file Table talk and in tourneaments & general conversations

11 Nov 2019 05:34 - 11 Nov 2019 05:39 #97753 by Charles_Bronson
Hi. I have some serious questions about table talk and conversations in tournaments - specifically when it is allowed or not.

We know no one can do table talk - by definition - with anyone outside the game about the game itself is forbidden. I could obviously ask for someone to fetch me a soda, but I can not ask or talk about gamestate, decks cards or any advice. I can still ask rules questions to a judge of course.

Also we know that every table talk should only be made when everyone is at the table. If anyone gone to the bathroom, table talk is not allowed.
I also know that talking about the following is allowed - while the round doesn't start between the players. Things like:

-who is playing what deck
-what cards or combos are happening in what table
-commentaries about tables in progress (while the players of that table don't hear them, obviously).

And I’m not sure, but I think you can’t talk about how many vp’s and GW player A or B or C have and how much they need to get to the finals. Also standings are not public, to avoid kingmaking and collusion problems. Is this correct?

Well, I can also conclude that the table talking is allowed only when everyone seat at the table. Probably when everyone is seating AND the round timer starts (during shuffling and cutting too). Is this correct? If yes, when exactly?

So, here are some questions and troubles I've encountered during tournaments.

1. Table talking during sitting order in final table

Question 1A: Usually before the final table sitting procedure several people gather and make commentaries about what decks are best as prey or predator giving advice to their friends. This is obviously legal, but I’m asking again if it is legal.

Question 1B: during the final table sitting procedure the players before, during and after the procedure of choosing where to sit talk about their decks, their options and some of them even discuss deals. Is this allowed?

Question 1c: Are deals allowed during the final table sitting procedure? Deals like: Players A B C D E starts to choose. Choices are made that so player C bleeds D that bleeds E. I then ask to A: If you sit between C and D, I can sit now bleeding C and we both can oust then together as a game win strategy (not violating the play to win rule, supposing that C deck is very strong and powerful).

I always understand and ruled in my events a big NO. As the round timer don’t even started yet, they are IMHO “playing the table” just before it even begins. We need a clear answer on this. Also, at this point information is very, very valuable about who is playing what and things usually get out of control at this point.
And obviously, if outside advice is allowed on this moment (I don’t think it should ever be), then no deals or tabletalk should be allowed.

2. If I seat at a table with one player as predator and a friend of mine warns me it’s a setite deck with brainwashs, is this outside assistance? And if during the announcement of rounds, I’m still standing up and searching the table, then he sees my predator and warns me, is this an infraction or it is fine? We have a very blurry line here and I would like some answers.

Question 3. Are the standings each round public or not?

Also, I would like to request from VEKN that it updates the tournament rules to make clear about when table talk or advice is allowed or not.
Just a last suggestion: In magic, no assistance is allowed when both players are seated on their table – even if the game timer didn’t started yet. I would suggest that no advice or tabletalk is allowed when players are waiting for the timer round start sitting or anyone is missing at the table during the games.

I am death.
Paul Kersey, Death Wish
:vent::THA::QUI::FOR::dom::obf::cap9:
Last edit: 11 Nov 2019 05:39 by Charles_Bronson.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Ashur

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2019 00:03 - 12 Nov 2019 00:05 #97766 by jamesatzephyr

And I’m not sure, but I think you can’t talk about how many vp’s and GW player A or B or C have and how much they need to get to the finals. Also standings are not public, to avoid kingmaking and collusion problems. Is this correct?


That's untenable in practical terms.

There's no duty on the judge to paste standings after each round, but people can watch what happened on tables. Unless you're planning on stopping people from chatting with their friends along the lines of "Oh yeah, Arika rolled that Brujah deck out the way in turn 4, but then that insane Osebo deck..." and "That Girls deck is insane - two sweeps so far!", players can and do know much of this information. This is especially true in small-medium size tournaments, where you can see when every player packs up their deck.


Well, I can also conclude that the table talking is allowed only when everyone seat at the table. Probably when everyone is seating AND the round timer starts (during shuffling and cutting too). Is this correct?


No.

All players have to be present for relevant table talk, but unless the discussions are actually illegal (e.g. collusion, unsportsmanlike conduct, threats), they're allowed to discuss whatever. [LSJ 20100706] , and a variety of other posts in that thread are helpful, but this is from LSJ's first response:

> My question to the community is what is acceptable in terms of
> discussion before everyone has seated and the game commenced?
All discussion is allowed.

Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
of the game.

> My feeling is that a brief description of each players deck,
> mitigating somewhat the advantage of scouting or disadvantage of not
> having faced any of the decks is ok, but anything else is not.

Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
allowed.

> Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> without any input from other players.

Not true.

> I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> would be?

It is not collusion.




Question 1c: Are deals allowed during the final table sitting procedure? Deals like: Players A B C D E starts to choose. Choices are made that so player C bleeds D that bleeds E. I then ask to A: If you sit between C and D, I can sit now bleeding C and we both can oust then together as a game win strategy (not violating the play to win rule, supposing that C deck is very strong and powerful).


Discussions of things like "Oh my God, that Turbo Arika deck is going to roll the final unless we think about this" are perfectly normal.

However, bear in mind that in the final, one player wins and everyone else comes joint second. If there are three (relevant) players on the table - you, me, and Turbo-Arika, and two other bums - if I die to Turbo-Arika because we don't fight it, I come second. If you and me deal with it and you win, I come second. There is no difference for me. So long-term deals in the final work out quite differently in practice to deals in earlier rounds, where me thinking "Okay, you get 3VP and the GW, but I still get 2VP, which is better than getting 0VP" is a totally legitimate consideration under play-to-win. In the final, if you get 3VP and the tournament win, the fact that I get 2VP makes absolutely no difference to me - I still came joint second with all the other finalists.
Last edit: 12 Nov 2019 00:05 by jamesatzephyr.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2019 16:19 - 12 Nov 2019 16:19 #97787 by Bloodartist

Question 3. Are the standings each round public or not?

Why wouldn't they be? Unless specified that they are not (not to my knowledge) they are public.

I can say that standings between rounds are public information in every Finnish VTES tournament that I have played so far. This is standard procedure. The knowledge doesn't change anything because players are under the play-to-win rule and anti-collusion rules... There is no logical reason to hide the information.

Also, I would like to request from VEKN that it updates the tournament rules to make clear about when table talk or advice is allowed or not.


This one I agree with... Currently table talk is not mentioned in the tournament rules that I can see..

A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.
—Gotthold Ephraim Lessing



Last edit: 12 Nov 2019 16:19 by Bloodartist.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2019 16:24 - 12 Nov 2019 16:30 #97788 by Bloodartist

Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
of the game.


I don't like this definition of collusion.... If two players decide that third player is a table threat and decide to oust that player together, they are conspiring to alter the result of the game.

As far as I can see, collusion should mean that someone intentionally breaks the play-to-win rule in order to provide better tournament chances for another player (their friend, etc). But this is breaking the play-to-win rule already. The rules are somewhat overlapping. Personally I would ditch the play-to-win rule and keep the anti-collusion rules.

ps. To counter advantage gained from scouting and balance things out, the deck lists should be public information in the final. Professional magic tournaments hand opponents decklists to the players in the top8. I like this system. However since decklists are not collected in VTES tournaments, this is unfeasible unless we start collecting decklists from all participants in at least GP-level tournaments (a good idea in general. It provides much better information about the metagame)

A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes.
—Gotthold Ephraim Lessing



Last edit: 12 Nov 2019 16:30 by Bloodartist.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2019 19:34 #97792 by Kushiel

Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
of the game.


I don't like this definition of collusion.... If two players decide that third player is a table threat and decide to oust that player together, they are conspiring to alter the result of the game.


Nope. "Conspire" is the key word here.

If two players decide in secret to help each other oust a third player, that's conspiring. If they decide to do so in open discussion, that's not conspiring, as there's a forum for the third person to participate in the proceedings.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Nov 2019 22:40 #97795 by jamesatzephyr

As far as I can see, collusion should mean that someone intentionally breaks the play-to-win rule in order to provide better tournament chances for another player (their friend, etc).


I can choose to throw away my game to help my friend without telling my friend. That is a violation of play-to-win. It is absolutely not collusion under any circumstances for me to unilaterally do something illegal. I cannot collude on my own!

Personally I would ditch the play-to-win rule and keep the anti-collusion rules.


Which would then leave us with no rules to address, for example, the player who turns up to roleplay a k00ky Malkavian (not play to win), or who decides to take revenge on a player they don't like for a wholly unrelated reason, and many similar actions.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.071 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum