Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

I am pretty sad to say, that I have experienced this situation from both sides and from whot I have read, it was more bad play, than anything else.

From my point of view, and my games, I know that sometimes my decks tend to be overrated after even one GW and I often get bashed across the table. It happens even when i bring out for example Eze, which is not as threathening vampire. When I bring out Lutz, it is often very, very bad. Some of those days, when I play four games and in each one I get blocked via eagles sight, shut down cross table, DIed or cross table rushed, I tend to play very badly and in very angry manner. Someone offering his votes may be reason for me just to throw next KRC in his way or doing something totaly irational. Although this situation may look as if you have not done anything wrong, you have probably just pissed of someone who is a) not a very good player, b) had a very bad day.

I will not defend this player, but from my point of view, evaluating someones feelings and adjusting your table talk is huge part of vtes. Everytime you encourage action against someone else, you start a little red light in his head. And not everyone can or is willing to let go these things.

One thing, that may have applied to this situation is breaking the play to win rule, but that is very dificult to judge - at least in its current state.

echiang wrote:

1. Early on my predator "B" seems worried about the stealth bleed behind him. To keep him focused backward, I say that if things get really grim later on, I might be able to help him at some future point.

Some people tend to mistake cross-table allies with Best Friends For Life. It seems you met one of them. It's like breaking deals: knowing or guessing who you are playing with and what will be frown upon is part of the game.

3. When Felicia torporizes my grandpredator "A"'s Persia, I encourage my predator "B" to diablerize (saying I won't burn him with my votes), because it's another action that isn't in my direction. I have no combat defense in my hand at all, so I definitely want the gun deck going backward instead of forward. He decides to not diablerize though.

How can that possibly not be considered as an agression? The way you describe it, you are the one trying to burn one of his vampires, even if you are not the one taking the action.

4. When my prey "D" plays Black Forest Base, I tell my grandpredator "A" that if he wants at some point in the future to have Midget call the vote, I will help pass it. I was just offering the option but his response is pretty much "You're already against me. I'm not going to ever call the vote - I'm not dumb." Which is interesting because calling a vote for 2 pool isn't necessarily a dumb thing to do.

When the alternative is to gain 1 pool while bleeding with Kindred Spirits (thus getting closer to gaining 6 pool), it is most certainly not the best thing to do, doubly so with Midget being Infernal. I wouldn't expect anyone to make that suggestion seriously.

Overall you grandpredator certainly made mistakes since he lost in the end, but your own play does not sound so good either. From your reports, it looks like you had a good seat: a prey you can shut down and a predator who will be busy trying to survive. All you had to do was keep a low profile and focus on your prey. Instead you tried to play the table and it backfired. There is such a thing as too much table talk.

"5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. See also "Play to Win" in section 4.8 above."

Not this....

"4.8. Play to Win

One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.

Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).

During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).

Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals."

Arguably not this.

Now if you ask the player why they are doing it and how it helps them win and they give a really bad answer, that could get them DQ'd.

i.e. "I'm ousting you because I don't like you, even if it makes me lose."

AaronC wrote:

The fact that you were playing Lutz automatically makes you a target of table hate

Pendargon wrote:

plus, you brought out Lutz.
People tend to view Lutz as an immediate threat.

PetriWessman wrote:

Also, you brought out Lutz, that's like bringing out Una and then wondering why everyone wants to kill you.

Silmegil wrote:

When I bring out Lutz, it is often very, very bad.

...

the only 2 bad plays i see the grandpredator doing is suddening the villein (more pool for g-prey means his prey has to work harder forward to get eric's pool low enough to oust if he plans on gaining pool that way, and eric brought out an 11 cap...) and ousting eric when he could easily have taken out his prey, and probably not had much difficulty with a second vp.
stealthbleed has very limited ways to deal with cross-table heat. lutz didn't diablerize, steal, or torp any of his minions, and all that was pointed at him seems to be players on either side of him, but reading players is part of the game, and someone ready to go aggro across a table could be a resource worthy of talking into ousting your prey for you, if possible.
ousting a grandprey at 6 while not ousting a prey at 1 was very bad play in a tournament, without any deals being made and without a situation arising from the grandprey's actions (ie, if it was ignazio rushing the stealthbleeders and not lutz doing nothing that direction. when a situation arises where you cannot win with a certain deck at the table, otherwise bad plays become the thing to do...)
you can't control a table, and table talk is key to utilizing the other players as your personal resources in any given game. it sounds like bad luck, 2 spiteful bad plays from the seat behind your predator, and otherwise nuetral/ not practical/not going to happen table talk being perceived as very aggro, even if no actions were taken to enforce the perceived threat.

that said, i did horrible things to cross tables and non-threatening predators all throughout origins, because of potential threats (imbued cross table, grandprey with a really strong start wrecking my grandpredator, leading me to lean backwards into my predator with combat since he was not threatened from his predator....) so i can't really point fingers.....

KevinM wrote:

The lesson is:
People who are playing on tables against Kindred Spirits decks would do well not to forget that the Kindred Spirits deck is a gigantic loaded gun that can point anywhere, so act accordingly. If you aren't afraid, you should be.

Some degree of a reprisal would not have been unexpected. I just think that the response of my grandpredator was excessive (especially bleeding me directly for 4 and enhancing the second bleed to make sure I would die from my predator's Anarch Revolt).

AaronC wrote:

I consider it bad play, not unsportsmanlike conduct. You did offer to help your predator, which many consider common practice when your predator is the prey of heavy stealth-bleed. However, some players take any "cross-tabling" personally. They get vindictive, possibly because cross-tabling has hurt them in previous games. It turns out it was a mistake on your part to suggest that your predator diablerize one of your grandpredator's minions. Some players wouldn't care.

Even if my predator had diablerized his grandpredator's minion, I could still have changed my mind and burned his minion. Maybe my grandpredator could have convinced me to burn the minion in the blood hunt after all.

Pendargon wrote:

plus, you brought out Lutz.

People tend to view Lutz as an immediate threat. How is he supposed to know you are playing a gimmick deck?

PetriWessman wrote:

The fact that you know (or at least claim) that you're playing a "trick deck" doesn't mean that the rest of the table sees it that way.

Well, I intentionally played a Might of the Camarilla to telegraph that this wasn't a normal Lutz or IC deck. That card shows up in all of 1 TWDA? Combined with the fact that I discarded a Banishment during my first turn (and discarded a second Banishment to vote down the Crusade) would have indicated that this was a gimmick deck. Though maybe Banishment/Might is a very strong archetype in your area?

PetriWessman wrote:

Why are you bringing this up here, instead of asking the judges at the site? What's *your* agenda, here?

1. The judge was nowhere in sight at the time.

2. Even if I had found the judge, bringing him in could have made the situation worse and it is unknown whether he would/could do anything at that point.

3. I didn't care too much about being ousted. As mentioned, I was more amused if anything. Plus being ousted early meant that I could work on other decks and/or prepare for the storyline tournament.

4. Petri, why is it such a problem for bringing up a tournament-related question on the forums? The VEKN forums have lots of extremely experienced players with superior expertise on tournament rules. What is it even a question of why I would ask for feedback and opinions on the forums?

---

Maybe my grandpredator could argue that he was just trying to cycle (the stealth card and the Eyes of Chaos). Maybe he really wanted the pool for Kindred Spirits. And sometimes, stealth bleed decks don't mind hitting their grandprey hard because that player will be their prey very soon.

However, I think the bleed for 5 (when I was at 6 with an Anarch Revolt in play) was a key indicator that he had different motives in mind (other than play to win). If his motives were different, he could have just bled me for 4 (with an inferior Eyes of Chaos), which would have left me with 2 pool against the Anarch Revolt. The fact that he went with the superior Eyes of Chaos indicated that he was perfectly fine with letting his prey get 6 pool and 1 VP.

As an additional side note, the Malk/!Malk stealth bleed deck was ousted before getting another turn (the Ravnos played a Week of Nightmares and bled him out).