Two questions about "Play to win"

Ashur wrote:

In order to become a better player and judge I am trying to learn the "Play to win"-rule. I haven´t been paying total attention to the discussion leading up to the current "Play to win"-rule, so excuse me if my questions seem stupid.

Two questions:

1. What exact part of the V:TES rulebook is this referring to?
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 (from Tournament rules §4.8)

Rulebook wrote:

Object of the Game

Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.

Ashur wrote:

2. Why aren´t "place" (as in Tournament Rules 3.7.3. "Tournament Point Scoring") a third criteria for "Play to win" in non-final tables? (as in 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.)

Reference:
3.7.3. Tournament Point Scoring
Five-player table: First place receives 60 Tournament Points, second place receives 48 Tournament Points, third place receives 36 Tournament Points, fourth place receives 24 Tournament Points, and fifth place receives 12 Tournament Points.

Note: I understand the problem with final tables, but my question regards non-final tables.

TPs introduce a complex mechanism (sharing points for ties) which is quite unnecessary.
Also, maximizing TPs would mean starting to shoot at other players, not in order to oust them, but to have them ousted by someone else, with no deal pending between you and that winning person. Not very much in the sportmanship standards, I guess.

Then we have a huge contradiction, because Scott has ruled that once you have Table Win, you can do whatever you want (even give the remaining VPs away).
And the Object of the Game goes against this.

Object of the Game

Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.

I had this discussion yesterday with a player that insisted that by the Rulebook, a player must win as many VPs as possible at all times.
The discussion came about the fact that Table Wins are more important than amount of VPs in order to qualify to a Final (1 TW with 3 VP > 0 TW with 5VP).
I claimed the object of a VtES game is winning and that means TW, so winning is rewarded (as it should be).

I propose we change the Object of the Game to clearly say "Your goal is to win the Table by accumulating more victory points then rival Methuselahs."
Then we explain how to do that.

Brum wrote:

Then we have a huge contradiction, because Scott has ruled that once you have Table Win, you can do whatever you want (even give the remaining VPs away).
And the Object of the Game goes against this.

Object of the Game

Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs.

I had this discussion yesterday with a player that insisted that by the Rulebook, a player must win as many VPs as possible at all times.
The discussion came about the fact that Table Wins are more important than amount of VPs in order to qualify to a Final (1 TW with 3 VP > 0 TW with 5VP).
I claimed the object of a VtES game is winning and that means TW, so winning is rewarded (as it should be).

I propose we change the Object of the Game to clearly say "Your goal is to win the Table by accumulating more victory points then rival Methuselahs."
Then we explain how to do that.

During the good/bad (take your pick) old days, the answer to 'the most victory points' would be: "English language."

This was, and still is, an asinine response as the English language is notorious for its ambiguity.

You're reading 'the most victory points' as 'the maximum victory points possible', which is a perfectly valid interpretation of the phrase. However, an equally valid interpretation is: 'more victory points than anyone else'. It's the latter that is used for the ruling.

Anyway, if you want to change PTW for tournaments, then perhaps we should take a long look at this game and consider that it has one of the strangest rules in the world of competition. The tournament rules explicitly say that the stated goal is to win the current game. Strangely enough winning the tournament is counted as an out of game consideration, and is thus illegal, which, quite frankly, is stupid.

No matter what, when judging you enforce the rules as is, even if you rightfully believe a rule to be stupendously horrible. Changing idiotic rules is something we try to do outside of tournaments, as we have done, succesfully.

I don't think there is nothing wrong with PTW.
I just think the paragraph of the Object of the Game is in contradiction with the spirit of PTW and with the way we qualify Finalists.
It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.

Brum wrote:

I don't think there is nothing wrong with PTW.
I just think the paragraph of the Object of the Game is in contradiction with the spirit of PTW and with the way we qualify Finalists.
It gives way to multiple interpretations, like you said, and it should be more clear. If for nothing else, to help us judges and organizers.

Pascal? Can you tell us if you agree / disagree?