Problems with the judge system

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Throwing a game to help a friend is not necessarily collusion. You can decide to do that unilaterally. You look at the table, decide that you can't get a Game Win...

I was referring specifically to someone making that decision before the first turn begins.

Kushiel wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Throwing a game to help a friend is not necessarily collusion. You can decide to do that unilaterally. You look at the table, decide that you can't get a Game Win...

I was referring specifically to someone making that decision before the first turn begins.

That's still not necessarily collusion. It really isn't. Collusion requires an agreement between two or more players. If I unilaterally decide to throw the game to help you, that is not collusion. If I see that there's a new player on the table and I decide to make some 'mistakes' in order to help that player get a VP or two that they wouldn't otherwise have earned - perhaps to make them feel they've done well in the tournament - that's not collusion.

From the judges guide:
No agreement, no collusion.


Other things that aren't the same as collusion include:
- kingmaking in favour of my friend, when I can't reasonably improve my position (e.g. I can choose whether this referendum passes or fails because I have the deciding votes with my copy of Ventrue Headquarters, but come what may, I will be ousted by Antediluvian Awakening during my untap phase because I'm on one pool)
- refusing to make a deal with someone for any reason (the rules never require you to make a deal)
- trusting my friend to honour a deal that involves some risk but makes sense, because she's always been trustworthy in the past
- seeing that a player on the table has a deck I really don't want in the final, so I decide to oust her immediately (but this may violate other rules, depending on the situation)
- self-ousting to upset another player (although, depending on the situation, this may violate play-to-win if I can reasonably improve my position, in the judge's view)
- self-ousting because I really hate Folderol decks because they slow the game down ridiculously (or Gehenna events, or Imbued, or Una, or any other deck you might not like), and I think that's horrible to play against

@kraus

I don't know if you have played monopoly, but in monopoly trading is not allowed when there are 2 players because the trade will either not change anything and be pointless or will give one player an advantage and be an attempt (possibly unknowingly) to throw the game. This mathematical certainty disallows any trading at that point.

The no deals at 2 players is basically this. Why let someone withdraw when you can take their vp? Why withdraw if you could win or get another vp?

Mewcat wrote:

The no deals at 2 players is basically this. Why let someone withdraw when you can take their vp? Why withdraw if you could win or get another vp?

It depends of course on if you can get the VP or not. In the above examples I mentioned the judge ruled they were fine, and in the VtES tournament rules you should only ever try to get the GW. The winners always did.

Why didn't the Kreyenko player just go for the oust and take the 1+4 and settled for 1+3,5? It's not for me to say. It is allowed, and within the spirit of the rules. Furthermore, and probably more importantly, it's in the spirit of fair game.

I haven't judged a tournament for a couple of years, and even then would not have been able to judge table splits accordingly. I can't be the one answering questions about the system.

The current rules void deals at 2 players but don't state a goal beyond winning table. So a 2 or 3 vp player could allow the 1 or 0 vp player to withdraw but would have to Play to win up until the point that a withdrawal was announced. I suppose a 3 vp player could transfer out.

When deal making is rampant we need lawyers as judges.

Mewcat wrote:

The current rules void deals at 2 players but don't state a goal beyond winning table. So a 2 or 3 vp player could allow the 1 or 0 vp player to withdraw but would have to Play to win up until the point that a withdrawal was announced. I suppose a 3 vp player could transfer out.

When deal making is rampant we need lawyers as judges.

2 VP player can withdraw, and a 3 VP player can transfer out if either of those will give them the GW. In a heads-up with a 1 VP player, a 2 VP player will still have the GW: 2 VP vs GW+2,5 VP (someone else took 1 and died).

Just to make sure we agree on the maths.

This is much akin to splitting the tables in duel game swiss rounds to make it an effective draw to ensure both players make it to the finals cut (A:NR). It's legal in those games as well. Neither player wants to risk losing if they already played good early games, so they play it safe, and trust that other tables don't get sweeps that would drop both players from the finals structure.

It's meta playing, but in tournaments meta knowledge cannot be avoided. Players have the choice of taking less points safely and risking big points or having none.