Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

Looking at this without knowing anything about the situation beyond your description, I'll offer my perspective.

Hrm.
- You bled once and played Enkil Cog.
- You voted once and played Voter Cap.
- Your votes trumped your prey's deck.
- You offered cross-table interference to support your predator (whose rushes likely untap Lutz for a that Cog action)

It sure creates the illusion of a strong deck in a good sitation. In the absence any additional actions or information, seeing you gone from the table is probably in the best interests of anyone not sitting in your lap.

On a point by point basis.......

Suddening the Villein: Good play, verging on very good play.
If the !Malk thinks he'll get his prey quickly, it is a very good play. It's one less Villein/Cap cycle he would have to bleed though for his 2nd VP.

Even if he doesn't plan to oust his prey quickly, having a full Lutz encourages the gun deck to move forward (instead of backward) in his next turn. If the gambit had worked, it would have been brilliant.

Not calling Black Forest: Good play.
Kindred Spirits is half the pool gain of the vote, generates appreciable offense and doesn't ding his grand-predator in the process.

You couldn't pay me to call the BFB vote with Midget in the scenario you describe (though in your position, I would have made the same offer).

Removing you from the table (general): Situation dependent.
You have also already said you neutered the !Malk's grand-predator. This is not a good situation for the !Malk, clearly the would benefit from his grand-predator being able to affect the game. The gun vs !Tor vote weenie setup looks better for the !Malks. Unfortunately, by the time you're ousted, the damage is probably not reversible.

If I see Might/Cap played, I suspect I'll see Banishment played. That option for cross-table control (when already threatened by you) is a real problem to be considered by the !Malk, especially since he was already facing combat from the left and Sense Dep from the right.

So what makes this either good or bad play is timing and accuracy of threat assessment.

Direct bleeding you: Probably inadvisable in this situation.
I won't hesitate to oust my grand prey if needed. Heck, I did it on Day 1, and it gave me all 4 remaining VP that game.

I suspect it was a poor course of action here - the gain is tenuous. It would mostly be a question of how worried about combined Banishment/rush/stitching he was - and which he viewed as most likely.

Pumping the deflected bleed: Timing dependent.
I can easily see situation where I am playing !Malks and I want every action (especially from Infernals) to knock as many beads off the table as possible - a situation made more urgent by racing an unencumbered predator (who is digging for Week of Nightmares) and having 3 decks with minion-control all focused on me.

Of all the things that you described, the only one that I might consider roundly unjustifiable is the direct bleed.

echiang wrote:

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).

I think the crosstable bleed was perfectly fine play. You've shown that you were not friendly to him, so he would not want you to have another minion easily if he can prevent it.
Ousting you was probably not the best play he could have made, but if he had good reason to think he could survive to his next turn and oust his own prey easily even with the 6 extra pool, than it is not breaking play-to-win.

echiang wrote:

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.

This would not in any way have helped the player who just had his vampire diablerised. If I was playing the Malk deck in this situation, I would ignore you encouraging your predator to diablerise, but I would have to do something when you said you'd keep him alive in the blood hunt.

echiang wrote:

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 grand-predator 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).

And the fact that he got 0vp does makes it look in hindsight like a less-than good idea. But taken step-by-step (see Darby's post) it could've been just fine.

echiang wrote:

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.

Sorry that I (as the judge) wasn't available at the time, even though you appear to suggest that you wouldn't have called me over anyway.

johannes wrote:

echiang wrote:

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.

Just so I get this right: You think the better alternative for possible ULC situations is to discuss them afterwards on the Internets except for instead of calling the judge on site, because that doesn´t help anyway?

I think talking things through on the Internet afterwards can be very helpful, yes. You get a diversity of perspectives, multiple people can point out possibilities you might have missed, and it can be a good learning experience for everyone involved (me, other people involved with the table/event, people just reading this). Similarly, any sort of post-game analysis can also be useful.

I actually think that this thread has a pretty good discussion going.

Johannes, why does it seem to be such an issue that I am posting about it? Petri also seemed to share that sentiment. Why is it a problem?