Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

echiang wrote:

KevinM wrote:

If Eric didn't call a judge to deal with the situation then he shouldn't put forward to the community the notion that it could have been Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It's pretty unfair to the judge and the player in-question to wait until after the fact, with no evidence, proof, or the other player's side being heard publicly, to suggest that such a heinous event might have taken place.

1. Perhaps "Play to Win violation?" would have been a more appropriate title than "Unsportsmanlike Conduct." I don't have much expertise on the finer details of either, another reason why getting feedback from members of the community (who are more experienced than I) seemed logical.

Accusing someone of possibly not Playing To Win happens all the time, mainly arising from the accusor not being a mind-reader. Usually, when people are accused of not PTW, they actually are PTW, but the accusor doesn't have enough information to accurately judge.

Accusing someone of possibly being Unsportsmanlike is a direct, personal suggestion that they are acting badly as a human being.

There is a LARGE difference between the two accusations.

echiang wrote:

2. Nothing is preventing the other player from sharing their side publicly. In fact, I've seen that player viewing this very thread. If their motives were innocuous and completely kosher, then it's case closed. Even if they weren't comfortable posting publicly, they could always relay their reasoning to you (Kevin) who could then post on their behalf.

I'm not going to speak for a player who doesn't feel comfortable posting on this thread, for whatever reason. That's up to him. I'm here, now, speaking to you, for me, as both the judge-who-wasn't-called and as someone who enjoys a philosophical discussion.

echiang wrote:

3. If you really want to investigate potential "evidence" or "proof," you could always query the other 3 members of the table, to get their perspective on what happened. Why don't you do that?

Why should it rise to the level of me wanting to investigate week-old memories when you, both at the time and now, have said that it didn't rise to the level of you calling a judge?

echiang wrote:

4. Historically in VTES, there have been quite a number of Play to Win / Unsportsmanlike concerns, especially due to cross-table ousts (it's inherent to most multi-player games). Similarly there have also been plenty of shady table splits (especially by players from the same country or playgroup). It's not uncommon for people to not call a judge immediately. (For example, the other players might not realize that the table splitters were from the same playgroup until after the game).

Eric, you didn't call a judge AT ALL. That is, I believe, what it at the crux of the matter for some of the posters in this thread. "Why didn't you call a judge?" is going to ring loud and clear as the primary question.

"Why are you bringing this up now?", as I have said, I have no problem with, as long as there aren't any unhelpful, unprovable or libelous accusations by any side, participant, or non-participant. (I hope my ironic intent comes through.)

I don't understand the whole "agenda" line of thought here. It was a post put out to have the players talk and see if any good information about the topic could be gleened from some of the experienced players.


And it has been, Darby's post was quite informative to me. His thinking about VtES and his ability to put it into words has always been something I enjoy.


As for Lutz, it is true that sometimes it doesn't matter what you are doing, some vampires set of alarms. As an example, I have a funny investment deck that uses some ventrue with obfuscate. Originally it had Erica in it. It didn't matter what I had played or what the others had seen from my deck.....if Erica came out, I was crushed as soon as the others were able to do it. When I replaced her with a 10-cap (I can't remember who) the deck started to have more time and the deck could build a little more. The deck is fun but it is awful. When Erica comes out, nobody knows it is fun but awful.

As for KS stealth bleed-If you are playing KS stealth bleed deck it might help to be prepared for the same kind of table hate as a deck that brings out Lutz. A voter telling his predator to burn you should not be unexpected. It should be expected and dealt with in a way that will maximize your chance for VPs. I only know what was posted, but it seems like the KS player might have been able to set up his grand prey (the Lutz deck) instead of ousting him outright. Was the KS deck's prey going to oust anyway?

echiang wrote:

4. Petri, why is it such a problem for bringing up a tournament-related question on the forums?

1) You specifically did not call a judge at the game site.

2) Now, later, you start a personal attack against another player (yes, accusation of unsportsmanlike conduct is a direct personal attack) on a (very) public forum, with us getting only one viewpoint into what the situation was.

All that sets off some warning bells on my end. Warranted or not, there it is.

I've personally at least once made a personal public accusation against another player (which I regret), which in my case turned out to be based on miscommunication. It happens. In my case there was no agenda, just lack of factfinding before I opened my mouth, but I have since become wary of this sort of stuff.

This discussion, in my opinion, has landed on something that I consider very important.

If you are in a Tournament, you see something that might be against the Rules and do not call the Judge, you are an accomplice of whatever is going on.
Even if said event or act is against you.

You then forfeit the right to place 100% of the blame in the other person, although you can claim that the reason not to call the Judge was ignorance of the Rules, procedures or consequences of doing so.
Except this was not the case.

I guess the problem here was that Eric specifically said he chose not to call the Judge at the time and (worse of all), still thinks that was the right choice, in hindsight.

On the point of view of people who usually Judge Tournaments and like to do it well, this attitude might seem unrespectful.
I know how I feel when a player complains about possible Rules breaking after the game is over and I wasn't called. I usually feel worse with the people who saw it and shut up.

The old saying applies here: For evil to rule all you need is for good men to do nothing.
Or something like that. B-)

So, to the question in the OP:

Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct?
Both of you made choices that I consider Unsportsmanlike, or at least break PTW.

PetriWessman wrote:

2) Now, later, you start a personal attack against another player (yes, accusation of unsportsmanlike conduct is a direct personal attack) on a (very) public forum, with us getting only one viewpoint into what the situation was.

That's ridiculous. Discussing whether an action is unsportsmanlike is not a "personal attack". I have acted in an unsportsmanlike behavior in VTES games, and I have seen lots of other players do so as well over the years. Pointing out bad conduct may be uncomfortable to the person who did it, but it isn't a personal attack because it is a discussion of the conduct, not the person. This tournament rule is rather subjective, so it is certainly a viable topic of conversation, and in this case we have a real example to parse.

Lots of things happen in VTES games that technically deserve a report to a judge. In a recent tournament I was in, one player called another player a name, which is considered unsportsmanlike conduct. He even mentioned the incident in a report on this site. No one called a judge, however, probably because it was a one-time incident and the word isn't considered profanity. I guess we're all to blame for his behavior now. The VTES community is pretty small, so I think people are reluctant to report other people to judges. Who wants to give someone an out-of-game reason for targeting them in a later game? But, in theory, the rules on Unsportsmanlike Conduct and Play to Win should protect the whistle-blowers.

It could certainly be that Eric has some lingering resentment against the KS stealth-bleed player and is using this public forum to get back at him. I don't know. According to Darby's analysis, the player in question seemed to violate the Play to Win rule with one of his actions, the cross-table KS bleed, but not the other ones. It's a good analysis. I imagine his analysis is the kind of discussion that Eric was looking for. I have found this discussion useful myself, because it has made me think about actions that players take when they're angry and how you can analyze them for Play to Win/Unsportmanslike Conduct infractions.

AaronC wrote:

...According to Darby's analysis, the player in question seemed to violate the Play to Win rule with one of his actions, the cross-table KS bleed, but not the other ones......

Heya Aaron,

Careful here please. I don't believe I said it violated Play to Win - simply that I thought it a poor strategic choice given the limited information Eric provided.

What if the cross-table bleed is a gambit to motivate the gun deck to be left facing, just like the Sudden Reversal? Imagine the KS player telling his prey "Look, here's your chance, you can oust him in two turns!!!!" Immediately insert a sotto voce chuckle and the phrases "leaving my squishy but bleed-happy minions alone, overextending yourself and setting up my double oust."

Looking at it that way, it's at least explicable - though still strategically questionable compared to the "oust my prey, then my next prey" option.

-Darby