Forgetting mandatory effects

Aaron wrote:

Hopefully Pascal is looking for input from judges like Kevin to find out what is actually being done around the world. The guidelines should reflect actual practices or start a discussion towards stronger standardized practices.

I'm looking for inputs from everyone on situations in which someone said "well, how do we deal with that?"
This includes friendly games, tournament games, players' opinions, judges' opinions.

The more I get, the wider it will be.

The intent of that guide will be to provide explicit examples to refer to.

Aaron wrote:

Kevin, that is how the judges' guide is currently organized: philosophy -> penalty -> correction.

According to the Judges' Guide, any error has a penalty. The penalty for small stuff, like replacing a card you are not supposed to, is a "caution".

It appears that you aren't familiar with the Judge's Guide, so perhaps a reading of it is in order?

I'm talking specifically about accidentally drawing an extra card. '121.Card Drawing - Drawing Extra Cards' states that the penalty for this error is not a 'caution' but a 'warning', two of which are recommended to result in a Game Loss.

Can you imagine how many players would be assigned Game Losses under this insane system?

As I said, I can see how it is needed in Magic, where everyone is a cheater, but it is not needed, as written, at all in VTES.

Aaron wrote:

I think it's great that Pascal is working on an updated judges' guide. I had an on-going discussion several months ago with some of the old-time LA players about judging philosophies, and a lot of what they had to say either did not match the current guide or else had no "official" backing (which means the philosophies were based on things LSJ said, whether recorded or not, but which were never actually incorporated into the rulebook or Judges' Guide).

It's interesting that Kevin, an experienced judge, already says that some errors don't merit penalties, when the Judges' Guide doesn't seem to support that.

Hopefully Pascal is looking for input from judges like Kevin to find out what is actually being done around the world. The guidelines should reflect actual practices or start a discussion towards stronger standardized practices.

I agree with everything that you said here, Aaron.

I've judged over 100 tournaments now -- heaven knows how many tables -- and I've literally had to give two warnings and less than a dozen cautions, ever. Even when I judged in Europe I handed out only one 'caution'.

Also, note that the Judge's Guide is a guide, and that it is not a rulebook of any kind, nor intended to be treated as one. Rather, it is to be used as a reference for judges that -- and I'm just speculating here -- are not experienced or familiar enough with the players and/or styles to be able to come to a fair, impartial ruling on their own. This is what I did when I was asked to judge an event at the EC, where I knew almost no one and was highly unfamiliar with the play styles, so when an error happened, I just went with the recommended penalty in the JG and gave the player a 'caution'. I wouldn't do this at the NAC, however, since I know 98% of the players and I am 100% sure that they aren't cheating or acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Now, does this mean that judges that are familiar with a player and/or that player's style are going to give that player fewer 'cautions' and 'warnings' than to a player with whom they are unfamiliar? Of course. Is this a problem?

Not if you aren't cheating, trying to cheat, or are acting unsportsmanlike, no. So I don't consider it an issue.

But I'm sure that after I post this, someone will complain about my consistency and lower my user karma 8000 points.

KevinM wrote:

I've judged over 100 tournaments now -- heaven knows how many tables -- and I've literally had to give two warnings and less than a dozen cautions, ever. Even when I judged in Europe I handed out only one 'caution'.

Also, note that the Judge's Guide is a guide, and that it is not a rulebook of any kind, nor intended to be treated as one. Rather, it is to be used as a reference for judges that -- and I'm just speculating here -- are not experienced or familiar enough with the players and/or styles to be able to come to a fair, impartial ruling on their own. This is what I did when I was asked to judge an event at the EC, where I knew almost no one and was highly unfamiliar with the play styles, so when an error happened, I just went with the recommended penalty in the JG and gave the player a 'caution'. I wouldn't do this at the NAC, however, since I know 98% of the players and I am 100% sure that they aren't cheating or acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.

Now, does this mean that judges that are familiar with a player and/or that player's style are going to give that player fewer 'cautions' and 'warnings' than to a player with whom they are unfamiliar? Of course. Is this a problem?

Not if you aren't cheating, trying to cheat, or are acting unsportsmanlike, no. So I don't consider it an issue.

But I'm sure that after I post this, someone will complain about my consistency and lower my user karma 8000 points.

First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. The scenario you talk about (one where noone cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges.

Second (and this is the things I'd most like a reply to), what's the point of having a partial judge? Why not just leave the decisions to the players at the tables instead?

Third, a tip. I read an article about cheating in MtG on Extrala's blog a week or so back, it was rather interesting. Especially the text written by a friend of a now banned player, where he talks about how hard it actually can be to discover that someone you know/think you know is cheating. I think it would be a good read for most judges, especially those who believe that noone ever cheats in VtES.

henrik wrote:

First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them. The scenario you talk about (one where noone cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges.

I think part of the challenge is that people have completely different (but valid) views as to the extent of cheating and what should be done about it:

1. Some cheating is fairly non-existent in VTES, and thus cards (and card design) don't really need to factor in the possibility of cheating

2. An alternative approach is to assume that cheating is going to existent (though whether or not it is rampant or just occasional is a different matter) so instead the emphasis should be on minimizing the impact of cheating when it (eventually) does come up, rather than assuming that it will never be an issue.

You have some cards like Gambit Accepted (the only card in the game that potentially lets you actually transfer VP's to another player) and (before it was banned) Succubus Club. If you assume that everyone's being "good," then the potential for abuse of either of these cards is much lower. But if there is some potentially shady stuff going on, then these two cards significantly magnify the potential impact of "cheating."



And finally, you have the separate issue of whether not being aware of any cheating means that there is no cheating at all. Are we simply not looking hard enough? Or would we just being going on a witch hunt and cheating really is quite rare in VTES?

Aaron wrote:

I had an on-going discussion several months ago with some of the old-time LA players about judging philosophies, and a lot of what they had to say either did not match the current guide or else had no "official" backing (which means the philosophies were based on things LSJ said, whether recorded or not, but which were never actually incorporated into the rulebook or Judges' Guide).

Aaron, did you miss the post of the link to LSJ's written rulings on the questions you raised? I posted them maybe a week or two after our discussion.

vtesinla.org/rptBrightLights4.html

henrik wrote:

First, I think you're using a circular way of looking at cheating. If you don't look for cheaters you'll never find them.

Who said that I never look for cheaters?

henrik wrote:

The scenario you talk about (one where no one cheats) would be the perfect tournament scene but believing we're already there is probably a bad thing, even more so for judges.

I'd bet cash on it, that no one cheats at Origins. In 12 years:

1. There's never been anyone who has acted like they were cheating.
2. There's never been anyone who I've heard talking about cheating.
3. There's never been anyone who has requested that I watch a player because they may be cheating.

And, most importantly:
4. There's never been any REASON for anyone to cheat.

Really, Origins is Just That Cool(TM).

henrik wrote:

Second (and this is the thing I'd most like a reply to), what's the point of having a partial judge? Why not just leave the decisions to the players at the tables instead?

You REALLY should come to Origins. You'd LOVE it.

See, I tell everyone to figure things out on their own otherwise I'm going to have to come over there and no one will be happy with the ruling. Certainly, I *will* come make a ruling if requested to do so, but you'd be surprised at the goodwill of the players, even predators and preys, and how the majority of the tables deal with their own issues and **everyone is OK with the result**.

henrik wrote:

Third, a tip. I read an article about cheating in MtG on Extrala's blog a week or so back, it was rather interesting. Especially the text written by a friend of a now banned player, where he talks about how hard it actually can be to discover that someone you know/think you know is cheating. I think it would be a good read for most judges, especially those who believe that noone ever cheats in VtES.

I don't believe that "no one ever cheats". I just think it's ludicrously rare and nearly unworthy of messages on a VEKN.net thread.

I suspected a Canadian guy of cheating once, just to get back at me because he got pissed off at me asking him to speak in English. Instead of calling a judge, I just smashed his deck's face and ousted him.

I still suspect a certain Ohio player, that refuses to attend Origins, of cheating because several players at a local game shop suggested to me that he was cheating there. If he ever attends any Origins events, I'll keep a close eye on him.

I've heard second-hand of one of two French guys that don't play anymore that actually did cheat. I think I heard third-hand of some Spanish guy who tried to cheat once. An American friend told me of someone about 15 years ago that cheated one single time.