Re: Play to Win - counter-intuitive example


"The Name Forgotten" <texfam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fad3ba08-d0b4-4c58-af6e-3d5d8c317cd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 20, 12:02 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The Name Forgotten" <tex...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:130898ea-7fe0-4c63-8514-8325e2e16d35@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Feb 19, 6:47 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure, play-to-win covers some of these situations,
but if it covered all of them, there'd be no need for a collusion rule

Well, gee...that's what *I'VE* been saying, if you read my original response
to this situation.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand - have you been saying that we should
keep the PTW rule, but there is no need for the collusion rule?

Yep. To tell the truth, until you quoted from the judge's manual, I had no
idea what the Collusion Clause in the Sportsmanship Rule was actually for.
It's written terribly, doesn't define what it means very well, and - as
written - could be applied to any two players who struck any deal in any
game in any tournament.

No. It can't. It lists many exceptions. Namely:

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:

Where are you getting this? Looking at the TOURNAMENT RULES, it merely
says, "Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities...Collusion to alter the results of a game".

Try to remember, the Judge's Guide is *NOT* part of the tournament rules.

Given the judge's manual, I now believe I understand
the spirit of that clause.

Evidently you don't.

I certainly do. But whatever is written in the Judge's Guide doesn't
alter the fact: the rule *ITSELF* is terribly written. The fact that it's
intended meaning is clarified in the Judge's Guide doesn't make it all better.
The Judge's Guide is not an obligatory document. Judges should be able to
understand the meaning of a rule based on how the rule itself is written.
Frankly, I hate rules that can so easily misinterpreted. That's why I said:
this rule needs to be clarified (in the *TOURNAMENT RULES*) or eliminated.
Since I really don't see what function it serves, given PTW, I'd say it should
be eliminated.

So your original argument was: "We don't need PTW because PTW is covered
in other rules".

No. My original argument was we shouldn't have PTW because it leads to
a double standard.

I have to confess, I've never understood your double-standard argument.

Therein lies the problem. If you cannot understand my issue with the
PTW, then any further debate is pointless. I'd rather spend the time
focusing on helping you understand my point there, before I argue on a
seperate issue that relies on that point.

I think it should give you pause to consider whether your idea that the
clause you want to eliminate actually creates double standards. I mean,
to reduce your argument down to it's essence, this is what I've gotten
to date: What the Play-to-Win rule actually says is, "It should be
considered unsportsmanlike conduct to play a game towards goals NOT written
the rulebook when they're in conflict with the goals written in the rulebook."
In essence, it says, you can't play toward "X" kinds of goals where they're in
conflict with "Y" kinds of goals - "X" being out-of-game game goals, "Y"
being the goals written in the rulebook. Then, it gives a couple examples
(but not limited to...) of "X" goals: playing for VEKN ratings or playing for
tournament standings. Then, it has a clause which better defines what "Y"
goals mean: playing for a game win if obtainable or, failing that, playing
for the most victory points.

So, claiming that the last clause - which more concretely defines what are
the "Y" goals - creates double standards, essentially you wish to get rid of
it and replace it with more examples of possible "X" goals. What is wrong
with this picture? But this is all any reasonable person can get from your
reasoning so far.

My suspicion is that I'd either disagree
that both were PTW violations or else that both were not PTW violations or
alternatively that I'd disagree that a correct judge should invoke the PTW
rule in one case and not the other.

That's my point exactly. Still, I'd be going against my intuitions
about the spirit of PTW if I either enforced both violations or
disagreed that they were both violations - given that the relevant
risks were identical in terms of the rules. I'm guessing other judges
might feel similarly inclined, and might in fact, rule differently in
those situations (or at least want to).

Well, I don't know why you'd think that. You're asserting you think other
judges might be tempted to rule the situations differently when, in fact,
they're the same and therefore the rule creates a double standard. It's
not a very convincing argument. If anything, it might be an argument for
adding more definition and clarity to the rule - but certainly not taking
away the clause that defines what is playing towards the goals listed in
the rulebook.

My argument at this point was to agree that it was an issue, and there
is a better alternative to the Play-to-Win rule to stop this from
happening (that wouldn't lead to a double standard.)

OK. I guess I can't respond to that because a double standard can't be
demonstrated, IMO.

It can be demonstrated through a thought experiment. I'll try clarify
my point in a different way below.
....
4.8. Play to Win

One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that 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.).

*** or attacking certain players on the basis of out of game
considerations, e.g. race, gender, animosity, etc. Also, a player
will
not play to benefit certain players on the basis of their V:EKN
ratings, overall tournament standings, or other out-of-game
considerations, eg. friendship, fame, lack of time etc.

When you toss in "other out-of-game" considerations, you've made
all the rest superfluous, AFAICS. In order to be a rule, you have
to define what is illegal behavior. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere,
examples do not define. They merely clarify definitions. I suppose you
could add a line that reads something like, "Examples of out-of-game
considerations include (but are not limited to): V:EKN ratings, overall
tournament standings, race, gender, animosity, friendship, fame, or
lack of time." But in fact, this addition adds nothing to the actual
rule.

Uhm... duh??? What does eg. mean to you?

Essentially, "for instance". But my version was more consise and made
better sense than your's. Your's said, "(for instance) race, gender
animosity, or other-of-game considerations..." adding another 'e.g.'
there but essentially means everything else that's not an in-game
consideration. Everything you mentioned was an out-of-game consideration
so...why not just say THAT?!? Basically, you're not suppose to play
for out-of-game considerations when they're in conflict with rulebook
game goals - and here's a lot of possible examples. That's much more
straightforward than what you wrote.

The "other out-of-game"
considerations is exactly the change that adds something to the actual
rule. I think I've lost your point here. Sure VEKN ratings and overall
tournament are further examples of out of game considerations.

I have lost the point, you're right. The rule already said that. All
you did was to add was some more examples of things that might be
out-of-game considerations.

*** (Remove section about VP's & GW's)

Removing this, on the other, is a positive detriment to the rule. The
section about VPs and GWs is very important. It defines what, exactly,
is meant by "playing in goals which are in conflict with the goal of the
game as stated in the V:TES rulebook".

No, the rules in the V:TES rulebook define what the goals of the game
are.

Not in that precise manner, they don't. They define winning the game. They
define victory points. But they're ambiguous about how these two goals
relate to one another. What's more important? Maximizing my chances for
a sweep? Or just making sure I get the most victory points. Also, since
the tournament structure has its own definition of a what a "game win" is
and it has the concept of a game timing out and separately defines how many
victory points are awarded when a game times out. Because the rulebook
rules don't recognize any of these points, the PTW rule needs to make some
allowance for them or players might be in jeopardy of having to play towards
truly counterproductive goals (as "playing for tournament standings"). For
instance, if I have two victory points, I don't need to do anything else
except to make sure no single player gains a second one to get a game win.
The PTW rule should recognize this point. The rulebook rules by themselves
do not. On the other hand, if I have only one victory point and no one else
has any and the game is in danger of timing out, I would fail to get a game
win by tournament rules but not by rulebook rules. It should not be OK for
me to play for a timeout in this situation.

This is an important clause. It creates no double standard that didn't
already exist. I'm completely confused why it bothers you.

Notice that playing towards
any of the goals cited about isn't actually illegal under 4.8. It's
only when such goals are *IN CONFLICT* with the rulebook goals that
a violation has occurred. But what are the rulebook goals with which
the other goals must not conflict?

Well - this is the rulebook goal with which the other goals must no
conflict (it's one of the first things in the rulebook):

Object of the Game
Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the
influence held by rival Methuselahs. You accomplish this goal by using
your influence to gain control of younger vampires and using those
vampires to take actions to reduce the influence of rival Methuselahs.
Influence is represented by pool counters (see Equipment Needed, sec.
1.2), the main currency of the game. When a Methuselah runs out of
pool counters, she* is bereft of influence and ousted from the game.
As Methuselahs are ousted, players earn victory points; the winner is
the player with the most victory points at the end of the game (see
Victory Points, sec. 9.1).

Right. You'll notice there are two separate goals listed. Because
there are two, it's ambiguous from the clause above, which is actually
the more important goal. So removing the clause in the PTW rule which
sorts this out would return this situation to its ambiguous state.

Furthermore, the game win rule in VEKN tournaments was create for some
very good reasons. But they don't exist in the rulebook rules. So,
left to itself, it could be considered to be an "out-of-game" consideration
under PTW to play for a tournament game win without this clause. That
would be bad. The clause exists, in part, to give recognition to the
point that players are supposed to be playing for a tournament game win
and that goal should considered an in-game goal.

It's defined in that section! Why
are we getting rid of this crucial piece?

Because the Game Win section seems to create a double standard. (I'll
try explain this at the end).

Note that going for a Game Win is not an out-of-game consideration,

Ah, but without this clause, it is!

so, if anything, the Play-to-Win rule should include an exception
clause that allows for in-game considerations, such as it's already
present deal-making exception, for going for Game Wins as opposed to
VPs - which may be a problem in some corner-case examples.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The clause you want to eliminate
is the clause that creates the exception that allows players to go for
a game win - and that's a _good_ thing.

Nothing you added fixes the problem you just caused by removing the
section about VPs and GWs. What you added talks about the potentially
conflicting goals, not the ones which must not be conflicted.

Sorry, I assumed that people were already familiar with the Object of
the Game, as stated in the rulebook.

I'm sorry, that response makes no sense. You added more examples to
what can be considered out-of-game goals. That's all you did AFAICS.
My familiarity with the rulebook OotG has nothing to do with this.

This is off of my topic as well. The point I was trying to make
(rather poorly), is that sometimes, as a judge, you have to decide
what physical evidence you need to prove intent on the players behalf.
If all the physical evidence (through gameplay etc.) is pointing to
the high likelihood that a player has got the requisite
"intention" (because you'll never prove it with a certainity unless
you are in his head), then you should sanction him for it.

I don't agree. When the intention was not known, you should rule with
the understanding that the intention was not known. In the case of a
marked card, the evidence you _do_ have is that the player has a
marked card. If you have no evidence, you sanction him ONLY for having
the marked card; you can make no assumptions as to why it's marked.

Now, that said, mind you if a card is obviously marked, then we're
still talking about a pretty serious situation. It should be expected
that players can arrive at a tournament with an unmarked deck. And
when a player fails to do that, I think it's pretty reasonable to
make the penalties rather stiff. If you tolerate obviously marked
cards, the _potential_ for cheating - if not the actuality of it - is
bad. There's no reason players can't conform to this rule and should
be expected to and should be penalized when they fail to do that.

(Mind you, I'm talking about an obvious deliberate markings here. A
dog-eared card sleeve, for instance, could happen quite by accident
and would certain warrant a far milder sanction, lacking any
evidence of deliberated ...

Welcome to my point - how does a judge decide what an obvious
deliberate marking is?

Huh?!? I don't think that's a valid question. I don't see it being
very hard to determine what is a deliberate, intentional mark and what
appears to be an accident. I guess if it could reasonably be an accident,
like a dog-eared card sleeve, you have to assume it was an accident. If
it couldn't be an accident, you assume it was deliberate. Players won't
usually be very successful at cheating by marking their cards in ways
that could be mistaken as accidental because such markings are very easy
to detect. If that's the cheater's game, then you may have to assume it
was an accident the first time you see it but keep an eye on him. If
he continually does this, you nab him with a serious of escalating warnings
and decreasing tolerance for "accidental" markings. One way or another,
you'll stop the cheating.

The judge looks at the likelihood of something
like that happening by accident. If it seems highly unlikely that
something like that will happen by accident, then the judge penalizes
the player because the judge has strong reason to believe that it was
intentional (even though there is a one-in-a-billion chance that the
player had not intended this). If he doesn't - then a player could
continuously try to cheat, and fall back to the 'I didn't mean to
cheat' defense to get away with a lesser penalty or no penalty at all.

See above. Common sense usually provides an answer.

The same applies in collusion -

Nope. To collude, both players have to be involved in attempting to
collude. It's really very hard to prove that with the kind of
collusion you're talking about. But that's OK. It's relatively easy to
prove that Player B was not playing to win (in the situation you
described) - so just enforce the PTW rule and you'll have effectively
stopped the collusion...if it was collusion.

Ok, as promised, I'll try to explain my issue with:

"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it
is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably
possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible."

Which I'll refer to as the PTW clause.

The problem is that it leads to these two similar situations:

A) Going for the GW if reasonably possible, or, if not, a fall-back
position of going for VP's
B) Going for the VP if reasonably possible, or, if not, a fall-back
position of being able to do anything.

In other words, it places the same emphasis on going for a GW as it
places on going for VPs (at least by my understanding of it).

However, when a player is in the corner-case position of a player
going for VP's instead of a chance for a GW, the threshold of what is
considered to be reasonably possible (and thus requiring the player to
try for the GW) is different from the threshold of what is considered
to be reasonably possible (and thus requiring the player to go for the
VP) for a player who is placed in a position of being able to do
whatever the player wants instead of going for the chance of a VP.

Perhaps. But how is this different from players who have to make a
decision to go for a single sure VP vs. a sweep (3 more VPs)? Eliminating
the clause you want to eliminate doesn't fix this problem. If anything,
it excaberates the problem. And then you have the problem that playing
for a tournament-defined game win could be ruled an "out-of-game goal",
which would be bad.

....
While I agree that the judge *should* hold up the same standard in
both situations, given the way that the PTW clause is written at the
moment - it seems counter-intuitive.

I don't know what to say. If other judges understand the meaning of
the rule, then they, too, should uphold the same standard in both
situations (if they were truly the same situations). It doesn't
make sense to change a rule out of fear that judges will rule it
wrongly. If that's your fear, then you ask that the same rule be
maintained but rewritten in a way that's more clear. Your proposal
actually changes the rule, so wouldn't be the correct resposne to
problem you're citing.

Going for the safety of a VP as
opposed to the chance of a GW seems like someone who is, in fact,
playing to win (because the certain VP would lead him to tie with
someone else and get to coin-flip against them - a 50% chance as
opposed to a 33% chance- or lead to a better tournament position).

The safe-VP-vs.-going-for-more judgement is always going to be in the
game. This is a judgement for a player to make and the game win rule
should never be invoked to sanction a player when he made a judgement
that the judge doesn't agree with. Your proposed change does not alter
this point, AFAICS.

That's my problem in a nutshell, and that's why I'm exploring
alternatives to the way the PTW clause is written.

Hopefully, it's a little more clear?

I guess that's more clear, if I understood your explanation. But I think
you may misunderstand the application of the PTW rule if you think it's
causing a problem in this sense. It shouldn't be.

Fred


.

Loading