[LSJ]: Judging question concerning correction of game state
Jeroen du Chatinier
Suppose one player ousts his prey by bleeding him for exactly his
amount of pool, but gets the bleed wrong by one (He bleeds his prey
with 7 pool for 7 with Gillespi while there are no Camarilla
vampires). One round later the players notice this and call for the
Judge. There has been no willful cheating (for as far as the judge can
tell). What is the appropriate 'fix' for this?
What I would think:
The game has progressed to far (one round) to 'return' the player to
the game. The ousting player should not get rewarded for ousting
someone when he could not. He loses 6 pool and his victory points.
The above makes me think. If losing 6 pool would make the 'cheating'
player be ousted, should he be removed from the game? Or should his
pool be removed to one? He certainly should not be rewarded for
playing wrong.
Oko
"Jeroen du Chatinier" <jero...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:b265d7a7.04022...@posting.google.com...
A) I'd slap away the VP. I'd also slap out the 6 pool, and if that would
oust the predator then tough luck. VP for his predator.
The ousted one should have noticed it at the time, as should have his
predator as well.
B) Issue warnings on them both, and let game continue.
LSJ
> To LSJ and everyone who judges tournaments regularly.
>
> Suppose one player ousts his prey by bleeding him for exactly his
> amount of pool, but gets the bleed wrong by one (He bleeds his prey
> with 7 pool for 7 with Gillespi while there are no Camarilla
> vampires). One round later the players notice this and call for the
> Judge. There has been no willful cheating (for as far as the judge can
> tell). What is the appropriate 'fix' for this?
A ousts B (but wouldn't really, through an unintentional error), what
to do with A?
Whatever the situation called for. If A would've been ousted before
being able to complete the job on B, then let her be (and transfer the
VP for B to whomever would eventually get it). If not, then let her
suffer whatever additional work would've been needed for the oust and
let the oust stand (or, if figuring out what the "work" involved would
be is too convoluted, then dock some of the 6 pool and maybe part of
the VP in accordance with the estimate of the amount of work needed).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Unique Master
"Jeroen du Chatinier" <jero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b265d7a7.04022...@posting.google.com...
> To LSJ and everyone who judges tournaments regularly.
>
> Suppose one player ousts his prey by bleeding him for exactly his
> amount of pool, but gets the bleed wrong by one (He bleeds his prey
> with 7 pool for 7 with Gillespi while there are no Camarilla
> vampires). One round later the players notice this and call for the
> Judge. There has been no willful cheating (for as far as the judge can
> tell). What is the appropriate 'fix' for this?
[IANLSJBIAMO]
Did this actually occur? Do you have a RL example?
Have you ever taken it on blind faith that your predator has ousted you?
> What I would think:
>
> The game has progressed to far (one round) to 'return' the player to
> the game. The ousting player should not get rewarded for ousting
> someone when he could not. He loses 6 pool and his victory points.
But he did oust someone, through their own stupidity. ; )
> The above makes me think. If losing 6 pool would make the 'cheating'
> player be ousted, should he be removed from the game? Or should his
> pool be removed to one? He certainly should not be rewarded for
> playing wrong.
http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/veknRules.html
http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/veknJudgesGuide.html
Cheating, as defined by VEKN rules, is intentional. If the "supposed"
occurence was intentional, then this situation falls under:
[160. Cheating - Fraud], for which the appropriate penalty is
Disqualification without Prize.
If the "supposed" occurence was unintentional, then it falls under:
[110. Procedural Error], for which the appropriate penalty is determined by
a judge. Game loss is an option for most of these. Game loss still has some
judging leeway when applied. Awarding partial VPs could be part of
correcting the game state. And all the players would want to plead their
cases...
Bottom line is, you're there, we're not, you make the call.
Hell, if you were a vindictive SOB, you could penalize all the players in
that game for allowing it to happen. Just don't expect to be asked to judge
many tournaments after doing so.
But really, I'd wait for something like that to actually happen before
worrying about it...
-Mike Ooi
(Hell, they should all get game losses)
The Lasombra
<sh...@removethistexas.net> wrote:
>"Jeroen du Chatinier" <jero...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Suppose one player ousts his prey by bleeding him for exactly his
>> amount of pool, but gets the bleed wrong by one (He bleeds his prey
>> with 7 pool for 7 with Gillespi while there are no Camarilla
>> vampires). One round later the players notice this and call for the
>> Judge. There has been no willful cheating (for as far as the judge can
>> tell). What is the appropriate 'fix' for this?
>Did this actually occur? Do you have a RL example?
Yes.
Not with that vampire, just a miscalculated bleed.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5jgl00l750ci9v6953urg19ii8rbt5emnc%404ax.com
>Have you ever taken it on blind faith that your predator has ousted you?
Nope.
>> What I would think:
>>
>> The game has progressed to far (one round) to 'return' the player to
>> the game. The ousting player should not get rewarded for ousting
>> someone when he could not. He loses 6 pool and his victory points.
>But he did oust someone, through their own stupidity. ; )
Indeed.
>But really, I'd wait for something like that to actually happen before
>worrying about it...
Already has.
Player being bled still ousted, player bleeding suffered loss of VP
and did not receive the 6 pool.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra