKN within eight days of the
tournament's conclusion. Tournament reports not received by the V:EKN
within eight days are considered late, and are listed in the V:EKN
tournament database as "Not Received" for fourteen days after the
event.
9.3. Delinquent Tournaments
Event reports must be received by the V:EKN within thirty days of the
tournament's conclusion. Event reports not received within fifteen to
thirty days are listed as "Delinquent" in the V:EKN tournament
database. Organizers may still submit event results in this time frame
without penalty.
--> Even in the old days, these rules were commonly broken.
In the past, some events (like EC's) have had English language rules.
For example:
"OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: Unless each player at a given table speaks the
same language, each player will have to speak English during their
games. In the case that there are players who don't speak English,
they should call a judge as a translator." (This one was approved by
LSJ in 2003 for Spain).
Suppose you're at a table where your prey only speaks Spanish.
Technically, you could demand that he speak English (or else find a
translator). It can be a bit of a jerky thing to do, but the rules do
allow it. Must...speak...English!
--> So yes, the rules do allow you to publish deck information without
consent. But doing so can be a jerk thing to do. Especially if your
only motivation is your OCD / control freak tendency / personal
tradition that *has* to be followed.
Daneel
> #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk
> (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the
> player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've
> always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to
> write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round
> transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it
> wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing
> a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney
> report with a general description instead of an exact deck list.
>
> I do applaud tournament organizers for all their hard work. That being
> said, I've known quite a number of tournament organizers (this isn't
> specifically addressed to anyone in particular) who are actually also
> control freaks. Everything has to be done a special way - their way,
> or they get really upset. I can sympathize with that - I can be a bit
> like that at times as well. But ultimately, it's a bit self-centered
> (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) to expect or force everyone to
> do things *your* particular way.
I kind of like the idea of tournament organizers organizing the
tournament, and setting the expectations towards players, who can -
based on those expectations - choose whether they want to attend the
tournament or not. Then nobody is being a jerk - the players can
freely choose not to attend, but those attending accept the whole
package.
So simply say in the description of the tournament that decklists are
expected of finalists, so people who don't want to give their
decklists skip out on the tournament altogether.
Then if someone is still trying to be a smartass you can happily
penalize their asses off. It's much better for everyone to punish
that person than to punish everyone in the future (e.g. by
requesting finalists to write up their decklists before the
finals...).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Frederick Scott
> #2. If the player had refused to send a deck list despite your
> official request and despite the official rules, I agree with you that
> he is being a bit of a jerk. But some people are okay with being a
> jerk and that's fine.
OMFG, why is everyone so down on this? If the guy doesn't want to give
a decklist, he doesn't want to give a decklist. I suppose you can just
make a rule and enforce it requiring decklists going into the final, but
even that seems like overkill to me.
I'll give you guys one of my decklists instead. It would probably
cause you all mental insanity but hey - if you're all so hard up for
decklists, why not take what take what you can get?
> #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk
> (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the
> player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've
> always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to
> write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round
> transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it
> wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing
> a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney
> report with a general description instead of an exact deck list.
Right. Exactly.
Fred
Petri Wessman
> I am the "complete fucking asshole" in question. I apologized Petri,
> and the rest of you, for not sending the decklist promptly. I sent it
> to Petri (orava"at"iki.fi) just a few minutes ago, when I first
> learned of this being a problem. Petri asked for the decklists (to be
> sent within the next week) before the final and I agreed to give it by
> not disagreeing then. Petri's method of judgeing has always worked at
> Ropecon before, and there is really no reason not to continue with the
> same method.
>
> I have been on vacation so I have not monitored the boards or
> anything. Same would have been with email, but I did not receive any.
> A call or a text message reminding me of the decklist would have done
> the job just fine. I am not saying that Petri should call 90 people
> for decklists, but if only one is missing from the report, and it is a
> big deal, maybe one message would not be so bad?
The problem is that I did not have your contact info. I told Otto to
get in touch with you (first time on Monday I think), and since I had
heard nothing by Thursday *and* got reports from two different
directions that decklists had been a problem for you in a past
tournament, I started wondering.
First off, I apologize for jumping to conclusions (though I think I
did have some basis there).
Secondly, I started this thread to inquire what my options were in the
case I don't get the deck list. As I note in many points, all my
points are moot if I do get it. I never used your name (though some
local players have of course guessed it), nor have I called you an
asshole or such. Also, I've stressed that I have no suspicion of any
wrongdoing as such here -- I just wanted to know what my options as
judge/organizer were, as far as tournament rules go (and got
clarification on that).
So. I probably should have gotten your email/phone directly and gotten
in contact, instead of relying on an intermediate party. Apologies for
that.
At the least, maybe this thread has clarified some stuff for someone
else, too, so maybe there is a small bonus point.
> Thanks a lot, Petri, for Ropecon this year and I hope I can play again
> next year.
Of course. As you note, you're still in time (I *did* say "within a
week"), and it turns out this thread was premature. I hope you're not
too pissed off at me over all this :}
-Petri
Petri Wessman
wrote:
> #1. It looks like the situation has pretty much sorted itself out.
Yes, it seems so. Some nice discussion in this thread (despite some
name-calling), so I hope it's not a complete waste. :}
> #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk
> (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the
> player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've
> always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to
> write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round
> transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it
> wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing
> a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney
> report with a general description instead of an exact deck list.
Well, my point here is precedent. If I let one person hide his deck
list, I will have to let everyone else do so, too. I cannot play
favorites.
So it boils down to a choice of:
a) require all finalists to give me their deck lists
b) make giving deck lists optional
I simply choose to do (a). Maybe I'm being a jerk by doing so, but
I've outlined "why" in earlier posts. In my opinion, the "general
good" (i.e. seeing what the finalist decks for a certain year looked
like and how they were played) overrides the "personal bad" of one
person not being able to keep their deck private. It's a matter of
opionion, of course, and other tournament organizers will have
different priorities there. That's fine.
What I think *is* important (as I said earlier) is making stuff like
this clear in the tournament announcement. I a certain tournament says
that the winner deck list will become public and you absolutely do not
want your newest invention to become public, then you just need to
skip that tournament. It's a matter of choice, on both parts.
-Petri
Petri Wessman
> I kind of like the idea of tournament organizers organizing the
> tournament, and setting the expectations towards players, who can -
> based on those expectations - choose whether they want to attend the
> tournament or not. Then nobody is being a jerk - the players can
> freely choose not to attend, but those attending accept the whole
> package.
>
> So simply say in the description of the tournament that decklists are
> expected of finalists, so people who don't want to give their
> decklists skip out on the tournament altogether.
>
> Then if someone is still trying to be a smartass you can happily
> penalize their asses off. It's much better for everyone to punish
> that person than to punish everyone in the future (e.g. by
> requesting finalists to write up their decklists before the
> finals...).
> --
> Regards,
> Daneel
Exactly.
In the future, I'll personally be a lot more clear and specific on
this matter in tournament announcements, so everyone will know where
things stand (instead of assumptions, which can and will be wrong at
times).
-Petri
Petri Wessman
based on bad communication and jumping to conclusions based on
(inaccurate) things I heard via the grapevine. I hope that this thread
will at least have shed some light on *something* -- communication is
usually good, and deck lists have been a controversial matter before.
-Petri
Frederick Scott
> On Aug 1, 8:49 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com"<echiang...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> #3. But in my personal opinion, you are also slightly being a jerk
>> (though not as bad as in #2) by adamantly refusing to consider the
>> player's perspective. Your main line of logic seems to be that you've
>> always published all the deck lists in your report ("because I want to
>> write a tournament report which includes said decks (and final round
>> transcript), and have done so for ages now"). But you know, it
>> wouldn't be the end of the world if for once, your report was missing
>> a single deck list. I'm sure people would get the gist of the tourney
>> report with a general description instead of an exact deck list.
>
> Well, my point here is precedent. If I let one person hide his deck
> list, I will have to let everyone else do so, too. I cannot play
> favorites.
This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As
you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd
assert, it's not really that beneficial. In my experience, most players
_want_ to give you their decklist; you don't have to create a reputation
for yourself as being a kind of a "scary judge dude who'll stop at
nothing" to get it. Why bother? Eric was right the first time: it
wouldn't be the end of the world if you let report go without the
winning deck list.
Fred
Petri Wessman
> This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As
> you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd
> assert, it's not really that beneficial.
Well, we're going round and round on this. I'd assert that there is
also little benefit to hiding your decklist. There are arguments to be
made for both sides here. It comes down to whether you want to require
decklists from finalists (or winner) or just ask for them. It may be a
silly distinction to *you*, but in this your mileage *does* vary ;).
Some people (me included) think requiring deck lists from everyone in
the tournament (before the tournament) is a bit silly. However, when
some tournaments (EC etc) require that, I go along with it (as a
player), no question. Because it's the organizers' call
Again, I think the most important thing here is to make stuff like
that clear to everyone attending. Different places and different
tournament have different styles and expectations, and as long as they
conform to the official tournament rules and rulings, people are free
to run their tournaments in whichever way they choose.
And "scary judge dude"? Not really, generally. I've run these things
for 10-ish years or so, and (imho) have been very laid back about it
and the atmosphere has been very relaxed and sportsmanlike. I don't
see this one communication glitch changing that.
-Petri
Frederick Scott
> On Aug 2, 6:10 pm, Frederick Scott<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> This just seems like a silly place to draw a bottom line, frankly. As
>> you've seen from the whole issue, enforcing it is a P-I-T-A. And I'd
>> assert, it's not really that beneficial.
>
> Well, we're going round and round on this. I'd assert that there is
> also little benefit to hiding your decklist. There are arguments to be
> made for both sides here. It comes down to whether you want to require
> decklists from finalists (or winner) or just ask for them. It may be a
> silly distinction to *you*, but in this your mileage *does* vary ;).
Sure.
> Some people (me included) think requiring deck lists from everyone in
> the tournament (before the tournament) is a bit silly. However, when
> some tournaments (EC etc) require that, I go along with it (as a
> player), no question. Because it's the organizers' call
It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut-
and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a
poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start
of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the
tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in
response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information.
Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's
just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but
hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least).
> Again, I think the most important thing here is to make stuff like
> that clear to everyone attending.
Agreed; this is always a very good thing.
> And "scary judge dude"? Not really, generally. I've run these things
> for 10-ish years or so, and (imho) have been very laid back about it
> and the atmosphere has been very relaxed and sportsmanlike.
I'm just saying, you usually shouldn't need to do anything in
particular to get players to get you their decklists - especially in
a tournament with 10 or more people in it which will therefore land
in the TWDA. In most of those cases, I'd expect the winner to be
chasing you around waving it at you to get it published. (One of the
players in San Fransisco, Ian Lee, actually once mentioned that he
didn't think sanctioning a VEKN tournament with fewer than 10 players
in it was worth bothering with because the winner wouldn't get his
decklist in the TWDA.) So if the occasional player wants to be shy
about it, it doesn't strike me as a big deal.
Fred
John Whelan
> It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut-
> and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a
> poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start
> of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the
> tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in
> response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information.
> Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's
> just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but
> hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least).
As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list
information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a
safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or
publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a
safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as
effectively as demanding all information in advance.
Obviously, demanding decks from everyone, in advance, is more of a
hassle for all concerned. But I support the organizer's right to do
this, just as I support his right to take lesser measures, according
to his judgment.
Bottom line is, nobody should be giving the judge a hard time, or
calling him a "bit of a jerk" or a "hard-ass", for demanding and
publishing deck-list information.
Daneel
wrote:
Would you agree that if communicated in advance, "guys please give me
the decklists if you make the finals but I'm ok if you don't" and "guys,
you need to give me the decklists if you make the finals, only attend if
you agree" are both respectable, valid ways the tournament organizer can
handle his tournaments, and he isn't being a jerk in either case?
--
Regards,
Daneel
XZealot
But..But...But... I thought there was going to be tarring and
feathering followed by a lynching...
Back in my day, when someone called you a "complete fucking asshole" ,
they were being nice to you.
Now everyone is so sensitive
Peter D Bakija
> But..But...But... I thought there was going to be tarring and
> feathering followed by a lynching...
>
> Back in my day, when someone called you a "complete fucking asshole" ,
> they were being nice to you.
>
> Now everyone is so sensitive
Sniff...sniff...sniff.
I miss Derek.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
Yup. I think it was the day Derek told me I had an anus for
a mouth was the day I realized I was taking my flamefests
_wayyyyyyyyyyy_ too seriously! That was some funny!
Fred
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> It's the organizer's call and it's another thing which is not a cut-
>> and-dried issue. But it's not for the same purpose and hence makes a
>> poor analogy for this issue. I believe requiring decklists at the start
>> of a tournament is generally a thing done to insure the integrity of the
>> tournament; to help insure that players aren't altering their decks in
>> response to the metagame of the tournament once they have information.
>> Your decklist issue is completely different. As I understand it, it's
>> just to spiff up your tournament report. It's a "nice" thing, but
>> hardly worth getting hard-assed about (IMHO, at least).
>
> As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list
> information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a
> safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or
> publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a
> safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as
> effectively as demanding all information in advance.
A) That's kind of a far-fetched safeguard; but more importantly,...
B) It's not why Petri says he's doing it. We can only judge the
purposes of his rules by what he says the purposes are.Hence my
distinction in the context is valid.
...
> Bottom line is, nobody should be giving the judge a hard time, or
> calling him a "bit of a jerk" or a "hard-ass", for demanding and
> publishing deck-list information.
The "bit of a jerk" thing was Eric's wording not mine. To be sure,
I'm fine with the to-each-his-own attitude about this issue; I'm
just saying I disagree with how far Petri goes with it: it's not
necessary and it even has some negative implications (players may
choose to pass on Petri's tournaments, reducing participation, if
they don't care for his rule), albeit admittedly far-fetched ones.
"Hard-ass" is an accurate description of the situation and not
a flame (nor intended as a flame). It means 'extreme'.
Fred
John Whelan
Frederick Scott wrote:
> On 8/2/2010 10:55 AM, John Whelan wrote:
> > As you note, a judge/organizer has the right to demand deck-list
> > information before the start of play, and this is, in part, a
> > safeguard against cheating. If you demand the deck-list later, and/or
> > publish the deck-list after the tournament, this also serves as a
> > safeguard against cheating -- though perhaps not by itself as
> > effectively as demanding all information in advance.
>
> A) That's kind of a far-fetched safeguard; [...]
I disagree. Though, of course, it is all relative.
> [...] but more importantly,...
> B) It's not why Petri says he's doing it.
I don't care. The assumption that judges/organizers have a right to
see and to publish deck information is a deterrent to would-be
cheaters regardless of the precise motives of the judges organizers as
to individual players.
An organizer should not be obliged to make an allegation of cheating
before he has the right to see and publish deck information. This
would only make cheaters feel safer.
> We can only judge the purposes of his rules by what he says the purposes
> are.
I disagree. He is part of a broader V:tES community. The deterrent
function served by rules such as these transcend his precise motives.
If he enforces his prerogative against a recalcitrant player, he sets
an example that makes would-be cheaters feel less safe, regardless of
whether he has the slightest suspicion of cheating by the recalcitrant
player.
> "Hard-ass" is an accurate description of the situation and not
> a flame (nor intended as a flame). It means 'extreme'.
Fine. But I disagree. I don't think Petri has been extreme at all.