Problems with the judge system

Mewcat wrote:

Also I don't see how play to win should disallow poor play or high risk high reward plays.

It doesn't. Players can make poor choices because of a mistake, inexperience, trusting someone wrongly etc., and players can take risks.

Play to win is about when the judge thinks you're deliberately not playing to win anymore (get the table win, or increase VPs if that's not viable etc.), such as: throwing a game because it means that deck over there won't get the TW so it won't reach the final; rolling dice to determine what you do randomly because you're a k00ky Malkavian; self-ousting because you hate Gehenna event decks and won't play on the same table as one etc.

The point is that everyone should be playing towards the same goal, as well as they can. That is the essence of the (part of) sportsmanlike conduct rules that play-to-win came from. Judges will make mistakes (until we invent psychic probes, obviously), and judges may have a different expectation of what's reasonable vs what's stupid to you. But everyone - players and judges - should try to do their best.

I have not seen play that could clearly be defined as not 'play to win', just differences in how someone sees the table or flailing in a losing position. Play groups may vary of course. Once when a friend asked me why I was making a play that was frustrating to him I said "I don't care what happens to you, I am trying to win". The notion that a judge could over rule a strategy decision is unpalatable at best.

Mewcat wrote:

The notion that a judge could over rule a strategy decision is unpalatable at best.

Again, the play to win rule isn't about overruling strategy decisions, unless - in the judge's reasonable opinion - your strategy appears so misconceived that the judge believes you're doing something nefarious. If that happens, you should explain to the judge what it is you're doing, and why. If the judge still believes you're doing something nefarious, they have to act. That's not about overruling a strategy decision, that's about the fact that the judge should not allow nefarious actions to continue just because the player says they're playing to win - the player may be lying, by wildly inventing an implausible strategy where they absolutely have to oust that player cross-table right now, and it just so happens that doing so will prevent that player from reaching the final, and it just so happens that that player has started dating this player's former partner with a lot of acrimony.

Since players may be lying, judge action is imperfect. But since the downsides of allowing players not to play-to-win have historically been much worse than the downsides of requiring players to play-to-win, it's where we are.

You are, of course, most welcome to invent psychic probes to make the issue much easier to deal with.

I'll just put this in the play groups are different category.

Mewcat wrote:

I have not seen play that could clearly be defined as not 'play to win', just differences in how someone sees the table or flailing in a losing position. Play groups may vary of course. Once when a friend asked me why I was making a play that was frustrating to him I said "I don't care what happens to you, I am trying to win". The notion that a judge could over rule a strategy decision is unpalatable at best.

I agree that having a "play to win" rule is extremely problematic, and this is why I would never consider playing with tournament rules (I am a casual-only player). But I also understand there are practical reasons for having "play to win" at the highest level. In a non-tournament setting, one is able to get mad at another player and mess up their game, all while intentionally losing. That's just a part of the game for some playgroups. But, at the tournament level, the "play to win" rule is, from what I understand, at its core a practical safeguard to ensure that this type of play cannot happen, and therefore that everyone participating gets a fair shot at winning the tournament. So while it's problematic to enforce, it still is probably better to have the "play to win" rule for tournaments.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

In a non-tournament setting, one is able to get mad at another player and mess up their game, all while intentionally losing. That's just a part of the game for some playgroups. But, at the tournament level, the "play to win" rule is, from what I understand, at its core a practical safeguard to ensure that this type of play cannot happen, and therefore that everyone participating gets a fair shot at winning the tournament.

IIRC, the PTW rule was about preventing collusion, not preventing tantrums. PTW ensures that a player can't deliberately lose a game in such a way as to help their friend win, basically.