file Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors

09 Apr 2018 22:19 #86202 by Killiam
Killiam created the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors
The questions that follow almost certainly will come down to a judge’s decision on a case-by-case basis.

That said, the more guidance judges receive from rulings, the easier it is for them to make quick, accurate calls.

Case 1 - Collusion: There are some cases I have seen at tournaments where players have discussed and even coordinated decks going in. These were not nefarious cases mind you; it’s usually a matter of someone wanting to play their star deck and not have their star vampire contested. The players involved still had every intention of going for one another’s throat.

Questions:
-Should judges discourage this type of information-sharing prior to tournaments? In other words, should it generally be considered collusion?
-Is there a clear case you can think of that would be egregious enough to disqualify a player?

Case 2 - Deck Scouting: A long time ago, I remember playing at a tournament (NAC, I believe) in which it was disallowed for players whose tables finished early to examine other tables and gather information about future opponent’s decks. In recent years, deck-scouting of this nature has become commonplace, and is even encouraged by many players.

Questions:
1. Should judges discourage this sort of deck-scouting?
2. Should judges also discourage the third-person sharing of deck information between players, e.g. someone advising a final-table player about his opponents before seating is chosen?
3. If you/we are indifferent to question 1 (and it’s just entirely up to the judge's tastes), should judges be encouraged to announce whether or not deck-scouting and advising is allowed prior to the tournament?

Thanks!

-Killiam
(Bill Troxel)
"How did some slip of a girly boy from communist East Berlin become the internationally ignored song stylist barely standing before you?" -Hedwig Robinson

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

More
09 Apr 2018 23:01 #86204 by kschaefer
kschaefer replied the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors

Killiam wrote: -Should judges discourage this type of information-sharing [what deck to play] prior to tournaments? In other words, should it generally be considered collusion?

No. This is prior to tournament information that has no bearing on how players actually play.

Killiam wrote: -Is there a clear case you can think of that would be egregious enough to disqualify a player?

I doubt it. What are the odds that the two players will even be at the same table anyway?

Killiam wrote: 1. Should judges discourage this sort of deck-scouting?

No.

Killiam wrote: 2. Should judges also discourage the third-person sharing of deck information between players, e.g. someone advising a final-table player about his opponents before seating is chosen?

No. But you better be careful who you ask; they're not obligated to give you valid answers.

Killiam wrote: 3. If you/we are indifferent to question 1 (and it’s just entirely up to the judge's tastes), should judges be encouraged to announce whether or not deck-scouting and advising is allowed prior to the tournament?

I don't think it should be judges taste. Just let it happen.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Killiam

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

More
10 Apr 2018 02:37 #86205 by BenPeal
BenPeal replied the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors

Killiam wrote: Case 2 - Deck Scouting: A long time ago, I remember playing at a tournament (NAC, I believe) in which it was disallowed for players whose tables finished early to examine other tables and gather information about future opponent’s decks. In recent years, deck-scouting of this nature has become commonplace, and is even encouraged by many players.


When I judge, I ask that players hang out away from games in progress if they've been ousted or if their game ends. The reason is to keep the noise level down and to keep distractions down, both to allow players to play unhindered and to help reduce timeouts.

I've noticed as both a judge and as a player that it's just human nature for people to gather around a table and then start chatting and then start chatting with the players at the table. I can't count the number of times I've seen it happen and it's a fairly predictable phenomenon. There's no ill intent behind it - they want to see what's going on and talk with their friends and have a good time. However, it ends up being disruptive.

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

More
10 Apr 2018 02:40 #86206 by BenPeal
BenPeal replied the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors
For your reference:

www.vekn.net/tournament-rules

2.4. Spectator Responsibilities
A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an organizer who is not playing in that game. A player who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees fit. The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.


(emphasis mine)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Killiam

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

More
10 Apr 2018 07:38 #86207 by Lönkka
Lönkka replied the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors
All of the things asked are going to happen anyway at least to a degree.

Trying to control them will mean only some people (at least the crafty enough) will benefit.

The more you try to control it the less casual the environment changes (moving towards downright hostile) which is very counterproductive!

NC, Finland
Finnish :POT: Politics!

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

  • Lönkka
  • Lönkka's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Antediluvian
  • Antediluvian
  • War=peace, freedom=slavery, ignorance=strength
More
10 Apr 2018 21:50 #86211 by jamesatzephyr
jamesatzephyr replied the topic: Judge Guidance - Questionable Player Behaviors

Killiam wrote: Case 1 - Collusion: There are some cases I have seen at tournaments where players have discussed and even coordinated decks going in. These were not nefarious cases mind you; it’s usually a matter of someone wanting to play their star deck and not have their star vampire contested. The players involved still had every intention of going for one another’s throat.

Questions:
-Should judges discourage this type of information-sharing prior to tournaments? In other words, should it generally be considered collusion?


It's essentially impossible to stop it, even if you think you should. They could share that information before the tournament by email or text. I could post my Nosferatu with Dementation deck to the V:EKN deck clinic, asking for help with making it more zingy a fortnight before the next local tournament, and that might well signal what I'm thinking playing. I may just know that you happen to have three decks built at the moment, so avoid picking a deck that would clash with any of them.

Of course, collusion itself is often organised in a way that the judge can't see - but then it's carried out in a way that the judge can (where two players start violating play-to-win, co-ordinating their moves in suspicious ways etc.).

Killiam wrote: -Is there a clear case you can think of that would be egregious enough to disqualify a player?


Only where it starts crossing the line into actual collusion. Say, a situation not where you tell me that you're playing Ventrue Law Firm so I play something else, but where we both decide to play decks that will specifically benefit from each others' presence e.g. choosing to both play Malkavian decks, to benefit from (and jointly defend) the Madness Networks. A bunch of deck types could do something similar e.g. both playing !Tor breed, for Palla Grande.



kschaefer wrote: I doubt it. What are the odds that the two players will even be at the same table anyway?


In a continental championship, with a day 1+cut for day 2 structure, typically low-ish on day 1 (when potentially dozens of people are playing), but could be much higher on day 2. In a 25-30 player field with 3R+F, you see around half the players in 3R.

In a small local tournament, two tables, 2R+F, it could be certain or almost certain that you'll be on one table together, two if you both reach the final.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Killiam

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

More
Moderators: Ankha
Time to create page: 0.277 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum