Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

It is the one front Eric. If you want transparency in one area, it seems strange to not demand it in the rest.

I also think the U.S. government should be more transparent. Sorry I'm not on the steps of Capital Hill protesting!

It seems to be that there is an overt agenda, one which the IC seemed to think affected your role in the Storyline Coordinator role to the point where they removed you from the IC. You appear to be on a crusade to force the VEKN to change its conduct to suit you after you were forced to leave. That same Agenda lead to the PCK release of cards. That agenda is unwelcome to me as a player of this game.

It seems to me that you (and some others) have an overt agenda in constantly asserting that I have an overt agenda. Anything I do immediately falls under suspicion as part of my "sinister plot" (that was sarcasm BTW). You (and others, like Reyda) seem entrenched in your beliefs and I doubt there's anything I could ever do to convince you otherwise. That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions.

You insisting on Pascal to explain his decision to you in detail just seems to be a resentment agenda because you are no longer in the IC.

You are entitled to your opinion.

There is a very easy definition for what you could make transparent: Any meeting minutes or playtest records which will not breach a non-disclosure clause in a contract made by the VEKN or will not prejudice the future sales of VTES products. What is simpler than that?

At first glance, I think that seems reasonable. And I agree that VEKN should adopt that policy and release all meeting minutes and playtest records that fall under those terms.

The longer this goes on Eric, the more it becomes obvious to me at least that you are not advocating for the betterment of the VEKN for its own sake.

1. I do think that the VEKN can be bettered and would like to better it

2. You are right that bettering the VEKN is not my primary objective. Yes, it is true that I am much more concerned about VTES and the players, then I am about VEKN. Unfortunately, in some people's minds, VEKN = VTES = the players. However, I do not think those three are the same thing (though they are related).

You seem to be going about an agenda to harass and attack the members of the Rules Team, the Design Team and the IC for whatever role they had in removing you from the Inner Circle.

1. I do not see posing questions in a polite and calm way as "harass[ing] and attack[ing]." Apparently you see things differently (that is your right). Yes, I have questioned and challenged Pascal, but in a composed and respectful way that I do not consider an "attack" (as I've alluded to in other posts in this thread, I have the utmost respect for Pascal).

2. I am not bitter about being removed from the IC. As time passes, I am actually more and more grateful that I am no longer on the IC. Really! B-)

- Within months of being removed from the IC and card design, you are involved in the release of a "rival" set of cards and belligerent action against the VEKN over IP.

Fallacy because it didn't have to be a "rival" set. I believed then and I believe now that both sets could coexist. It's a "black and white" "us vs them" mindset to view anything that happens outside of the VEKN as a "rival." (And you saw similar themes in that thread about the rumored Fantasy Flight Game.)

- When the RTR comes out, you demand transparency publicly, vociferously and persistently even when numerous people have answered your complaints, explained the processes.

Some of my queries were eventually answered. Some of my (and other people's) queries still have not been addressed or answered.

There were some cases where I asked detailed and nuanced questions, and some people responded but didn't actually address my question. (For example, only someone on the IC could tell us whose decision it really was. Pascal eventually confirmed it. Other voices, like yours, couldn't actually say for sure because you weren't privy to who made the decision.)

And there were cases where non-official people like you provided answers but they were insufficient because those people (like you) are non-official. So even if I accepted what you said at face value, somewhere down the line there could be plausible deniability where VEKN could always claim "we didn't actually say that, some other non-official guy said it."

- You admit later (i.e. in your last post), that there was at least a perception that your PCK activities were in conflict with the IC. So that even when you were ostensibly working for the VEKN to better VTES and tournaments, you were working to your own agenda.

In the end, this paints a picture to me Eric, even if to nobody else, that you are working for your own goals and not for the VEKN, the players or for VTES.

You seem deadset about what you think my agenda is. You're entitled to your opinion. Good luck with that!

Wedge wrote:

Pentex the minion with it may take no action other than to remove it,otherwise the same.
Anthelios ends you master phase
Villien only playable on a vamp w/o a villien and at least 2 blood
Aushers one a turn and only minion cards
Liliths must find skill cards and replace bahari with red list

I would be interested in trying these changes.

And in fact, for some time, I (and other people) actually thought that Villein could only target vampires with at least 2 blood!

1. Fairness and justice (as explained above).
Too big to fail

Even "too big to fail" is applied inconsistently when you look at bailouts. There are cases when big Company X is allowed to fail (often as an "example"). And cases when "too big to fail" is used as an excuse to bail out companies, which ends up promoting inefficiency/corruption, and then the public later complains about the bailout.

2. Transparency
dissection, debate, and time consuming

Alas, informative discourse often is.

3. Process
I don't need for this RTR(bane), it seems obvious.

Not quite sure what you mean, but probably doesn't matter (I do not mean that condescendingly, it's a point which probably isn't worthwhile debating about right now with you ).

echiang wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same?

I will happily answer your question, but in a different thread.

Dearest Andrew,

Since you asked so nicely, as promised, I have created a separate thread that details my many efforts to increase transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator. You can find it here:

vekn.net/index.php/forum/5-generic-vtes-discussion/47740-eric-chiangs-transparency-as-ic-storyline-coordinator

And to reiterate some of the final conclusions of that thread (which pertain to the transparency issue in this thread):

---

I think I was very transparent as IC Storyline Coordinator and am "put[ting] [my] money where [my] mouth is."

There were several public discussions I initiated on Usenet and the VEKN forums. Discussions which you contributed to, which makes me wonder why you are asking if there were any.

And I contacted and solicited feedback (via e-mail) from many different people. And unlike the VEKN, I am actually providing names/details that can be verified.

Andrew, I challenge you to name (and provide evidence of) a VTES Storyline Coordinator who was more transparent than I was.

I will also assert that as an IC member fulfilling his responsibilities, I was easily among the upper tier when it comes to transparency. And I will also issue a challenge (but this is a *friendly* challenge ) to any former, current, or future member of the IC, to be as transparent as I was (or better, even *more* transparent) during my time as an IC member and also through my transparency with this post.

And Andrew, since I did “increase transparency in [my] own area” and “in [my] own role when potentially had the power to do it,” I actually think that gives me A LOT of credibility when I ask Pascal (or the VEKN) to do the same.

Wouldn't it just make more sense to put an either/or restriction on Villein and LB?

It just seems like an arbitrary decision that hurts decks that rely on it to prevent a specific, preventable combo. How do we vote on it?

brm130 wrote:

Wouldn't it just make more sense to put an either/or restriction on Villein and LB?

Is there anything that create such a restriction right now ? Choosing the more complicated and convoluted way to do it seem stupid.

brm130 wrote:

How do we vote on it?

Why would we vote ?

It's not like there was overwhelming amount of discussion about it on VEKN. It have been two years that this is talked about. I understand you disagree with the final decision, but sometimes non-unanimous decisions should be taken.

Also, democracy is not alway the best way to take decision anyway. I'd better trust the vision of one group of expert (floppy with the other people who help him) than having a decision by commitee.

Adding "You may not play Villein" to LB's wording is convoluted and stupid?

Democratization at least offers a discussion period. This just feels like a dissociated entity couldn't find a solution and gave up.