Can you oust yourself by accidentally playing a card with a pool cost that would kill you?

in practice I think there's quite a bit of a difference between "bad play" and "blatant self-ousting"

lowering myself to 1 pool to play a hunting ground or influence out a vampire? it is possibly poor play, or possibly great play, but no judge would intervene.

lowering myself to 0 pool when it looks like i'm about to score a VP? well now it's totally arbitrary. transferring out leads to cries of collusion and not playing to win, but playing a hunting ground or patronage is perfectly acceptable!


so the only rule that matters here is that the judge must use discretion or be a mind-reader. as always.

Haze wrote:

in practice I think there's quite a bit of a difference between "bad play" and "blatant self-ousting"

lowering myself to 1 pool to play a hunting ground or influence out a vampire? it is possibly poor play, or possibly great play, but no judge would intervene.

lowering myself to 0 pool when it looks like i'm about to score a VP? well now it's totally arbitrary. transferring out leads to cries of collusion and not playing to win, but playing a hunting ground or patronage is perfectly acceptable!

To avoid confusion: in all of those situations, the same standards apply from the rules.

If it would be violating play-to-win to transfer yourself out, it will very likely - in the same circumstances - be violating play-to-win by equipping a .44 Magnum to oust yourself or playing Direct Intervention when on one pool, or whatever. It is usually harder to accidentally oust yourself with transfers because, if for no other reason, you're often picking up the pool counters there and then. But you could badly screw up your influence phase in some fashion - say, accidental Bakija Gambit leading to you transferring out a second copy of Gratiano (self-contesting, and therefore nixed on entry) rather than the copy of Lucita that could possibly have saved you.

Any difference in outcry from players is just that - a difference in outcry from players.

While, obviously, some interventions are more or less likely, if a judge believes that you are violating play-to-win, they should intervene whatever part of the game it's in. And if they suspect shenanigans, players should call the judge, regardless of whether it's an action, a master card, transfers, forgetting that Tension in the Ranks is in play, or whatever else.

so playing patronage at 1 pool is just a miscalculation, a bad play. the player obviously failed to notice the complex and subtle variables in the game state such as "only has 1 pool" as well as "only has 1 pool" that would lead to an eventual demise that turn.

unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200!

my point is that since it all depends on our mind-reading powers & discretion as players and/or judges, there's definitely a bias here.

i mean, i can easily come up with several ways to "accidentally" self-oust with transfers too. using the bakija gambit as a precedent, 2 of them would be very hard to prove as intentional.

Haze wrote:

so playing patronage at 1 pool is just a miscalculation, a bad play.

It might be. There is nothing that says it automatically is or automatically isn't.

Haze wrote:

the player obviously failed to notice the complex and subtle variables in the game state such as "only has 1 pool" as well as "only has 1 pool" that would lead to an eventual demise that turn.

Even good players make mistakes. I once saw an excellent player manage to accidentally burn his own vampire by forgetting he'd just played Millicent Smith a couple of minutes before.

Haze wrote:

unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200!

No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part.

Violating play-to-win does not require collusion. Collusion requires "Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game." Yet there are many things I can do that violate play-to-win without requiring an agreement with any other players on the table.

For example, in a given tournament, we're in the last preliminary round, and I know that I am mathematically in the final. So I play this round to exclude my toughest competition - say, by doing everything I can to get you off this table, or giving someone else the Game Win. I self-oust giving my predator a VP and some pool, at a point when I could pretty clearly have got at least a VP myself, in order to give myself a simpler final table composition. None of this is collusion - I haven't agreed anything with anyone.

Similarly, a player who acts out of spite (say, to "punish" a player he just doesn't like for some reason) can be violating play-to-win without collusion.

Similarly, a player who is roleplaying a heartbroken Toreador who must commit suicide can be violating play-to-win without collusion.

Haze wrote:

my point is that since it all depends on our mind-reading powers & discretion as players and/or judges, there's definitely a bias here.

No? If the judge believes you're violating play-to-win, the judge stops you doing what you're doing, irrespective of what it is. (And also applies whatever penalty would be appropriate.)

Haze wrote:

i mean, i can easily come up with several ways to "accidentally" self-oust with transfers too. using the bakija gambit as a precedent, 2 of them would be very hard to prove as intentional.

The judge doesn't have to "prove" them as intentional. This is not a court of law. The judge uses their judgement to determine what they reasonably believe has happened. A given judge might err on the side of reversing the play (and issuing a penalty that has no immediate impact, such as a Warning), such that if it was an accident, you benefit from a happy reversal, and a stern reminder to pay more attention, and if it was nefarious play, you get blocked and a judge who is going to watch you quite hard now. But that would depend on the judge's judgement. Something like a Warning is reasonable here, because you track those throughout the tournament, without actually doing anything bad right now. So if a player has a habit of doing shitty, nefarious things, a judge who is cautious about jumping straight to "Game Loss" or "Disqualification" can build up to it, if necessary.

None of this requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or anything of the sort. Just a judgement on what is, or isn't, reasonable in the circumstances.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Haze wrote:

unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200!

No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part.

Violating play-to-win does not require collusion.

Where does he say that violating play-to-win requires collusion? He's making the point that the same in-game decision (a player spending enough pool to lead to his inevitable ousting) can either be allowed or disallowed depending on how the judge categorizes the player's intentions. The move in question might be allowed if it is attributed to misplay (as you've noted, the "Bakija Gambit", virtual self-ousting by error, might be allowed), but it would not be allowed if the player is believed to be colluding. He seems to be criticizing the arbitrariness of judging, not conflating play-to-win with collusion.

I don't think the "misunderstanding" is on the part of Mattias (Haze).

AaronC wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Haze wrote:

unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200!

No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part.

Violating play-to-win does not require collusion.

Where does he say that violating play-to-win requires collusion?

He asserts that it's bad play "unless you were colluding", when there are a host of other things that could mean it wasn't simply bad play.

If what Haze means is "This is one of a multitude of ways in which it might not be bad play", that's extremely unclear from what he's written, given that he uses this one example to (apparently) prove there is bias in the system. There are many ways in which any given play might be violating different rules. And a PTW-violating self-oust at this point would be (should be) treated exactly the same as PTW-violating play from transferring out. No bias.

If players aren't calling a judge over to correct a play that looks suspicious because it's not a transfer-out self-oust, the only bias is the bias from those players. If a judge isn't acting to correct a play because it's from equipping a .44 Magnum rather than a self-ousting transfer, that judge is in error. (That is, if the judge systematically excludes the possibility, rather than coming to a reasoned judgement.) No bias in the system.