Please rate "reasonable chance" in percents!
Ector
community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
My rate is somewhat like 1% or even less. What's your rate of
"reasonable chance"?
Vincent
13,475 %
J
All these numbers are completely arbitrary anyway, so it doesn't
really matter.
Saying that, a 30% chance of a VP is still pretty good. If I had a
30% chance of scoring with Scarlett Johansson I'd not be giving up til
I had exhausted every opportunity, and even then I'd probably not
stop... :P
-- J
Haze
anything less than 200% is unreasonable, so I immediately self-oust.
Ruben Feldman
0%
If there is a chance there is a chance.
LSJ
Doesn't matter, really, since the numerical odds cannot be calculated
in game.
You're left with things like "good", "bad", "reasonable", and
"unreasonable".
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b7191108150d1cc2
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/3db97d4f85079564
Ruben Feldman
> On May 26, 5:40 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> > community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> > reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
> > My rate is somewhat like 1% or even less. What's your rate of
> > "reasonable chance"?
>
> Doesn't matter, really, since the numerical odds cannot be calculated
> in game.
>
> You're left with things like "good", "bad", "reasonable", and
> "unreasonable".
>
Which is why I think this whole "reasonable" clause should be taken
out and replaced with something stating something like players should
play to win, maximize victory points and stay alive for as long as
possible (which is a way of trying to achieve another 0.5VP and get
the opportunity to get more if something happens).
floppyzedolfin
> On May 26, 5:40 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> > community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> > reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
> > My rate is somewhat like 1% or even less. What's your rate of
> > "reasonable chance"?
>
> Doesn't matter, really, since the numerical odds cannot be calculated
> in game.
Well, sometimes, they can.
Suppose you know your prey has nothing to deflect (or Investigate)
your bleed. But you need Conditioning + Daring the Dawn to oust her.
However, without that Conditioning + Daring, your predator will oust
you if you take the action (100% chance, since you're on 1 pool and he
has a bleeder who'll oust you).
Your deck contains only 1 copy of each of these cards.
Suppose your library contains 2 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
are close to 100%
Suppose your library contains 3 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
are close to 33%.
Suppose your library contains 4 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
are down to 17%.
5 cards, 10%.
10 cards, 2%.
Of course, this is an exageration. Things aren't that clear most of
the time.
Peter D Bakija
> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
Well,as when you sit down for a game of VTES, you have a 20% chance of
winning (i.e. it is a 5 player game, all things being equal you have a
1/5 chance of winning), that seems like a rather high bar. And just
some crap that someone is making up.
% chance is irrelevant. And coming up with a "percentage" chance is
just trying to game the system, as you can't determine a % chance
while in the middle of a game (or after the game either).
If you have a reasonable chance of improving your standing (which
includes surviving for .5VP or withdrawing for .5VP), you must attempt
to do so. If you don't, you don't.
And as noted *many* times, if you can meaningfully interact with the
table, you are, in all likelyhood, not in a lost position. As being
able to meaningfully interact with the table means that even if you
have no reasonable chance to oust your prey, you still have a
reasonabe chance of surviving (+.5VP) or figuring out a way to
withdraw (+.5VP).
-Peter
J
> Suppose you know your prey has nothing to deflect (or Investigate)
> your bleed. But you need Conditioning + Daring the Dawn to oust her.
> However, without that Conditioning + Daring, your predator will oust
> you if you take the action (100% chance, since you're on 1 pool and he
> has a bleeder who'll oust you).
> Your deck contains only 1 copy of each of these cards.
>
> Suppose your library contains 2 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
> are close to 100%
> Suppose your library contains 3 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
> are close to 33%.
> Suppose your library contains 4 cards. The odds of ousting your prey
> are down to 17%.
> 5 cards, 10%.
> 10 cards, 2%.
>
> Of course, this is an exageration. Things aren't that clear most of
> the time.
There are always cards such as DI, DI2, Eagles Sight, Falcon's Eye,
Folderol, Ignis Fatuus, Life Boon (and there are plenty more). These
things cannot be calculated.
-- J
floppyzedolfin
That's where the "close to" part comes in :)
Ruben Feldman
> That's where the "close to" part comes in :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But they are not "close to" it at all. You are basing your stats on a
closed environment, but as J outlines, there are many cards that can
affect play, which you have no way of knowoing who has them, if they
will use them and so on.
Also you are never sure that you are dead next turn. Some clash of the
titans combat might happen that will make it 20 mins before your
pred's turn, bringing you to time limit; your pred might realize
something and propose that you get a vp before dying, your pred might
get rushed/pentex/banished/ousted and so on and so on.
The point is, players have VERY limited knowledge of what is going to
happen and so for the rules to expect the player to make a jugdement
whether he/she's got a "reasonable" chance or not is ridiculous.
The rules shouldnt have to force players to try to stay alive as long
as possible, it should be common sense that doing so will increase
your chances of getting a better score. However, if people are going
to transfer out because they give up and don't want to play the game
to the end, then the rules should not make it easily justifiable...
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
I totally and completely agree, and that is why I - and quite a few
others it seems - have been advocating getting rid of the "reasonable"
from the rule.
If you have a chance, you have a chance, and you shouldn't be allowed
to selfoust.
I claim that you can always come up with scenarios that show that you
actually DO have a chance, no matter how small, to gain an extra VP.
When you selfoust and remove your last pool, your only scenario is
that someone else plays a Life Boon (or you play an Extremis Boon, but
that isnt relevant in this case).
Ruben Feldman
> When you selfoust and remove your last pool, your only scenario is
> that someone else plays a Life Boon (or you play an Extremis Boon, but
> that isnt relevant in this case).
Also, if you self-oust without the intention of someone playing one of
the cards mentioned then you are not trying to maximize points, you
are just self-ousting; and it cannot be justified that you had that
intent of being life booned, unless there has been talk of the card
(or you saw it somehow).
Malone
> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
Sounds like my friend Ron, who would throw the Risk board on the floor
if he lost two battles in a row.
bingotclown
already been mentioned... why not just let people self oust maybe
with a caveat of not allowing them to transfer the last pool or not be
ousted until some pool damage has been done by some non transfer
activity?
It seems that self ousting is always going to be a part of the game to
some degree in the same way that some players' actions can seem to be
game changing and not in their favor. Just as seating order, certain
types of decks next to each other, contesting... etc. some issues
might be slightly managed by the rules (like contesting). I guess you
could just be draconian about it and disqualify anyone that self
ousts. Perhaps with any rules you make getting an unmotivated player
to 'play to win'
John
Kushiel
Chance that you should explore the option of playing VTES with people
who are actually interested in playing VTES, rather than continuing to
plague the newsgroup with tales of woe regarding your players: 100%
John Eno
LSJ
> On May 26, 6:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 26, 5:40 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > > Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> > > community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> > > reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
> > > My rate is somewhat like 1% or even less. What's your rate of
> > > "reasonable chance"?
>
> > Doesn't matter, really, since the numerical odds cannot be calculated
> > in game.
>
> > You're left with things like "good", "bad", "reasonable", and
> > "unreasonable".
>
>
> Which is why I think this whole "reasonable" clause should be taken
> out and replaced with something stating something like players should
> play to win, maximize victory points and stay alive for as long as
> possible (which is a way of trying to achieve another 0.5VP and get
> the opportunity to get more if something happens).
If you remove "reasonable", then you're left with no restriction at
all, since there are all sorts of ways that your seemingly-destructive
(and spite-serving or other unsportsmanlike-thing-serving behavior)
can get you more VPs.
Not reasonable ways, of course, but allowing unreasonable ways is
exactly the purpose and effect of removing "reasonable".
See the many threads covering this already.
LSJ
Sure. Where "most" is "all except an inconsequentially small set of
unreasonably-plausible scenarios".
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
He has definitely been bringing this up a lot recently :) But I think
its safe to assume that this is not a problem existing in his
playgroup alone (Check the various people bringing this up on the
newsgroup alone). Also, I don't believe it happens that often in
casual games (and if it does, it doesnt really matter that much) but
if you go to a bigger tournament it seems that there are always a few
people doing this. They are clearly there to play Vtes.
Again, and this is based on a loose overview alone and no solid
statistics, it seems that most of the people advocating a change to
the PTW in a manor like the one Ruben mentions again above, are from
outside of the US. (Not thereby saying that everyone outside of the US
wants to change it).
We have previously seen very big differences in how people play. the.
game. across the globe. Maybe that is simply also the case here?
Kevin M.
> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
Your friend is an idiot.
As he is an idiot, I'd suggest either forcing him to play out
positions he considers 'lost', or when he says his position
is 'lost', give him your position and proceed to win with his.
Then tease him some more about being a quitting quitter,
buy him some more beer, and tell him to start playing.
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
Kevin M.
> Ector wrote:
>> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in
>> our community. One of our players just told me that his measure of
>> "no reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
>
> Well,as when you sit down for a game of VTES, you have a 20% chance
> of winning (i.e. it is a 5 player game, all things being equal you
> have a 1/5 chance of winning),
You (and others) keep forgetting the fact that you can time out. So,
the chance is not 20% (1 in 5) but closer to 17% (1 in 6), and my own
research shows that it's even less than that. Just sayin'. ;)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/da1575278a7f01c3
Kevin M.
I hope this loser was ostracized from the gaming group. Or punched.
alex fnurp
> Your friend is an idiot.
>
> As he is an idiot, I'd suggest either forcing him to play out
> positions he considers 'lost', or when he says his position
> is 'lost', give him your position and proceed to win with his.
>
> Then tease him some more about being a quitting quitter,
> buy him some more beer, and tell him to start playing.
Pretty much this :D
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> Your friend is an idiot.
>>
>> As he is an idiot, I'd suggest either forcing him to play out
>> positions he considers 'lost', or when he says his position
>> is 'lost', give him your position and proceed to win with his.
>>
>> Then tease him some more about being a quitting quitter,
>> buy him some more beer, and tell him to start playing.
>
> Pretty much this :D
You are my hero! :)
brandonsantacruz
> Ector wrote:
> > Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> > community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> > reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
>
> Your friend is an idiot.
>
> As he is an idiot, I'd suggest either forcing him to play out
> positions he considers 'lost', or when he says his position
> is 'lost', give him your position and proceed to win with his.
>
> Then tease him some more about being a quitting quitter,
> buy him some more beer, and tell him to start playing.
I agree with Kevin that a good razzing is often the best medicine to a
whiner or a quitter. I do not agree that you should buy xem a beer,
that might only encourage xer.
Brandon
Ruben Feldman
> On May 26, 7:24 am, Ruben Feldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Which is why I think this whole "reasonable" clause should be taken
> > out and replaced with something stating something like players should
> > play to win, maximize victory points and stay alive for as long as
> > possible (which is a way of trying to achieve another 0.5VP and get
> > the opportunity to get more if something happens).
>
> If you remove "reasonable", then you're left with no restriction at
> all, since there are all sorts of ways that your seemingly-destructive
> (and spite-serving or other unsportsmanlike-thing-serving behavior)
> can get you more VPs.
I dont mean just taking out the word reasonable, but replacing the
whole sentence by something similar to what i mention above. In that
case, I am not sure it would be easy to auto-destruct without
breaching the rules, since players would be forced to do their best to
stay alive as long as possible as well as optimizing VPs.
I realize that it's a bit redundant since staying alive for as long as
possible is essentially a way of optimizing VPS, but obviously some
players don't as there are some who self-oust...
Peter D Bakija
> You (and others) keep forgetting the fact that you can time out. So,
> the chance is not 20% (1 in 5) but closer to 17% (1 in 6), and my own
> research shows that it's even less than that. Just sayin'. ;)
Ah, this is completely true. I'm gonna keep saying 20%, but know deep
down that it is actually about 17% due to games timing out once and a
while :-)
-Peter
LSJ
And don't forget 2-2-1 endings with no winner.
Kushiel
<nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I think
> its safe to assume that this is not a problem existing in his
> playgroup alone (Check the various people bringing this up on the
> newsgroup alone).
I agree that this is a safe assumption. However, given Ector's
personal history of using the newsgroup as his personal venting space
for cards/rules which have caused him to lose a game, which MUST mean
that they are broken, it's time for him to just back away from this
one. Really. There aren't any new arguments for/against self-ousting,
and that paricular circle of argument has already been closed, with a
really thick marker.
> Also, I don't believe it happens that often in
> casual games (and if it does, it doesnt really matter that much) but
> if you go to a bigger tournament it seems that there are always a few
> people doing this. They are clearly there to play Vtes.
Yes. And they are not good players, or they are good players who are
playing badly when they self-oust. There's no use in trying to create
rules to prevent bad play, which is all that removing the option to
self-oust would be.
> We have previously seen very big differences in how people play. the.
> game. across the globe. Maybe that is simply also the case here?
If you like. I've seen people self-oust in tournaments. I've also seen
people play badly in any number of other ways, also in tournaments. I
don't see any need to create rules that prohibit bad play, in spite of
those experiences.
John Eno
alex fnurp
Im awaiting the return of the king - Derek Ray.
librarian
Is pool-sacking ok to you?
If so, why should the prey get better treatment than the predator?
best -
chris
librarian
That's known as the nuclear option...
best -
chris
J
Pool Sacking isn't always giving up.
Pool Sacking can sometimes be your best defense. (ie vs a combat deck
with mid-big caps).
Pool Sacking can get you to the Time Out and get you that 0.5VP
Pool Sacking can force the other players at the table's hands and make
them deal with your unruly predator.
-- J
librarian
when he says his position
> is 'lost', give him your position and proceed to win with his.
>
I like this idea. Robert Goudie did it with his son, and then won.
best -
chris
librarian
> On May 26, 3:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>> Ruben Feldman wrote:
>>> On May 26, 8:08 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, if people are going
>>> to transfer out because they give up and don't want to play the game
>>> to the end, then the rules should not make it easily justifiable...
>> Is pool-sacking ok to you?
>>
>> If so, why should the prey get better treatment than the predator?
>>
>> best -
>>
>> chris
>
> Pool Sacking isn't always giving up.
Yes, it is, at least my definition. You walk away, and leave something
representing how much pool you had left.
> Pool Sacking can sometimes be your best defense. (ie vs a combat deck
> with mid-big caps).
> Pool Sacking can get you to the Time Out and get you that 0.5VP
> Pool Sacking can force the other players at the table's hands and make
> them deal with your unruly predator.
So, it's ok to give your prey better treatment than your predator? Why?
best -
chris
J
>
> Yes, it is, at least my definition. You walk away, and leave something
> representing how much pool you had left.
you and i have different intrepretations then. if i pool sack, i watch
the game until i think it is reasonable to participate again. eg, my
pred is playing gangrel dog pack combat and i have only s:ce.
> So, it's ok to give your prey better treatment than your predator? Why?
it's not about pred/prey for mine, but the player doing the sel-oust/
pool sack. What is the reason for doing it? What do they hope to
achieve. I can also come back from a pool sack. I cannot come back
from a self-oust.
--J
librarian
>>> Pool Sacking isn't always giving up.
>> Yes, it is, at least my definition. You walk away, and leave something
>> representing how much pool you had left.
>
> you and i have different intrepretations then. if i pool sack, i watch
> the game until i think it is reasonable to participate again. eg, my
> pred is playing gangrel dog pack combat and i have only s:ce.
Ah, ok, that's not poolsacking to me. That's "taking a break". Or creating
a false sense of despair, so perhaps your "allies" x-table, or even your
prey take pity on you. Poolsacking is a type of quitting, but instead of
transferring out, you instead just leave your pool there on the table (or
more likely, another remaining player puts out an equivalent number of
their counters), but otherwise pick up all your stuff and walk away and
declare nb, nv, no actions. Usually only done if all your stuff is in
torpor or burnt.
>
>> So, it's ok to give your prey better treatment than your predator? Why?
>
> it's not about pred/prey for mine, but the player doing the sel-oust/
> pool sack. What is the reason for doing it? What do they hope to
> achieve. I can also come back from a pool sack.
By my definition, no you can't - you have physically left the table. By
your definition, yes you can. However, by either of our definitions, we
can still achieve 1/2 vp, or even 1VP (if someone x-table Ancilla's or
something).
But functionally, you are benefitting your prey by pool-sacking because
they now have a buffer zone. In some ways you are also benefitting your
predator, because they have a clear shot at your pool, but it benefits your
prey more than a self-oust does.
I cannot come back
> from a self-oust.
>
> --J
True. In my definition, you can't come back from a poolsack either.
I wonder what other people meant when they referred to "poolsacking".
best -
chris
J
No, I am poolsacking. It is the same effect, just that I'm not
getting up and talking a walk oustide. We call it here the "Tim
Defense". Because Tim didn't used to bring out minions when he had
combat as his predator. And as the combat decks generally ousted via
Fame/Tension, bleeds of 1 were going to take a long time to get him.
When his predator was dead or about to die, that's when he started
bringing out his minions.
> prey take pity on you. Poolsacking is a type of quitting, but instead of
> transferring out, you instead just leave your pool there on the table (or
> more likely, another remaining player puts out an equivalent number of
> their counters), but otherwise pick up all your stuff and walk away and
> declare nb, nv, no actions. Usually only done if all your stuff is in
> torpor or burnt.
Both are forms of poolsacking.
> By my definition, no you can't - you have physically left the table. By
> your definition, yes you can. However, by either of our definitions, we
> can still achieve 1/2 vp, or even 1VP (if someone x-table Ancilla's or
> something).
>
> But functionally, you are benefitting your prey by pool-sacking because
> they now have a buffer zone. In some ways you are also benefitting your
> predator, because they have a clear shot at your pool, but it benefits your
> prey more than a self-oust does.
When we do anything in this game, we will benefit some players and
cause detrimental effects to others. Poolsacking is just one of
those. You say that it benefits the prey, but not always. If your
predator is a vote deck and your prey is playing intercept, then
poolsacking is going to benefit your predator. He can start smashing
at his next prey without fear of being blocked except by ES/FE or his
predator. If he is playing multi-act rush, he can bin your predators
vamps and bleed. If he is playing weenie rush, he can start binning
with some and bleeding with the other. It can actually be a benefit
to your predator to only have 1 hostile deck next to him. If he is a
wall deck, he can happily sit there and tool up for the end game,
sniping away at your pool. There are lots of times having a
poolsacking prey can be advantageous.
-- J
librarian
>
> When we do anything in this game, we will benefit some players and
> cause detrimental effects to others.
Exactly. So, if you are in a lost position, you can chose to lose as you
like, right? Since no matter your choice, you will benefit one player and
cause detrimental effects to others. Why should the rules decide who you
*must* give benefit too? That's not retorical - why do you think the rules
should give the predator the benefit? (I'm assuming you are in the
no-self-ousting-should-be-allowed camp? If not, forgive me.)
best -
chris
brandonsantacruz
> > Ah, ok, that's not poolsacking to me. That's "taking a break".
>
> No, I am poolsacking. It is the same effect, just that I'm not
> getting up and talking a walk oustide. We call it here the "Tim
> Defense". Because Tim didn't used to bring out minions when he had
> combat as his predator. And as the combat decks generally ousted via
> Fame/Tension, bleeds of 1 were going to take a long time to get him.
> When his predator was dead or about to die, that's when he started
> bringing out his minions.
This is not what we refer to as poolsacking in the states. There is a
difference between being in a lost position and deciding your few
remaining pool should stay on the table vs spending them and dying
immediately, call it what you will. One is a tactic to help you
gain(hopefully) 1/2 or more vps, the other is your plan for 0 vps(the
only reasonable outcome in the given situation).
Some more examples might help illustrate the difference between what
every other VTES player I have met calls "poolsacking" and what you
mean.
I bring out Arika. Peter's Koko Bum's Rushes Arika, grapples, glancing
blow, disarm, amaranth. The next Arika I bring out meets a similar
fate. Now I'm at 8 or less pool against 4 computer hacking potence
weenies with minions that cost 8 or more pool in my uncontrolled
region. At this point, my choice is limited to how quickly I would
like to die.
I have a Zillah's Valley in hand. Do I play it and transfer my
remaining 3 pool to my third Arika, getting me out of the game
quickly(self-ousting) or do I look Peter in the eye and say, "No
master, no minion, no influence, discard Zillah's Valley. Done. Do
your worst?" Either way I'm dead meat, but I might last another turn
if I don't use my pool.
In the same situation, say I learn my lesson after the first Arika is
burned. I say, "Peter, weenie potence-fu is so strong, I don't have a
chance. I'll just sit here until you bleed me out and then
congratulate you on a job well done." I'm being sarcastic of course,
because that's the way I tell someone off. My only real hope is that
something very bad happens to Peter, giving me a chance to do
something this game. By not spending my pool right now, I may have a
chance later.
Situation 1 offers you a chance to poolsack, that is not spend my pool
in the face of defeat. Situation 2, I'm strategically not bringing
guys out, call it what you will.
Is it clear now what the difference is?
Brandon
Martin Tibor Major
> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
> "reasonable chance"?
If any possible combination of cards you may draw can lead to a vp
supposing the worst possible draw you prey might have, than it is a
reasonable chance. I'd say 0,001% is a reasonable chance. 0% would
equal no reasonable chance.
LSJ
wrote:
> If any possible combination of cards you may draw can lead to a vp
> supposing the worst possible draw you prey might have, than it is a
> reasonable chance.
It is certainly not reasonable to assume that all the decks will be
constructed and ordered exactly to suit you.
Daneel
<major.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, what you are describing is the difference between "no chance at all"
and "at least a mathematical chance". Even though you may feel that it
is reasonable for a person to keep on playing given at least a small
mathematical chance, don't confuse that to mean that 0.001% is a
reasonable chance (it is not really).
Unless you're the kind of person who religiously buys lottery tickets... :)
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
Just so we are clear here--the problem you are having with people self
ousting is not that there aren't rules preventing it. Or that you need
to change the withdrawing rules. Or that judges are saddled with too
weighty a decision.
The problem you are seeing is that someone or someones in your play
environment is/are cheating (i.e. not playing to win). Which is
covered by rules we already have.
-Peter
James Coupe
>The point is, players have VERY limited knowledge of what is going to
>happen and so for the rules to expect the player to make a jugdement
>whether he/she's got a "reasonable" chance or not is ridiculous.
But we happily let players do this all the time - and players would be
very unhappy if you didn't let them do this.
I look at the table I'm playing. I think "Can I sweep?" Based on my
understanding of my deck, my interactions with the other decks, and any
previous knowledge I have (perhaps I saw one in an earlier round), I
make a judgment.
I then turn to player B and say "Hi, B. How about you and I get some
VPs in the following manner?"
B looks at the table and thinks "Hmm, I'm in a bad place. It would be
an astronomically unlikely event for me to get a game win. I might not
even survive without this deal, so I'll go with this."
B has made a judgment that playing for some event is very unlikely. B
has decided that the most rational course of action is to play for some
VPs with a deal with me.
I have made a similar decision. It would be better for me to sweep, but
this option seems to be more useful to me - I think I can much more
easily get a Game Win this way, so I take this option.
The judge comes along and says "Yes, this is a legal deal" or "No, this
is a poor deal" (or whatever else the judge wants to say, based on the
situation). How did the judge decide this? Based on what's reasonable.
Players make decisions about what's reasonable *all the time*. It's
often how they decide to do anything. Okay, yes, Arika could do X, Y
and Z and have the perfect turn and oust me, but I'll go out on a limb
and say that that won't happen, and try something more risky. I'm going
to trust that you'll honour this deal we've just made, though I know you
can backstab if you want.
If players and judges can cope with assessing reasonable behaviour in
practically every other area of the game, why are they incapable here?
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
J
don't get smarmy with me.
Both are poolsacking. I am "sacking" my pool. I am not transferring
it and not spending it on masters or other cards. Whatever the reason
for me doing it, I am still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Regardless, you can still come back from Poolsacking. Someone could
call a couple parity shifts, giving you pool in your example whilst
Peter gets into a tussle with his predator. You might time out and
get your 0.5 VP because Peter doesn't draw into any computer hacks.
Is it clear now what the conformity is?
-- J
brandonsantacruz
That there's some fanciful way that a person might get out of a bad
hypothetical situation with an even further fetched hypothetical
situation?
There's a lot of information that's missing in a hypothetical because
it is not real. Short of listing every minion in play, their blood/
life/counters, other cards in play(and to which minion/methuselah they
belong), cards in uncontrolled regions, crypts, libraries, and hands,
much of which you won't know at a game, I try to list the relevant
information. Having(presumably) taken zero actions in the above
situation and not having any information about Parity Shift pool
flying around(none have been played, no offer is forthcoming), one can
*reasonably* assume that they are just plain screwed.
I try to play like a reasonable player, so I offer reasonable
examples. The semantics are only important to the extent that people
know what other people are talking about. I'm reasonably sure you
understand what I am talking about, that I've made my point and that
there's no reason to go into other wacky definitions of pool
sacking(destroying a swimming pool, bagging a swimming pool, bags that
contain pool equipment or pieces for billiards,etc.), let alone the
obvious, albiet wrong, definition of pool sacking as destroying or
eliminating your pool.
Brandon
librarian
>> Is it clear now what the difference is?
>
> don't get smarmy with me.
I don't think Brandon is being smarmy. I believe we are having a
completely different definition of poolsacking.
> Both are poolsacking. I am "sacking" my pool. I am not transferring
> it and not spending it on masters or other cards. Whatever the reason
> for me doing it, I am still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
>
> Regardless, you can still come back from Poolsacking.
Not by the common definition used here on the West Coast of the US - the
only place I have played tournament VTES.
Someone could
> call a couple parity shifts, giving you pool in your example whilst
> Peter gets into a tussle with his predator. You might time out and
> get your 0.5 VP because Peter doesn't draw into any computer hacks.
>
Sure, but you have still given up the game because you have no reasonable
chance at VP. You might somehow luck into some VP, but when you left the
table after poolsacking, you have given up. You just didn't transfer out.
I think it's educational and important to the discussion about x-fering out
(or mandating pool-sacking) to be sure that all parties are in agreement
about the definitions of terms...
best -
chris
Robert Scythe
>
> don't get smarmy with me.
> Both are poolsacking. I am "sacking" my pool. I am not transferring
> it and not spending it on masters or other cards. Whatever the reason
> for me doing it, I am still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
You are going way too off with a semantical clarification. When people
here refer to poolsacking it is different from your definition, why is
that so hard for you to understand? If we are drinking together and I
decide to just keep going because I'm having fun but you decide to
stop because you need to drive somewhere and don't want to kill
anybody, I'd call it 'having a few drinks together'. You might want to
clarify and state " Well, I had a few drinks and was being responsible
(drinking responsibly) he was getting shitfaced". I could then say
that "we were doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING". Anybody who 'has a few
drinks' with me can expect this outcome, but if you don't know me you
might think that I just want to have a few drinks (drinking
responsibly). When in Rome...
LSJ
> J wrote:
> >> Is it clear now what the difference is?
>
> > don't get smarmy with me.
>
> I don't think Brandon is being smarmy. I believe we are having a
> completely different definition of poolsacking.
The latter is certainly true, as the parties expressed.
But the statement above "Is it clear now" certainly came off (to this
reader) in bad tone: as if the one definition had a higher claim to
"truth" or somesuch.
> > Both are poolsacking. I am "sacking" my pool. I am not transferring
> > it and not spending it on masters or other cards. Whatever the reason
> > for me doing it, I am still doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
>
> > Regardless, you can still come back from Poolsacking.
>
> Not by the common definition used here on the West Coast of the US - the
> only place I have played tournament VTES.
Poolsacking is commonly used to mean "perma-pass until such time as
game state prospects improve" here (and at other venues I've judged).
FWIW (which isn't much)
J
> here refer to poolsacking it is different from your definition, why is
> that so hard for you to understand?
I'm not the one arguing a semantic clarification.
If my pool is left untouched by me (either through spending or
transfers), then my pool is sacked. It doesn't matter how I got there
or where I'm going from that point on. You yanks are the ones arguing
that they are different. They are the same. Exactly the same. My
pool has been sacked. It's now up to my predator to blast through it
or through his hands up in frustration and it is up to my prey to
decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing and the rest of the table
to shake their heads in dismay or to smirk knowingly.
Once I am sitting there on my pool, doing nothing, for whatever reason
- it is now sacked.
And that's the truth of it.
-- J
brandonsantacruz
Interesting.... Are you saying you equate sitting inactive as the
predator of a nasty wall deck to being near death and unable to do
anything? Would it be equally bad for the player to oust themselves?
What if you are a wall deck with smiling jack and don't need to do
anything(except block)? Any of those cases put your predator in the
position of ousting you or not. The important thing from my
perspective and that of many others who have written is "what can I do
to get vps?" If the answer is "virtually nothing," then I think you
are free to play as you want(and die quickly almost no matter what).
Brandon
Juggernaut1981
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
What happens though, as you have alluded to, if your best course of
action is to do exactly nothing?
With the Smiling Jack Wall Deck as your predator, I would suggest that
your best course of action is to do precisely nothing.
If there are no courses of action or inaction that will result in your
gaining at least 0.5VP more, then you may do anything. However, while
you still have pool, you can take the course of action of encouraging
other players to attack your predator and either allow you to survive
to the end, or allow you to take action against your prey... so there
is at least one action you can always take while you still have 1+
pool. So, therefore, there is no lost position until you have removed
your last pool because you can always try talk the table up until the
point you lose your last pool.
Ector
Kushiel wrote:
> On May 26, 11:19 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
> <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But I think
> > its safe to assume that this is not a problem existing in his
> > playgroup alone (Check the various people bringing this up on the
> > newsgroup alone).
>
> I agree that this is a safe assumption. However, given Ector's
> personal history of using the newsgroup as his personal venting space
> for cards/rules which have caused him to lose a game, which MUST mean
> that they are broken, it's time for him to just back away from this
> one. Really. There aren't any new arguments for/against self-ousting,
> and that paricular circle of argument has already been closed, with a
> really thick marker.
You were mistaken at least twice:
1). I've never argued here just for losing a game. Never. Every time I
was sure that the game should be better another way. Yes, sometimes I
was wrong, but I cannot see a reason of telling tales about my
"personal history".
2). You cannot be sure that there aren't new arguments. And this is
going to be "closed" only when the rules finally get changed. After
that, you would pretend that you were always for the change :)
> > Also, I don't believe it happens that often in
> > casual games (and if it does, it doesnt really matter that much) but
> > if you go to a bigger tournament it seems that there are always a few
> > people doing this. They are clearly there to play Vtes.
>
> Yes. And they are not good players, or they are good players who are
> playing badly when they self-oust. There's no use in trying to create
> rules to prevent bad play, which is all that removing the option to
> self-oust would be.
Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
possible.
> > We have previously seen very big differences in how people play. the.
> > game. across the globe. Maybe that is simply also the case here?
>
> If you like. I've seen people self-oust in tournaments. I've also seen
> people play badly in any number of other ways, also in tournaments. I
> don't see any need to create rules that prohibit bad play, in spite of
> those experiences.
>
Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
possible. Preferably impossible.
Peter D Bakija
> Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
> possible. Preferably impossible.
Well, not really. Rules don't exist to make bad play illegal. They
exist to make illegal play illegal. You can make rules to prevent bad
play.
How do you make rules that keep people from playing bad decks? You are
going to institute a rule that says "You may not build decks that rely
on Werewolf Packs" or "You may not make decks that rely on decking
your prey to oust them". Or "You may not make decks that have no way
to deal with a S+B predator"? Really? You think rules exist to make
these things as difficult as possible.
How do you make rules that keep people from making bad decisions? You
are going to have a rule that says "When a combat deck that is likely
going to kick your ass bleeds you for 1, you may not block them"?
Rules do not exist to prevent bad play. What exists to prevent bad
play are the victory conditions of the game. Bad play keeps you from
winning. Winning is something that, presumably, everyone is trying to
do. Thus, if you want to win, bad play is a bad idea.
The tournament rules that insist that you Play to Win is giving us all
a blanket starting point--it is assumed that, if you are playing in a
tournament, that your main incentive is to try and win. It is silly
that such a rule is necessary, but at the very least it gives us a
baseline to work from.
-Peter
Ruben Feldman
I agree but i don't see how this is relevant. I am not saying to
prevent players from making judgment on what is reasonable to get out
of a table, but just saying that they should not be allowed to self-
oust if they dont think they have a reasonable chance at getting
better than what they have.
Doing a deal between yourself and player B may or may not increase
your/his chances of getting more VPs. Self-ousting automatically
reduces them however. A very clear difference here...
Kushiel
I've been mistaken many, many more times than that.
> 1). I've never argued here just for losing a game. Never. Every time I
> was sure that the game should be better another way. Yes, sometimes I
> was wrong, but I cannot see a reason of telling tales about my
> "personal history".
If that's the case, you should stop using personal anecdotes to
illustrate your issues with cards and rules, because doing so always
makes it seem as though you feel that the game needs to be changed
because the game is somehow frustrating your attempts to win.
> 2). You cannot be sure that there aren't new arguments.
If you don't feel like doing the research to check, believe me: the
newsgroup has been around this particular mulberry bush many, many
times. Not once in all of those orbits did the conversation move away
from the circular arguments you recently dusted off.
> And this is
> going to be "closed" only when the rules finally get changed.
[eyeroll]
> After
> that, you would pretend that you were always for the change :)
Nope. I used to think that self-ousting should be illegal, until it
was made clear to me that it's nothing more than bad play, and no more
disruptive to the game than any other example of bad play. Since bad
play is it's own punishment, and since it's ridiculous to try to
legislate against bad play, self-ousting should remain legal.
> Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
> possible.
Bullshit. Rules provide a framework by which players are able to
choose to play well or badly. Otherwise, there's no game involved at
all.
John Eno
Meej
> Doing a deal between yourself and player B may or may not increase
> your/his chances of getting more VPs. Self-ousting automatically
> reduces them however. A very clear difference here...
Consider the following situation: Player A is playing a vote deck.
His prey, B, is near death, and A is trying to call the last vote that
will put him over. C, A's grandprey, has consistently shown plenty of
rush, intercept, and the combat to completely shut A down, so it's
incredibly unlikely that A will get more than B's VP. D is currently
A's predator, having ousted E, and is also an intercept-y deck. A is
a little ways from being ousted naturally, but could easily spend
xerself down and self-oust pretty quickly - Zillah's, Info Highway,
etc. With an influx of pool from A, D will more likely last till time
against C, if not oust C entirely.
So A proposes a deal: D doesn't block the ousting vote, in exchange
for A (who is then in a no-more-vp's situation) self-ousting as
quickly as possible so that D gets that boost of pool in time to stave
off C and go for at least 2.5, possibly 4 VP.
Totally a legal, PTW deal. Totally not possible if the rules
arbitrarily say A is not allowed to favor D by self-ousting rather
than C by not self-ousting.
Why should the game's rules favor one over the other?
(This is just an extreme version. The situation could be far less
clear-cut, but it's not the job of the rules to be the kingmaker and
favor one position over another.)
- D.J.
Ruben Feldman
Well, here A is making a deal to optimize VPs, which superceeds trying
to stay alive, and he is allowed to keep his deal as long as there are
three players in the game.
In the current rules, if you make a deal like this (but say you were
able to take the win after the your partner has delivered his promise)
you are allowed to transfer out even though there is the PTW rule.
This is the same situation, so no issues here.
Meej
> Well, here A is making a deal to optimize VPs, which superceeds trying
> to stay alive, and he is allowed to keep his deal as long as there are
> three players in the game.
Not if (as many have proposed) the game rules prohibit transferring
out.
- D.J.
James Coupe
>Kushiel wrote:
>> If you like. I've seen people self-oust in tournaments. I've also seen
>> people play badly in any number of other ways, also in tournaments. I
>> don't see any need to create rules that prohibit bad play, in spite of
>> those experiences.
>>
>Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
>possible. Preferably impossible.
No, this is not the intention of the rules, nor has it ever been, nor
have there been any rulings supporting this, ever.
Players who lack skill will play badly (except by pure luck). The
tournament rules do not prevent players who are bad at the game from
playing badly. The tournament rules cannot prevent players from doing
so.
The judge is emphatically *not* empowered to intervene and stop a player
from making a bad move just because the player is playing badly. The
player doesn't burn a card that would stop them dying? The player
doesn't diablerize a vampire that would make them significantly more
likely to win? If it's just the player lacking ability, the judge
doesn't intervene.
How does the judge decide? Judgment.
Similarly, in Magic tournaments, the judge doesn't stop a player doing
something stupid when a better option would be obvious to a more skilful
player.
James Coupe
>On May 27, 5:27�pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>> RubenFeldman <frub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The point is, players have VERY limited knowledge of what is going to
>> >happen and so for the rules to expect the player to make a jugdement
>> >whether he/she's got a "reasonable" chance or not is ridiculous.
>>
>> practically every other area of the game, why are they incapable here?
>
>prevent players from making judgment on what is reasonable to get out
>of a table,
Erm, that's exactly what you said - see above. That it's ridiculous for
a player to make a judgment on what is reasonable, because of imperfect
knowledge. Which is exactly like every other decision they make in the
rest of the game.
>but just saying that they should not be allowed to self-
>oust if they dont think they have a reasonable chance at getting
>better than what they have.
>Doing a deal between yourself and player B may or may not increase
>your/his chances of getting more VPs. Self-ousting automatically
>reduces them however. A very clear difference here...
No different at all when you're claiming that it's ridiculous for
players to make decisions about what's reasonable with imperfect
knowledge - it's exactly the same. And that's what you claimed.
If you want to argue that players shouldn't be able to self-oust, you
need to pick a better argument than "players have imperfect knowledge so
can't possibly decide what's reasonable", or the whole game falls down.
Abdul alHazred
It doesnt matter how improbable a chain of events are that would lead
up to you getting a vp or half a vp something is. It´s always infinite
times more likely to happen than something that has 0% chance of
happening which is exactly the percentile chance of you getting a vp
or half a vp when you self-oust.
/cheers Tomas
Haze
Unless you get life booned by surprise and receive 100 pool from your
predator.
And then he decides to no longer play to win, so he plays Blood Trade
to burn the boon, allowing you to get the 5 VP sweep.
So it's not exactly a 0% chance, right? No matter how improbable?
Martin Major
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:58:53 -0700 (PDT), Martin Tibor Major
>
> > On May 26, 11:40 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >> Looks like I've discovered the source of frequent self-oustings in our
> >> community. One of our players just told me that his measure of "no
> >> reasonable chance of getting VPs" is less than 30% chance.
> >> My rate is somewhat like 1% or even less. What's your rate of
> >> "reasonable chance"?
>
> > If any possible combination of cards you may draw can lead to a vp
> > supposing the worst possible draw you prey might have, than it is a
> > reasonable chance. I'd say 0,001% is a reasonable chance. 0% would
> > equal no reasonable chance.
>
> No, what you are describing is the difference between "no chance at all"
> and "at least a mathematical chance". Even though you may feel that it
> is reasonable for a person to keep on playing given at least a small
> mathematical chance, don't confuse that to mean that 0.001% is a
> reasonable chance (it is not really).
>
> Unless you're the kind of person who religiously buys lottery tickets... :)
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Daneel
1. I've seen somebody win a tournament sitting with a ~75 card deck
with almost no combat defence between 2 tupdog deck, who didn't
contest. He spent like 1 hour and 50 minutes in torpor and some of his
vampires where graverobbed. He waited and cycled his hand and in the
last turn he had he managed to win the finals. How much chance would
you guys have given him 1-2 turns earlier when he had only torporized
vampires (on low blood) and also was low on pool?
2. I can remember a final I was playing with an old school ventrue
lawfirm. I head only 1 Jazz Wentworth left and less than 5 pool. I was
stuck between an Omaya deck and a Tzimice wall deck. Both had 6+
minions. My cross table body played a Euro Brujah deck and had the
vote lock. He had a deal with the Omaya deck, which meant that he
would vote against if I try to oust Omaya. In my last possible turn I
played a ventrue headquarters, called an anarchist uprising with
daring the dawn and used my dreams of the sphinx to draw cards. There
were 2 or 3 bewitching orations left in my deck. If I draw one
everybody would have died from the uprising except me. I didn't draw
it, but I was damn close (3 more cards to cycle to draw it). I think
it was a reasonable chance and it's always worth trying.
3. Since 2004 (I started playing v:tes right before the EC Heidelberg)
I've seen many games which were won by the "weakest" player. Many
decks can manage to stand up from nothing. I think it's also a kind of
philosophy you either follow or not, but I would say never give up!
Ector
You should note that I've meant *intentional* bad play - i.e. when a
player *knows* that he's going to play badly and lower his chances of
getting GW or VPs. There is no way of preventing unintentional bad
play, of course.
If you agree that self-ousting is a bad play (and it really is, since
it decreases the chances to zero), then it should be prohibited as
it's an intentional bad play.
Ector
Kushiel wrote:
> On May 28, 9:04 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > You were mistaken at least twice:
>
> I've been mistaken many, many more times than that.
>
> > 1). I've never argued here just for losing a game. Never. Every time I
> > was sure that the game should be better another way. Yes, sometimes I
> > was wrong, but I cannot see a reason of telling tales about my
> > "personal history".
>
> If that's the case, you should stop using personal anecdotes to
> illustrate your issues with cards and rules, because doing so always
> makes it seem as though you feel that the game needs to be changed
> because the game is somehow frustrating your attempts to win.
Why should I stop providing the real life examples that you call
"personal anecdotes" for unknown reason?
> > 2). You cannot be sure that there aren't new arguments.
>
> If you don't feel like doing the research to check, believe me: the
> newsgroup has been around this particular mulberry bush many, many
> times. Not once in all of those orbits did the conversation move away
> from the circular arguments you recently dusted off.
The same was told about PTO discussion. But I believe that I managed
to find some new arguments :)
> > And this is
> > going to be "closed" only when the rules finally get changed.
>
> [eyeroll]
>
> > After
> > that, you would pretend that you were always for the change :)
>
> Nope. I used to think that self-ousting should be illegal, until it
> was made clear to me that it's nothing more than bad play, and no more
> disruptive to the game than any other example of bad play. Since bad
> play is it's own punishment, and since it's ridiculous to try to
> legislate against bad play, self-ousting should remain legal.
Intentional bad play (when a player *knows* that it's a bad play) is
very different from the unintentional bad play (when he mistakingly
thinks that his play is good). The prior is clear PTW violation (at
least such behavior clearly contradicts with a spirit of PTW, even
though it's somehow legal).
And, unfortunately, such "bad play" affects not only the "bad player",
but the entire game.
> > Rules are always meant to make intentional "bad play" as difficult as
> > possible.
>
> Bullshit. Rules provide a framework by which players are able to
> choose to play well or badly. Otherwise, there's no game involved at
> all.
>
> John Eno
Ha! You didn't think hard enough.
*Intentional* bad play is a PTW violation, nothing else. Every self-
ousting player knows that he's throwing away all the chances he had.
Abdul alHazred
>
> - Visa citerad text -
Well if you get life booned you havent self ousted, but on a more
serious note: it wouldnt be bad play of that methuselah to play Blood
Trade but rather illegal in the case that he decides not to PTW since
you have to PTW. There is no "To PTW or not to PTW that is the
question" its not a question, its a rule.
/cheers Tomas
James Coupe
>You should note that I've meant *intentional* bad play - i.e. when a
>player *knows* that he's going to play badly and lower his chances of
>getting GW or VPs. There is no way of preventing unintentional bad
>play, of course.
It is exceptionally difficult to prevent "bad play" in this way. Strong
players are aware of their table image, and often seek to manage their
table image. (Sometimes they don't need to or don't care to, of
course.)
This can involve making 'bad' choices - not seeking the obvious path to
short-term gains, in order to avoid the whole table turning on you.
This can very often look like poor play - and the game might unfold to
show that it is poor play in that situation. However, it's a perfectly
reasonable thing for a player to be doing in a multi-player game. Their
image is something that the game's structure makes important - be it
through making deals, playing aggressively, backstabbing, or whatever
else.
The rules do not seek to prevent players from taking such things into
account, and taking reasonable steps to help themselves in this way.
In much the same way, the rules do not prevent a player from playing
extremely aggressively because they don't like deal making - even when
taking the deal would provide them with a significantly stronger chance
at getting a GW or more VPs.
James Coupe
>Why should I stop providing the real life examples that you call
>"personal anecdotes" for unknown reason?
History suggests that you are incapable of presenting personal anecdotes
without presenting yourself as saying "I got owned by this deck. I
DEMAND A RULES CHANGE NOW." This may or may not be the impression you
intend to convey, but it is often the impression you *do* convey.
See also: standing up to 4 combat decks with a Malkavian deck with no
combat defence in it; Madness Network + Rotschreck where burning the
Madness Network was too hard; Bowl of Convergence.
Haze
let's assume there is a very slight chance, one in a billion, that
UFOs have suddenly abducted the judge and all spectators, so there is
no one around to disqualify the predator for illegal play
it's infinitely better than 0% so you should always take the course of
action that might work if an space alien invasion is involved.
Abdul alHazred
>
> - Visa citerad text -
- If you want to be silly go right ahead.
Not transferring out will more likely result in a vp than trying to
transfer out and hoping for a space alien intervention or a crosstable
life boon.
What would you say is the course of action that would give you a
lesser chance of getting a vp than have space aliens abduct everyone
around you except your opponent(s) since you are trying to compare
this with a zero percentile chance of getting a vp?
Peter D Bakija
> You should note that I've meant *intentional* bad play - i.e. when a
> player *knows* that he's going to play badly and lower his chances of
> getting GW or VPs. There is no way of preventing unintentional bad
> play, of course.
Well, you didn't say "intentional bad play", so I just went with what
was there.
> If you agree that self-ousting is a bad play (and it really is, since
> it decreases the chances to zero), then it should be prohibited as
> it's an intentional bad play.
Self ousting is only bad play when it is done in such a way that the
rules already prevent. Self ousting from a truly lost position isn't
intentional bad play.
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On May 31, 3:11 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > You should note that I've meant *intentional* bad play - i.e. when a
> > player *knows* that he's going to play badly and lower his chances of
> > getting GW or VPs. There is no way of preventing unintentional bad
> > play, of course.
>
> Well, you didn't say "intentional bad play", so I just went with what
> was there.
You may be confused. My first post about the bad play (May 28) clearly
states "intentional".
> > If you agree that self-ousting is a bad play (and it really is, since
> > it decreases the chances to zero), then it should be prohibited as
> > it's an intentional bad play.
>
> Self ousting is only bad play when it is done in such a way that the
> rules already prevent. Self ousting from a truly lost position isn't
> intentional bad play.
>
> -Peter
A position is *truly* lost only when a player is ousted.
Otherwise, a player may think that position is lost, and the judge may
also think so, but actually this wouldn't be true. See some examples
in this thread.
Ben Peal
> Which is why I think this whole "reasonable" clause should be taken
> out and replaced with something stating something like players should
> play to win, maximize victory points and stay alive for as long as
> possible (which is a way of trying to achieve another 0.5VP and get
> the opportunity to get more if something happens).
A change to the rules is not needed. What is needed is a
combination of education and attitude adjustment to facilitate thought
on how one can go about winning a game of VTES rather than thought on
what one should do when they're losing.
Furthermore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with a
way of masking one's deliberate attempts to sabotage one's own game,
no matter what changes to the rules you make.
- Ben Peal
Peter D Bakija
> You may be confused. My first post about the bad play (May 28) clearly
> states "intentional".
Huh. So you did.
> A position is *truly* lost only when a player is ousted.
> Otherwise, a player may think that position is lost, and the judge may
> also think so, but actually this wouldn't be true. See some examples
> in this thread.
Except that isn't how the rules see things. The rules accept that you
can be:
A) Not ousted yet.
B) In a truly lost position.
At which point, self ousting is not intentionally bad play.
-Peter
suoli
For every rule in the game there exists a way to break it and many of
those ways are easy to mask. We still follow those rules and trust
that others do so as well, even when there is very little chance of
getting caught cheating. I really don't see the capability of
violating a given rule as a reason against having that rule in an
environment like this.
Kushiel
> Why should I stop providing the real life examples that you call
> "personal anecdotes" for unknown reason?
James answered this. See also: Your playgroup is not the only
playgroup in the world. Rather than starting threads proclaiming the
brokennes of X, why not consult the collective wisdom of the playgroup
and ask what other people think?
> Intentional bad play (when a player *knows* that it's a bad play) is
> very different from the unintentional bad play (when he mistakingly
> thinks that his play is good). The prior is clear PTW violation (at
> least such behavior clearly contradicts with a spirit of PTW, even
> though it's somehow legal).
Again: If the people you play with are deliberately playing poorly,
this is a problem that no amount of rules tweaks can fix. Find people
who actually want to play the game as written.
> And, unfortunately, such "bad play" affects not only the "bad player",
> but the entire game.
That's true of all bad play in all multiplayer games. If you've got a
solution to that issue, game designers the world over would love to
hear from you.
> Ha! You didn't think hard enough.
I didn't need to think at all, since this has been gone over so many
times.
> *Intentional* bad play is a PTW violation, nothing else. Every self-
> ousting player knows that he's throwing away all the chances he had.
Nope. A player can only self-oust if he didn't have any chance to
throw away. If he had a chance, he couldn't self-oust. Aren't circular
arguments fun?
John Eno
Martin Tibor Major
Agreed!
Ben Peal
> For every rule in the game there exists a way to break it and many of
> those ways are easy to mask. We still follow those rules and trust
> that others do so as well, even when there is very little chance of
> getting caught cheating. I really don't see the capability of
> violating a given rule as a reason against having that rule in an
> environment like this.
I don't see how saying "you must maximize your VPs" or "you must
stay alive for as long as possible" is any different than the existing
"reasonable" clause, as they're all subjective statements.
- Ben Peal
Jesper Bøje
> > ousting player knows that he's throwing away all the chances he had.
>
> Nope. A player can only self-oust if he didn't have any chance to
> throw away. If he had a chance, he couldn't self-oust. Aren't circular
> arguments fun?
As I see it, you are also missing another point of this. If we was to
rule govern against "*Intentional* bad play" who should decide what is
bad play.
Even on this issue we do not agree, I belive that Self ousting, as
long as the rules are as they are, is a part of the game. I have
selfousted myself, not plenty of times, but a few. Was this bad play,
maybe, maybe not. Is it bad play for a grand prey or predator of mine
to cripple me so much I cannot win the game, and by doing so I might
as well self oust, Maybe maybe not.
I would advocate, that its just as much the rest of the tables "bad
plays" that puts me in a situation where I have no chance of winning
that is bad play, then me actully self ousting.
Maybe thats just me, and becouse I havent understood the game. But the
game, as it stands right now, is actully quite fine. And there is no
rule issue that needs fixing here, what needs to be fixing is that
people gets to know whats the boundaries of the games, and then plays
accordingly to that. So no one puts a player in a situation where he
can selfoust, unless you actully want the player out of the game, but
by doing so, you might just have done that.
/Jesper Bøje
Kushiel
(I'm assuming you're replying to me, since you quoted my post, even
though it seems like you might actually be directing your comments at
Ector.)
> As I see it, you are also missing another point of this. If we was to
> rule govern against "*Intentional* bad play" who should decide what is
> bad play.
That's actually another way of stating my point: that it's undesirable
to try to legislate against bad play. Doing so leads to slippery slope
situations, like what you're saying here.
> Even on this issue we do not agree, I belive that Self ousting, as
> long as the rules are as they are, is a part of the game. I have
> selfousted myself, not plenty of times, but a few. Was this bad play,
> maybe, maybe not. Is it bad play for a grand prey or predator of mine
> to cripple me so much I cannot win the game, and by doing so I might
> as well self oust, Maybe maybe not.
I agree that self-ousting is part of the game, and isn't problematic,
and should be kept in the game. Discussions of whether or not it's a
bad choice to make during a game, in the unlikely event that it
becomes a legal choice to make during a game, are really outside the
scope of this discussion.
> Maybe thats just me, and becouse I havent understood the game. But the
> game, as it stands right now, is actully quite fine. And there is no
> rule issue that needs fixing here, what needs to be fixing is that
> people gets to know whats the boundaries of the games, and then plays
> accordingly to that. So no one puts a player in a situation where he
> can selfoust, unless you actully want the player out of the game, but
> by doing so, you might just have done that.
Agreed.
John Eno
suoli
When I respond to one argument that doesn't mean I'm taking a stance
against your position or some other argument you might have. Anyway.
"You must stay alive for as long as possible" means that you must try
to stay alive for as long as you can. "You must play to win or get as
many victory points as possible as long as you have a reasonable
chance to do so" means that you don't have to try to stay alive once
you don't have a reasonable chance to get victory points. I think it's
fair to assume that there are situations where you don't have a
reasonable chance to get VP's but can choose to either self oust or
survive a bit longer.
Ben Peal
> When I respond to one argument that doesn't mean I'm taking a stance
> against your position or some other argument you might have. Anyway.
*shrug* You can talk all you want about how you want to change the
rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
> "You must stay alive for as long as possible" means that you must try
> to stay alive for as long as you can.
How do you determine that? Suppose I think I can survive 2 more
turns and play accordingly, but someone else on the table thinks I can
survive 4 more turns? Who is right? Suppose I think I can survive 6
more turns and play accordingly, but it turns out I'm horribly wrong?
Should I be penalized for screwing up? It really is subjective, and
the "reasonably" clause is fine.
> "You must play to win or get as many victory points as possible as
> long as you have a reasonable chance to do so" means that you
> don't have to try to stay alive once you don't have a reasonable
> chance to get victory points. I think it's fair to assume that there are
> situations where you don't have a reasonable chance to get VP's
> but can choose to either self oust or survive a bit longer.
This gets back to "thinking about how you're going to win" versus
"thinking about how you're going to lose". It also gets back to
"thinking about not putting your opponents in situations where they
start thinking about how they're going to lose". Yes, self-ousting
sucks. Yes, king-making sucks. Remember that when you're playing,
and try not to put your opponents into situations where they're
considering self-ousting or king-making. You don't need a rule to
cover it.
- Ben Peal
suoli
> suoli wrote:
> > When I respond to one argument that doesn't mean I'm taking a stance
> > against your position or some other argument you might have. Anyway.
>
> *shrug* You can talk all you want about how you want to change the
> rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
> enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
> much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
> that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
> > "You must stay alive for as long as possible" means that you must try
> > to stay alive for as long as you can.
>
> How do you determine that? Suppose I think I can survive 2 more
> turns and play accordingly, but someone else on the table thinks I can
> survive 4 more turns? Who is right? Suppose I think I can survive 6
> more turns and play accordingly, but it turns out I'm horribly wrong?
> Should I be penalized for screwing up? It really is subjective, and
> the "reasonably" clause is fine.
It doesn't matter whether you actually succeed or not. If you're
skills aren't sufficient it might not be possible for you to survive
past a certain point. What matters is that you honestly try your best,
just like with the PTW-rule.
> > "You must play to win or get as many victory points as possible as
> > long as you have a reasonable chance to do so" means that you
> > don't have to try to stay alive once you don't have a reasonable
> > chance to get victory points. I think it's fair to assume that there are
> > situations where you don't have a reasonable chance to get VP's
> > but can choose to either self oust or survive a bit longer.
>
> This gets back to "thinking about how you're going to win" versus
> "thinking about how you're going to lose". It also gets back to
> "thinking about not putting your opponents in situations where they
> start thinking about how they're going to lose". Yes, self-ousting
> sucks. Yes, king-making sucks. Remember that when you're playing,
> and try not to put your opponents into situations where they're
> considering self-ousting or king-making. You don't need a rule to
> cover it.
>
> - Ben Peal
I don't have any interest in discussing whether self ousting is
actually good for the game or not. I was pointing out the factual, non-
subjective difference between a "get as many vp's as you can and when
you can't reasonably get any self oust if you feel like it" rule vs. a
"survive for as long as possible" rule. One allows you to self oust
under certain circumstances, the other doesn't.
Ben Peal
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > *shrug* You can talk all you want about how you want to change the
> > rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
> > enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
> > much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
> > that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
>
> But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
> most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
Enforcement of rules _is_ an issue. If you can't enforce a rule,
then that rule effectively doesn't exist.
Yes, in most cases, people don't cheat or play in an unsportsmanlike
manner. However, if someone trashes someone else's game, the
victimized player might be inclined to be spiteful, however
unsportsmanlike. We've clearly seen that.
> I don't have any interest in discussing whether self ousting is
> actually good for the game or not.
Then why do you want a rule prohibiting it?
- Ben Peal
Ben Peal
> I don't have any interest in discussing whether self ousting is
> actually good for the game or not. I was pointing out the factual, non-
> subjective difference between a "get as many vp's as you can and when
> you can't reasonably get any self oust if you feel like it" rule vs. a
> "survive for as long as possible" rule. One allows you to self oust
> under certain circumstances, the other doesn't.
Here's a scenario for you:
It's the third round of a tournament. A player has 0 GW, 0VP. In
that third round, it becomes clear to everyone at the table that this
player has no shot whatsoever of getting a VP. What's to stop this
player from packing up his things and leaving?
If you had your way, this player would be required to stay there and
attempt to survive for as long as he can. As a judge, you'd be
powerless to stop the guy from walking out. What are you going to do,
threaten to never let him play in one of your tournaments again?
- Ben Peal
Juggernaut1981
> > rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
> > enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
> > much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
> > that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
>
> But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
> most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
As a teacher, any rule not enforced does not exist and will be broken
as a matter of course. I'm sure it would happen with VTES players as
much as it does with school students.
>
> > > "You must stay alive for as long as possible" means that you must try
> > > to stay alive for as long as you can.
>
> > How do you determine that? Suppose I think I can survive 2 more
> > turns and play accordingly, but someone else on the table thinks I can
> > survive 4 more turns? Who is right? Suppose I think I can survive 6
> > more turns and play accordingly, but it turns out I'm horribly wrong?
> > Should I be penalized for screwing up? It really is subjective, and
> > the "reasonably" clause is fine.
Actually, it seems simple to say "You must attempt to take any action,
including inaction, to remain in the game and at the same time work
towards gaining more VPs, including the 0.5VPs if the game times out.
You cannot use this rule to break any unsportsmanlike conduct or
obstructively slow down the rate of play." Or something to that
effect.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you actually succeed or not. If you're
> skills aren't sufficient it might not be possible for you to survive
> past a certain point. What matters is that you honestly try your best,
> just like with the PTW-rule.
Yes, and "bailing out because I don't feel that I can win" I would
suggest is not trying your best. It's quitting.
> > > "You must play to win or get as many victory points as possible as
> > > long as you have a reasonable chance to do so" means that you
> > > don't have to try to stay alive once you don't have a reasonable
> > > chance to get victory points. I think it's fair to assume that there are
> > > situations where you don't have a reasonable chance to get VP's
> > > but can choose to either self oust or survive a bit longer.
But you do not have any chance to get a VP if you're not in the game.
Survival, and survival to the end of the game, gets you 0.5VP. If
going for that goal requires you to actively choose "inaction", then
you are attempting to get more VPs.
From Ben Peal...
>
> > This gets back to "thinking about how you're going to win" versus
> > "thinking about how you're going to lose". It also gets back to
> > "thinking about not putting your opponents in situations where they
> > start thinking about how they're going to lose". Yes, self-ousting
> > sucks. Yes, king-making sucks. Remember that when you're playing,
> > and try not to put your opponents into situations where they're
> > considering self-ousting or king-making. You don't need a rule to
> > cover it.
I agree that playing in that way is not only "smart play" but also
"considerate play". If people aren't feeling like they need to play
King-Maker then they're going to enjoy the game more. However, I also
think that there should be something to basically prohibit "quitting"
from Tournaments. It's a Tournament; you came to compete and compete
hard...so do it!
LSJ
> > > > "You must stay alive for as long as possible" means that you must try
> > > > to stay alive for as long as you can.
>
> > > How do you determine that? Suppose I think I can survive 2 more
> > > turns and play accordingly, but someone else on the table thinks I can
> > > survive 4 more turns? Who is right? Suppose I think I can survive 6
> > > more turns and play accordingly, but it turns out I'm horribly wrong?
> > > Should I be penalized for screwing up? It really is subjective, and
> > > the "reasonably" clause is fine.
>
> Actually, it seems simple to say "You must attempt to take any action,
> including inaction, to remain in the game and at the same time work
> towards gaining more VPs, including the 0.5VPs if the game times out.
> You cannot use this rule to break any unsportsmanlike conduct or
> obstructively slow down the rate of play." Or something to that
> effect.
And if two actions/inactions have about the same chance of
accomplishing the above, which choice is the player forced to make?
If the answer is: the player chooses, then the rule is the one already
in force.
suoli
> suoli wrote:
> > Ben Peal wrote:
> > > *shrug* You can talk all you want about how you want to change the
> > > rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
> > > enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
> > > much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
> > > that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
>
> > But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
> > most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Enforcement of rules _is_ an issue. If you can't enforce a rule,
> then that rule effectively doesn't exist.
I disagree with that. It might be true when it comes to real world
legislation but most VTES-players aren't actively looking for ways to
cheat. Let's say I use Arms Dealers ability and search for Unmasking
instead of a weapon. I don't have to reveal the card to other players
when I look for it and if I have already have a weapon in my hand a
judge will have hard time proving that it wasn't the card I fetched.
This would clearly be against the rules.
> Yes, in most cases, people don't cheat or play in an unsportsmanlike
> manner. However, if someone trashes someone else's game, the
> victimized player might be inclined to be spiteful, however
> unsportsmanlike. We've clearly seen that.
>
> > I don't have any interest in discussing whether self ousting is
> > actually good for the game or not.
>
> Then why do you want a rule prohibiting it?
>
> - Ben Peal
Why ask that when I've just said that I'm not interested in discussing
my opinion on whether self ousting is good for the game or not?
suoli
Why are you saying this to me? I've made it very clear that I'm not
interested in joining the general debate outside discussing a select
few of your arguments.
Ben Peal
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > > But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
> > > most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
>
> > Enforcement of rules _is_ an issue. If you can't enforce a rule,
> > then that rule effectively doesn't exist.
>
> I disagree with that. It might be true when it comes to real world
> legislation but most VTES-players aren't actively looking for ways to
> cheat.
As a V:TES judge, I have caught someone cheating. As a V:TES judge,
I've had to make rulings on unsportsmanlike play. To the credit of
V:TES players, these situations are thankfully very rare (I've only
ever caught one person cheating), but they do happen.
> Let's say I use Arms Dealers ability and search for Unmasking
> instead of a weapon. I don't have to reveal the card to other players
> when I look for it and if I have already have a weapon in my hand a
> judge will have hard time proving that it wasn't the card I fetched.
> This would clearly be against the rules.
That's a flaw in the design of Arms Dealer. You could change the
text of Arms Dealer ("reveal the card") to eliminate enforcement
issues. Changing the "reasonable self-oust" rule to "must max VPs/
stay alive" won't eliminate enforcement issues.
- Ben Peal
James Coupe
>On 3 kesä, 03:59, Ben Peal <benp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> suoli wrote:
>> > Ben Peal wrote:
>> > > *shrug* You can talk all you want about how you want to change the
>> > > rule this way or that. It doesn't change the effectiveness of
>> > > enforcement. If people really want to oust themselves, there isn't
>> > > much of anything you can do to stop them. You just have to accept
>> > > that multiplayer games and multiplayer tournaments aren't perfect.
>>
>> > But do people want to go against rules, even when they can? I think
>> > most of us don't. Enforcement shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> Enforcement of rules _is_ an issue. If you can't enforce a rule,
>> then that rule effectively doesn't exist.
>
>I disagree with that. It might be true when it comes to real world
>legislation but most VTES-players aren't actively looking for ways to
>cheat.
In general, this is true.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that those arguing for rules
changes in this area are often positing that their players are a
seething mass of cheaters and that the forces of Order and Justice must
be deployed in order to subjugate the players and the chaos they create.
(Also, that Pope Scott Johnson doesn't uses deck lists is the sign of
the end of the world.)
So, if you're changing the rules to meet such concerns, enforcability is
a key issue. Adding an unenforceable rule will simply push the
conversation out for a couple of months until the players asking for
change come back and say "Our players are threatening rebellion again.
The forces of cheating chaos have been unleashed. I AM THE LAW. You
must tell us how we can enforce this rule. Please teach us to be
psychic. YOU WILL COMPLY." LSJ will reveal that, sadly, he can't imbue
other people with telepathy. But the hoards of cheating players will
still exist, and we must stop these hoards from their cheating. And so
we'll go back to discussing how judges make judgment calls and decide
what's reasonable.
Simplest option? Don't add an unenforceable rule. Everyone who can
cope with reasonable play and reasonable decisions carries on exactly
the same.
suoli
> > instead of a weapon. I don't have to reveal the card to other players
> > when I look for it and if I have already have a weapon in my hand a
> > judge will have hard time proving that it wasn't the card I fetched.
> > This would clearly be against the rules.
>
> That's a flaw in the design of Arms Dealer. You could change the
> text of Arms Dealer ("reveal the card") to eliminate enforcement
> issues. Changing the "reasonable self-oust" rule to "must max VPs/
> stay alive" won't eliminate enforcement issues.
>
> - Ben Peal
It's just the example that I first came up with. There's a million
other ways to cheat without anybody noticing and there's always going
to be. Here's another example. I know there's a tournament coming up
at a certain time and location. I rent an apartment with a view to the
tournament venue and tell my accomplice to sit there with a powerful
telescope and a transmitter. From there he will peak at other player's
hands and communicate their contents to me in Morse code via a small
receiver located in the sole of my shoe. I am flagrantly cheating and
there's no way for the average judge to find out about it. Rules are
unenforced and all hell is loose. The point being, we absolutely have
to accept that almost every rule is unenforceable if the cheater is
determined enough, and sometimes he doesn't even have to be all that
determined.
suoli
> In general, this is true.
>
> However, it is worth bearing in mind that those arguing for rules
> changes in this area are often positing that their players are a
> seething mass of cheaters and that the forces of Order and Justice must
> be deployed in order to subjugate the players and the chaos they create.
> (Also, that Pope Scott Johnson doesn't uses deck lists is the sign of
> the end of the world.)
I think the common argument from Self Ousters is more like "it's a
part of the game, deal with it in-game" and less like "you can't prove
anything".
Juggernaut1981
Actually, I think I remember seeing an argument earlier being closer
to:
"Why should I sit out and play a game to the end when I feel I'm going
to lose?"
Answer (I'd hope to see, but seems like it won't be): "Not doing so is
basically unsportsmanlike. You started, you should play until you are
removed from the game."
Closing that loophole that says:
"I can justify getting angry, packing my stuff up and going to get
coffee/food/read the paper/talk with buddies... by saying that my
position in the game was truly lost, so I ousted myself". It just
seems to be a way people can justify not playing out a game, being
unsportsmanlike, exacting some revenge via king-making and anything
similar.
Ben Peal
> Actually, I think I remember seeing an argument earlier being closer
> to:
>
> "Why should I sit out and play a game to the end when I feel I'm going
> to lose?"
>
> Answer (I'd hope to see, but seems like it won't be): "Not doing so is
> basically unsportsmanlike. You started, you should play until you are
> removed from the game."
Ultimately, it ends up being, "I have no chance of winning this game
and no chance of gaining any additional VP or half-VP, so it makes no
difference to me how I lose, so can I please leave?"
One is then left with the question of whether it's more
sportsmanlike for that player to sit there for the remainder of the
game, or for the rest of the players at the table to say, "Yeah, we
understand, man. There's no point in you staying. Go get a beer."
(I personally choose the latter.)
- Ben Peal
Ben Peal
> It's just the example that I first came up with. There's a million
> other ways to cheat without anybody noticing and there's always going
> to be. Here's another example. I know there's a tournament coming up
> at a certain time and location. I rent an apartment with a view to the
> tournament venue and tell my accomplice to sit there with a powerful
> telescope and a transmitter. From there he will peak at other player's
> hands and communicate their contents to me in Morse code via a small
> receiver located in the sole of my shoe. I am flagrantly cheating and
> there's no way for the average judge to find out about it. Rules are
> unenforced and all hell is loose.
I think that any "reasonable" person would consider going to such
lengths to cheat as being extraordinary.
In the one case of cheating I did encounter as a judge, a player
spent blood off of a vampire to pay for a card, palmed the counter in
his hand, then a turn later dropped the counter into his pool.
> The point being, we absolutely have to accept that almost every rule is
> unenforceable if the cheater is determined enough, and sometimes he
> doesn't even have to be all that determined.
In the case of self-ousting, one doesn't even have to be looking to
cheat. Going back to the example of the person who has 0 GW and 0 VP
in the third round of a tournament, and whose present situation is
untenable, what method of enforcement other than peer pressure do you
have to force that player to sit there instead of packing up his or
her things and going home? You can't warn or disqualify the player
because that's irrelevant. You can't deny the player prizes because
there are none to gain. I suppose you could threaten them with not
allowing them back for future events, but that seems excessively
harsh. I really don't think such a scenario would be rare, and if the
rule were to be changed from the "reasonable" clause to "you must stay
in the game", we'd have at least as many, if not more, complaints on
the newsgroup about the rule due to the inability to enforce it.
- Ben Peal
Morgan Vening
wrote:
And as LSJ has consistently stated, in that position, who should you
favour, your predator or your prey. Because if you're in a no-chance
situation, you favour your prey (he has no pred while you live), and
if you self-oust, your predator. Removing self oust, means you will
always favour your prey.
Morgan Vening
- Not saying anything that hasn't been said already.