Play to Win situation

Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying?

Yes. I do. I've seen games ended by a bad judicial decision. I've seen players leaving the tournament after a bad judicial decision. I don't have to explain that these situations are bad for game and community...

In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings?

First of all, this game is not a sport. Second, in most sports, when judge makes questionable decision, it is argued with participants. In this argument, he persuades participants that his decision is correct, stating facts and his view of the situation. And sometimes decision is overruled by the very same judge after argument, if he is persuaded that he made a wrong decision or ruling. And third and most important, every sport is a game of gentlemen, hence the shaking of hands with opponent and judge. If you played any, you would have known.

The judge makes a judgment. The players follow it....This is about following the damn rules.

Or what?
You are funny. I'd like to see how you (intend to) enforce game rules. Especially if two or more players from the table do not agree with your decision. Do you disqualify whole table, reset whole game, emo rage? What if they just leave, and ruin the game for others? You obviously did not have any interference with any form of authority in real life. Do you play with your mates or with some unknown people? Do you boss them around or you talk to them politely? You might be excellent rules lawyer, but you act like a poor judge. Most of all, you fail to understand that this game is not played with cards - it is played with people.

Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer. And rules are not precise what exactly they are - rules only give judges rough guidelines how to recognise and handle them. Looks like some of you are abusing those guidelines... For example, where exactly did you read that a judge can play anything or take forward action whatsoever?

This includes the state as though action X was taken!

Correction of Game State defines when a judge can rewind play, not when to forward it. Read the judges' guide section 200.

Megabaja wrote:

KevinM wrote:

Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying?

Yes. I do. I've seen games ended by a bad judicial decision. I've seen players leaving the tournament after a bad judicial decision. I don't have to explain that these situations are bad for game and community...

In how many games does this happen? 1 in 100? 1 in 200? Someone is always going to believe that the decision is "bad", and I'm willing to have that "bad" decision in an overwhelmingly tiny percentage of games. No, that isn't bad for the game or community.

Megabaja wrote:

KevinM wrote:

In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings?

...in most sports, when judge makes questionable decision, it is argued with participants.

In most sports? No, actually, it isn't.

In baseball, football, basketball, hockey, auto racing, and every Olympic event that I can think of, when a judge raises an arm, a flag, or blows a whistle and makes a decision, it is made. There is no discussion between that judge and the players with the intent of the judge allowing a player's discussion to reverse the judgement. Aside from instant replay of some kind, the judge makes a decision, using the authority given to him by the rulebook, and the judgement is made, done, and applied.

Megabaja wrote:

In this argument, he persuades participants that his decision is correct, stating facts and his view of the situation.

Again, no.

The judge doesn't persuade the players of anything. The judge makes a decision, using the authority given to him by the rulebook, and the judgement is made, done, and applied, with whatever explanation required by the rules, usually in the form of a short phrase and a number.

Megabaja wrote:

And sometimes decision is overruled by the very same judge after argument, if he is persuaded that he made a wrong decision or ruling.

No, judges don't overrule themselves (aside from instant replay) after they make a ruling.

Megabaja wrote:

And third and most important, every sport is a game of gentlemen, hence the shaking of hands with opponent and judge. If you played any, you would have known.

Ahhhh the ol' ad-hominem attack. The sign of a weak argument.

Megabaja wrote:

I'd like to see how you (intend to) enforce game rules.

I've never had a player begin a tournament, with me as the judge, who wasn't prepared to submit to my rulings.

If this is a problem that you encounter then I'd suggest that you as a judge -- and those that you ask to stand as your judges -- examine your rulings or stand aside for judges whose decisions are appropriate and abided by.

Megabaja wrote:

Especially if two or more players from the table do not agree with your decision. Do you disqualify whole table, reset whole game, emo rage? What if they just leave, and ruin the game for others? You obviously did not have any interference with any form of authority in real life. Do you play with your mates or with some unknown people? Do you boss them around or you talk to them politely?

In 10+ years and over a hundred tournaments now, I've made exactly *two* decisions that two or more players didn't agree with, and in neither of those cases did anything so ridiculous as you describe take place. I made my decision, and the game continued in the fashion that I directed that it must.

I'm beginning to think that either you and the players in your group have no respect for authority or the players that you put in the position of judge aren't the correct players to whom to give that authority.

Megabaja wrote:

Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer.

Which is why we have judges if there is a disagreement regarding those

Megabaja wrote:

Playing to win and unsportsmanlike conduct are terms that perceived different by every gamer. And rules are not precise what exactly they are - rules only give judges rough guidelines how to recognise and handle them. Looks like some of you are abusing those guidelines... For example, where exactly did you read that a judge can play anything or take forward action whatsoever?

This includes the state as though action X was taken!

Correction of Game State defines when a judge can rewind play, not when to forward it. Read the judges' guide section 200.

Megabaja makes some good points here. EVen though there is a Judges' Guide on the VEKN site, it has not been updated since 2004. Robert Goudie, who wrote the Guide in 2004, has told me in personal conversation that judges now do some things differently than the way the Guide says to do them. Kevin Mergen, who has judged a lot of tournaments, has said that the Guide does not reflect the current way judges make rulings. My impression is that Pascal does not endorse the Judges' Guide. I have read posts, for instance, where he has solicited input from organizers about certain facets of judging as opposed to giving them a directive from the tournament rules or judges' guide.

This all means that Megabaja is correct - there is no absolute way to handle any problem, and each person or judge handles a problem in their own way using the established guidelines as they see fit. (Please don't think I endorse this state of affairs - I'm just trying to describe it.)

I really don't understand why some people have difficulties understanding the basic concept of judges in VTES.

In any VEKN sanctioned event, the appointed judge has the authority to make rulinges and issue warnings and diesqualifications if necessary. Players attend the events understanding that the judge has final authority.

If a judge corrects illegal play, the players have to take that decision as it is. If players refuse to acknowledge decisions by the judge, they can either leave on their own or get a warning and even a disqualification for repeated infractions.

The play to win rule is a tournament rule. If you attend a tournament you have to follow the rules. If you don't, the judge will correct misplay or wrong behaviour.

A judge has to considcer all arguments and weigh them for his decision. But once he issued a judgement, only he himself can override it if necessary.

I have judged 3 ECs and a lot of tournaments and leagues. I have never encountered problems with players refusing to accept a ruling.

I guess that either some players have never attended a VEKN tournament, or are having dificulties understanding what a judge is supposed to do in a competitive game.

Friendly games ususally don't need judges, but that is a completely different situation.

Amenophobis wrote:

I have a question regarding the play-to-win rule.

Assume the following situation:
5-player table. Tournament rules are in effect.

Sequence is as follows:
A-B-C-D-F

We usually use "E", but OK for "F".

Amenophobis wrote:

F is already ousted by D (D has 1 VP).
There is still plenty of time on the clock.
A: intercept gun-combat
B: Matthias () intercept
C: Euro -combat/bleed
D: Osebo intercept combat

A has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool
B has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool
C has 3 vampires ready, 12 pool
D has 3 vampires in torpor, 0 ready, 5 pool

At the end of his turn, C plays Dragonbound.

The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW.
A's only ready vampire has 0 blood, no gun. He controls Palatial Estate and Fetish Club Hunting Ground. If he manages to rescue 1 single vampire, he stays alive, otherwise he ousted (3 vampires in torpor and 3 pool left).
B has shown consistant ability to block actions regardless of stealth and has Miriam Benyona ready, tapped.

The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn?

Does D have reasonable chances of getting an extra VP? It looks like. Is D aware of this? He probably is. Therefore, self-ousting would be against the PTW rule, since D can evaluate his reasonable chances of getting more than his current result.

Amenophobis wrote:

I would say no, as he has a reasonable chance to at least get another VP, and if Miriam blocks the rescue action of player A and gets torporized, D would get a 3rd VP and the GW.

One could argue that player D would have to ask player B if he is going to block the rescue action.
However, during the whole game, C has taken a alot of -actions against B, which resulted in B having no chance at any VP. So it would be reasonable to assume that B would try to stop giving the GW to C

Ok.

Amenophobis wrote:

(B is known to the other players as being a bit spiteful).

This is clearly in the "out of game considerations".

Amenophobis wrote:

Knowing no other details and not talking to player B, D would have a 50% chance of another VP - B's Miriam Benyona either blocks the rescue action of A or not.

Interesting "50%". Doesn't seem to take into account the fact that Miriam is tapped. Nor that B, unwilling to give the GW to C, and unable of getting more than 0 VP, might let A rescue / diablerize, and self-oust.

Amenophobis wrote:

If D self-ousts he seems to be clearly in violation of the play-to-win rule. Player C claims that judges could not force D to not self-oust. Is this true?

Thank you for helping clearing up the situation.