Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
LSJ wrote:
> > > The rules match the suggested handling.
> >
> > Is the suggested handling 'you do not have to play to win in a final,
> > if you are offered a portion of the prize support as an incentive to
> > play to lose?'
> >
> > If this is the case, I'll detail how the rules don't match it.
>
> If you are offered a portion of the prize support and that offer is the
> best you can reasonably expect to do, then playing toward that "best"
> is not playing to lose, it is playing to win.
I can agree with that, with one giant caveat: "The best", according to
the tournament rules, is not "the best prize you can get", but the most
VPs, i.e. (quoting the rules directly) "the goal of the game as stated
in the V:TES rulebook."
Let me be clear: I certainly agree that in a case where you would be
legally making a deal anyway (i.e. you're not cutting your own throat
to make it), prize support can be bandied about as much as you like.
There's lots of cases where making a deal is in your best interest
_regardless_ of whether or not what you get in return includes prizes,
and the rules clearly allow prizes to be part of a legal deal.
But in cases where a player would be deliberately losing a game in such
a way that it's _clear_ to a judge that he is playing to lose in terms
of VP, the rules as written don't permit this because you agree to give
that player prize support.
Details:
The Judge's guidelines clearly state that the exceptions to "Cheating:
Collusion" ("Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise
illegally establish the results of a game.") are:
"Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements
should not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet
the following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items.
No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside of
the current game.
No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the winner.
The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN
Tournament Rules."
And 5.2 says "Players must not play toward goals that conflict with the
goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking
certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall
tournament standing, etc.)."
The goal of the game as stated in the rulebook is "Your goal is to
accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by
rival Methuselahs." There's no mention in the rulebook's goal of the
game "Get the best prize support possible", or any mention of prizes.
In order for a player to follow 5.2, they must play to get VPs, not
play for prize support.
The rules also state that philosophically, for Cheating: Bribery:
"Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered in
violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the prizes would be
acceptable.)"
However, this 'splitting the prizes is acceptable' is only listed as an
acceptable exemption for 'Cheating: Bribery' - not for collusion, not
for violating 5.2, not for anything other than 'it's something you can
legally offer as consideration'.
I can theoretically offer at the start of a game to get down on my
hands and knees and kiss every card in your deck in alphabetical order,
if you'd only deliberately lose the game to me. That's a completely
legal _bribe_ - but I'm still colluding with you, because I'm asking
you to violate 5.2's 'Players must not play toward goals that conflict
with the goal of the game as stated'.
And the tournament rules, as written, do not make any exception to 5.2.
Now, I fully agree that determining whether a potential deal is 'the
best you can do' in terms of getting VPs is a highly subjective one,
open to a lot of interpretation. I'm not disputing that at all, nor am
I disputing how judges currently rule that.
But 'the best you can do', per the tournament rules, does not include
'the best loot you can get offered' without any attempt to win the
game.
Which is why I'm saying that as written, the rules insist that you must
play to win the game - by getting VPs - even if someone offers you a
(legal) prize-support bribe not to. Because if you are _clearly,
definitely_ playing to lose as part of a deal, you have colluded, and
the rules call that cheating no matter what you were offered in return
(even prize support).
Which would mean that offering a player:
"Concede to me now and I'll give you all the boosters"
is no different than:
"Concede to me now and I'll give you nothing"
...taken strictly in terms of determining 'are these players colluding
to determine the game result in violation of 5.2'.
If they'd be considered colluding in the second case, the existence of
the bribe in the first case does not change the illegal deal to a legal
one, because prize support is not part of the "best you can reasonably
expect to do" by the current tournament rules.
-John Flournoy
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram