Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct?

You mean I cannot get 30 shot glasses as pool counters?

Non-existant user wrote:

You mean I cannot get 30 shot glasses as pool counters?

Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The rules clearly state that you should bring 40 so you can contribute to the blood bank, 30 is far too few.

johannes wrote:

I think the thread name should have been "Possible Violation of Play-To-Win" rule and not "Possible Unsportsmanlike Conduct". This would have allowed to focus on the core question and not created this kind of secondary discussion about "personal attacks".

the tournament rules say that Play To Win is "one aspect of sportsmanlike conduct" so really it's the same thing here.

I agree with Ohlmann. In my opinion, calling over a judge would have been a far more confrontational course of action. In that case, one is openly accusing the player (in front of the rest of the table and any spectators) and asking for an official evaluation. In contrast, what I am doing now is simply offering a case study which provides anonymity to the player-in-question and casually asks community members for perspective on the situation. If what I’m doing now is considered a “personal attack,” then I would think that directly accusing a player by calling in a judge would be even more egregious.

Johannes points out that it is hard to communicate what is going on in a game without a thorough transcript or video. While that is certainly true, it can also be hard to evaluate a game before it has concluded. Some details won’t be revealed until the end of the game. Tensions and emotions may be running high among the players and the judge might be distracted by other things going on. People might have trouble stepping back and evaluating the situation critically. Details might be overlooked at the time, which are later realized to be relevant. In sports, there are plenty of cases where a referee makes an official call in the middle of the game, which he or she later realizes and admits was the wrong call.

Also, I want to emphasize that I think there is a major difference between words and actions. Table talk is an intrinsic part of this social, multiplayer game. Yes, saying I might help my predator or that I might save my predator’s vampire in the blood hunt could be considered a provocation, but it is orders in magnitude different from actually doing it. In VTES, there is a big difference between saying you are going to honor a deal, or cross-table rush or oust, and actually doing it. Similarly, in real life there is a big difference between saying you are going to quit your job, or kill yourself, or file a lawsuit, and actually doing it. Words are cheap – actions are far more revealing. Sometimes it is useful to test a deal by giving the other player the opportunity to backstab you. There is also a big difference between someone who might punch you or steal from you, and someone who actually does it. If you confront them too early on, they can always backpedal or claim otherwise. If it doesn't make that much of a difference to you, it might be better to keep an eye out and simply let them actually do it.

Playing to win (especially with cross-table ousts and table splits) is notoriously difficult to evaluate before the game is over. Although I don’t completely agree with it, lots of players tend to use an “ends justify the means” approach, whereby the end result is the key determining factor. In that case, it’s hard to make a determination until the game is over.

While calling a judge over is certainly a valid option, the very presence or involvement of a judge could very well influence the results. It’s sort of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle where merely observing the situation can change it. Suppose you’re at a table where a shady 3-2 table split deal goes down. You have doubts on whether the player getting the final 2 VP’s (but no game win) is playing to win. The only way to really determine that is to wait until the conclusion of the game and see whether or not he tries to break his no longer valid deal and go for the table win. If you bring a judge in, then the judge may require that player to break his deal but the player could always claim that was his plan all along so you can’t really determine what would happen if the judge had not been involved.

Aaron C mentioned how some players view a crosstable "ally" as a friend or enemy and Boris the Blade talked about the “Best Friends for Life” perspective that some players have. Those are both good points. I think lots of players end up having a binary view of other players – they are either “with us or against us.” In truth, most relationships tend to be far more fluid. With one political action the cross-table players are voting in favor (because it is in their interests) but on the next one they are voting against (because it indirectly hurts them). Unfortunately, many players view that as a betrayal or a sign that they are against them. Although one might view such behavior as mercurial, from the perspective of the other players it could actually be seen as consistent (i.e. what is in their best interests).

In response to TorranceCircle’s question of whether the KS deck’s prey (the Toreador gun deck) was going to oust me anyway: not any time soon. I was taking one a turn from Anarch Revolt but all he had otherwise was Victoria (who could bleed for 1 max) and Felicia. Felicia had previously bled me for 4 when I had underestimated her and hadn’t expected an Aire of Elation. I still had Jake Washington and an Eyes of Argus for Lutz, so I was not within ousting range (without third party involvement).

I disagree with Brum’s assertion about complicity. If that were true, then everyone could go around committing rules violations and anyone who did not report all of the incidents would become guilty as well? It is difficult enough for each player to try to ascertain the others' motives while playing the game and having hidden information. It is practically impossible to establish a universal burden of proof but having these case study discussions can help others identify and address similar situations as they arise. As I mentioned in the Spectator Interference thread, there are plenty of cases of very minor situations which are technically rules violations. Under this paradigm, everyone would have to report all of these occurrences too or be guilty? A potentially relevant cultural factor might be differing legal standards of third party obligations between common law (e.g. U.K./U.S.) and civil law (e.g. Europe) regarding duties to act and omission (failure to act). In common law, there is generally no requirement for a third-party to provide a duty to rescue whereas many civil law countries impose such a legal requirement. In the U.S., it is not uncommon for victims of a crime to decline to press charges (assault, rape) and in fact, there are some categories of criminal offenses (e.g. “Antragsdelikt”) which cannot be prosecuted without a complaining victim.

echiang wrote:

Also, I want to emphasize that I think there is a major difference between words and actions.

With all due respect, what you think is irrelevant in that situation. It is what your granpredator thinks that matters. The other players do not base their own play on your hidden intentions but on your public behaviour.