file Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

24 Apr 2013 16:06 #47576 by ReverendRevolver
Id like to comment on the ealy part of Hughs post, that Pascal involved players from around the globe in his methods.

Its sort of taken for granted on the vwkn forums that the vekn forums speak for the community. This is false, the forums speak for the partcof the community that uses the forums, and a tiny bit for thierxplaygroups or regions.

Im onexof the leazt acxomplished players in my meta( no shame in it, its hard to win a final when at least 3 if not 4 of the other players arent just hall of famers, but high ranking ones, and you manage to oust 2 of them before yoit grand predator draws good and your screwex) but im on the forums more than most of the players in my state.
I dont speak FOR them, but my views are often like thiers. Still, its not like im emailing Bell, Loughman, Kristoff, Cashdollar, Messer, and every other player in the state for an endousement on my every post, or asking for them to add on thier views. So, we have to assume that Pascal has received input enough to come to the most prudent andpractical decision he can currently, and thw fact is that it wasnt exclusively forum frequenters he consulted, so we lack ALL the information he used to decide(as we should , my proof being that we argue about EVERYTHING on here).
In short, Pascal is a very calculating rules director and the last time i played witb him he was a very calculative andpersepive player(unfortunately for me, predator in my case). So, imwilling to trust his ideas are probably zolid, even if i lose several decks i enjoeyed due to no LB. Im not happy, but at leazt at this point, hes done nothing other than prove his prudence in anything to do with the game, and regardless of the forums being split on it, until Pascal gives me reason to doubt something, i trust him, his research, and his decision.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2013 17:21 - 24 Apr 2013 17:24 #47588 by echiang

That is hilarious (snipped the others for the sake of brevity)!

Yes, I found it hilarious as well! ;)

However I can also see now (that i'm no longer 23)that whatever LSJ or Pascal or Pacman wrote wouldn't satisfy everyone and could just cause the same cycle of pointless arguments on this forum (that might not be a good reason not to have it)

I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy).

Nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone but I don't think that's a good reason by itself to avoid transparency.

The primary purpose I brought it up (and it was actually James who even reminded me of it) was like DeathInABottle said: these sorts of questions are natural and reasonable. They've been asked in the past. They're being asked now. And in 10 years time, when X is the new rules coordinator and they decide to ban card Y, it's likely that the exact same questions and concerns will come up again.

It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before.

Also, I believe it highlights the need for transparency, which is something that several people have asked for. Back then, you, Johannes, and Mike were on the outside so it made sense that you had concerns because you didn't fully understand the inner workings of the bans. Now, the roles have reversed and you three are privy to the inner workings of the VEKN.

To poorly paraphrase Stefan Ferenci in a response to Johannes in that 2004 thread:

you complain about thesystem because you are not part of it, as soon as you are the system is fine.

Strip away the personal, emotional, and accusational sentiment for the underlying pattern which is my point. It happens all the time (and it's not necessarily a "good" or "bad" thing, it's just the way it often is). In politics, you commonly have newcomers claiming that they will change how things are done but once they are elected in office, they just end up becoming part of the status quo machine. Or people who are politically liberal when they are young (and don't have much wealth) but when they become older (and wealthier) then shift to a politically conservative stance.

Although you now have secret knowledge and influence on how the rulings are made, for most people it is still an opaque black box. So I think it is understandable for people to pose questions and ask for more clarification and transparency.

In terms of why Villein wasn't banned and LB was I would think something like this:
- easy to correct Villein's card text as Pascal said (comparatively)
- villein is definitely an enabler - it allows big fat decks that struggled to be competitive before to be competitive now

Yes, the hoser aspect was easily fixed, but that's not where most of the power of Villein comes from. (I would argue it's the Trifle part, which was never playtested).

I don't see why Villein should get a free pass just because it's an "enabler." Many people still strongly feel that it is overpowered. Wouldn't it be better to just ban Villein and then come up with a more balanced version (in the POD printing) that still allows big fat decks to be competitive but isn't so abusive with MMPA's, Voter Cap, and Renewed Vigor?

- LB adds Bahari an unnecessary keyword to the game

Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well?

- Eric we clearly disagree on this last part but LB was poorly tested (not saying other cards haven't been) as part of the Heirs test - the reasons range from too much text, villein not pervading normal decks at that time so can't see combo and finally many playtesters were under the impression this was a storyline card (no rules included for Bahari) so didn't need to be tested in the way other cards in the set did

Hugh, you are twisting what I said.

The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was.

I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested. As I mentioned before, people are free to argue any of:

1. The playtest process (for HttB) was flawed which resulted in the poorly playtested Lilith's Blessing.

2. The HttB playtesters did a poor job (by not properly playtesting Lilith's Blessing, possibly ignoring it because it was "storyline").

3. LSJ dropped the ball by not fixing the card in between the rounds. Or that LSJ/Swainbank poorly designed the card to begin with.

People are free to argue any (or all) of the above based on their opinions. (I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of those statements, I'm just saying that people can argue them if they want). But it is a fact that Lilith's Blessing DID go through 3 rounds of HttB playtesting. That's the point I'm trying to make and the misconception I keep trying to correct.



On the issue of Lilith's Blessing, I do think it's on the strong side but I think there are plenty of more overpowered cards (Anthelios, Ashur Tablets, Pentex Subversion, Villein, Voter Cap, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned). In fact, wasn't it Derek Ray (from the Atlanta playgroup) who complained about how Anthelios wasn't thoroughly playtested and slipped through the cracks?

I think that Lilith's Blessing was an easy and convenient choice for banning because it was a newer card (printed in 2010 instead of 1994 like Deflection) with fewer advocates, and a storyline/promo card (though Anthelios was also promo) with a much smaller circulation so it would likely cause less waves. I think that politically, it was a very logical choice. But on the merits of actual power levels and card balance, there were many, many better candidates that deserved to be hit with the ban hammer first.

pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
Last edit: 24 Apr 2013 17:24 by echiang.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jussi

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2013 17:31 - 24 Apr 2013 17:41 #47591 by Reyda

"Rant"? I've found that he's been quite polite.

Politeness aside (and did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?)
you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here.

It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really.

I understand that it's difficult to hear tone in text, but he isn't using aggressive language or deploying ad hominem attacks - which, I feel like I have to note, you are.

Where did I say "Echiang is a barbarian who mutilates grandmothers everywhere " ?? I just pointed a simple, actual fact : he does not post often, but here he's on a special ranting mode since the change of rules.
A single, long, argumented post would have been sufficient. I can't understand the "I post 5 times in a row so my opinion is suddenly very important" move.
Excuse me but where is this an ad hominem argument ?

I have nothing about Echiang. I don't even know him ! Maybe he's the kindest, more adorable person in the world, and gives to charity (then we are all pleased and need more people like him.)
What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent. And I didn't even mention that. I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours.

THAT IS ALL.

(As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.)

It's the same thing for me, mind you.

On old posts: I think that he was bringing them up in order to demonstrate that players in general, and not just particular malcontents, are regularly concerned with the rationale and process that informs decisions, and that this particular round of questions isn't any different. If people were concerned then, why wouldn't they be concerned now? And why would it be wrong to be concerned?

I am ok with bringing old posts, especially to illustrate the fact that everyone can change his mind about a card or a certain aspect of a game.

But these are nearly 10 year old posts, and at that time, we could not predict that the game would be better without seat switchers. Time made us realize LSJ was not wrong -we the ranting players where. So I guess Echiang's demonstration kind of backfires in a way ?

And to be fully honest : he quoted some "key" people like Johannes to prove his thoughts, and that is not a clever move in my opinion. At that time Johannes was not supporting a game nor a community. His opinions were only theirs and did not engage other players I think. Anyway, it lokked a bit suspicious and I have the right to see it this way.

Again , I Have nothing against Echiang. Why always bring this kind of stuff on the table when I disagree with someone ? When the "but he doesn't like him" became a real argument to dismiss people's thoughs or remarks ?
I am not a fan of ohlmann, but when he says something clever, I am the first one to agree.
Please stop this : it's only bringing noise to the conversation.

Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
Last edit: 24 Apr 2013 17:41 by Reyda.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2013 17:54 #47594 by echiang

Id like to comment on the ealy part of Hughs post, that Pascal involved players from around the globe in his methods.

And I'm sure LSJ also probably involved players from around the globe in his methods.

Its sort of taken for granted on the vwkn forums that the vekn forums speak for the community. This is false, the forums speak for the partcof the community that uses the forums, and a tiny bit for thierxplaygroups or regions.

I agree with you, that those on the VEKN forum only constitute a very, very small fraction of the actual players.

I dont speak FOR them, but my views are often like thiers. Still, its not like im emailing Bell, Loughman, Kristoff, Cashdollar, Messer, and every other player in the state for an endousement on my every post, or asking for them to add on thier views. So, we have to assume that Pascal has received input enough to come to the most prudent andpractical decision he can currently, and thw fact is that it wasnt exclusively forum frequenters he consulted, so we lack ALL the information he used to decide(as we should , my proof being that we argue about EVERYTHING on here).

Back when the banning decisions when made by LSJ, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, and Robyn Tatu (the old IC), that was not sufficiently satisfying for Johannes.

According to Johannes:

And I would like to see a few european guys involved. That´s all.

Later clarified as those who are:

Coordinating the big tournaments like the EC, qualifiers and national
championships. Taking care of the pre-releases, prize support, promotion
(e.g in local magazines) and so on. The national coordinators for example.


Though Derek Ray and Stefan Ferenci were more skeptical of his motives (perhaps they were being too harsh?):

Derek Ray:

Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have
made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better?


Stefan Ferenci:

so here we are you want andreas and stephane involved (two very good
buddys of yours, and btw everybody knows that when it comes to vtes
andreas and you are like twinbrothers, so when andreas is part of the
discussion so are you) once again aren´t you hypocritical, you complain
about thesystem because you are not part of it, as soon as you are the
system is fine.


In short, Pascal is a very calculating rules director and the last time i played witb him he was a very calculative andpersepive player(unfortunately for me, predator in my case). So, imwilling to trust his ideas are probably zolid, even if i lose several decks i enjoeyed due to no LB. Im not happy, but at leazt at this point, hes done nothing other than prove his prudence in anything to do with the game, and regardless of the forums being split on it, until Pascal gives me reason to doubt something, i trust him, his research, and his decision.

I think Pascal's a great guy. And out of all the IC members, I think he's definitely done the best job so far (no offense to everyone else).

However, we can't even say whether this was his decision (for better or for worse). It's also possible that the decision was an Inner Circle decision, or a Chairman decision (since the Chairman can appoint/dismiss IC members at will, except maybe the Vice Chairman).

So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision. :)

pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2013 18:11 - 24 Apr 2013 18:12 #47596 by Ohlmann

So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision.


Why do anyone would care ? You're talking to credit or blame a decision even before any tournament have been done with thoses changes, and we would need at least six month before seeing anything which isn't speculative chatter. I also propose we start to blame Johannes for the bad impression quality of the third POD set released in 2016 ; it make just about as much sense.

Nobody should care what Johannes or anyone else were thinking ten year ago. There is way too little context to know if the situation were the same in what you give, and even if it was, he can change opinion in ten year. In other word, your post don't really say anything about the current rule change but make you look like a manipulative jerk.

To be honest, I am happy to know it's not you who have taken the decision, seeing as that a lot of time you exclusively use your time to portray yourselve as a self-centered jerk and the PDF you released were ... less than inspiring.
Last edit: 24 Apr 2013 18:12 by Ohlmann.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Juggernaut1981, Reyda

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
24 Apr 2013 18:18 #47598 by echiang

Politeness aside (and did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?)
you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here.

#1. I made a few posts, but then most of my other posts (what you consider an "avalanche") are in direct replies to responses from other posters (James Coupe, Hugh Angseesing, Pascal, you). Why is it surprising that as a discussion evolves (and includes more people) that one ends up posting more?

#2. Not much has been going on with VTES for many, many months. So for many people (including me), there hasn't been much reason to post lately. New Tournament Rules with a new banned card is a major development. Why would it be so surprising if a number of people who haven't posted lately, post in response to this new change?

#3. Over the past year or so, players have repeatedly offered the excuse "well the VEKN members are just volunteers and they have real world lives and real world responsibilities, so it's okay if they're not posting all the time or giving monthly updates." Is it so surprising that most of us probably have real world lives and responsibilities as well? Why is it such a big deal that I haven't posted in a while, when it's been specifically fine for other people to *not* have been posting?

What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent.

I've had the pleasure of working with Pascal. Pascal is very, very competent. In fact, he's probably even more competent than you or I think he is. :)

I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours.

THAT IS ALL.

Simple answer: The majority of all those posts are child posts in response to the replies of other people to my parent posts. That is all.

Have a good day Reyda! :)

pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
The following user(s) said Thank You: Reyda

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.091 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum