[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

From The Mouths of Champs

Kushiel

7/4/2010 5:59:00 AM

I pulled off some backroom power-brokerage and got an exclusive from
Jay Kristoff on how his day went at the US Championships. Check it out
here:

http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-us-champion...

John Eno
60 Answers

echiang777@yahoo.com

7/4/2010 6:49:00 AM

0

On Jul 4, 12:58 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I pulled off some backroom power-brokerage and got an exclusive from
> Jay Kristoff on how his day went at the US Championships. Check it out
> here:
>
> http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-......
>
> John Eno


Eh, just some clarifications:

"Round two was a four-player table with Connor Bell as my prey, John
Bell as my predator, and Eric Chiang as my cross-table "ally," playing
his Tupdog deck. Eric destroyed Connor (playing DEM bleed with lots of
Sudden Reversal) first. He then smashed John (Toreador-anti breed/
boon) next. I was soon to follow when Eric torped and then Graverobbed
my Josef von Bauren. Connor was wise enough to stay in the game
(rather than transfer out, despite my request). His decision to
persevere gave him the chance to play S.R. on Eric's Fame that would
have allowed Eric to sweep the table. That gave me an extra turn to
assemble Eric's oust (with a combo of vote damage, bleed damage, and
Cam. Seg. pool loss)."


First off, I didn't really kill that many of John or Connor's vampires
to begin with. Having gotten a heads-up from Mindy Bell (who was in
Round 1 with me), they already knew I was playing Tupdog and had
already decided to bring few vampires out at all.

I torporized John's Nicholas Chang and Embrace (and at the very end,
Jost Werner). And I torporized Connor's Morel and Quentin King III.
John and Connor didn't bring out any other vampires.

I was trying a new (very untested) recipe for my Tupdog deck, which
ended up with a terribly clogged library and crypt. It was really like
a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Tupdog deck.

The Sudden Reversal'ed Fame had actually no effect on the game. By
that time, I never was able to torporize any of Jay's vampires (I had
a terrible hand) so it didn't make any difference at all (which is why
I am perpetually confused why people keep saying the SR was a key
play. It didn't matter because I wasn't able to put down any more of
Jay's vampires anyway). Connor was in a lost position so he was free
to do whatever he wanted (which I specifically acknowledged, and I was
okay with whatever he decided he wanted to do). So it wasn't wise (nor
unwise) to stay in the game (or transfer out). It was just whatever he
felt like doing (and whoever he wanted to help win).

I made two mistakes in the mid-game which cost me the game. I let John
Bell burn my Anathama'ed Morel. And I decided to conserve an IG when
fighting Cock Robin (which let him S:CE) when I should have guaranteed
to torporize him. Later on, by the time the Fame was played (and
SR'ed) my position was already quite tenuous (I was really nowhere
close to sweeping) and I was quite certain that Jay would win on the
one-on-one.



Oh and on another clarification, John Eno mentioned that I was new to
Battlestar Galactica but that is certainly not the case. I was already
quite experienced with the Battlestar base game, but that had been the
first time I had actually played the expansion (though I was familiar
with the new concepts, having read about it online).

squidalot

7/4/2010 6:03:00 PM

0

On Jul 4, 7:49 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:58 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I pulled off some backroom power-brokerage and got an exclusive from
> > Jay Kristoff on how his day went at the US Championships. Check it out
> > here:

also clearly you only got the 1-1 time with Jay by buying him a beer
Eno?

Kushiel

7/4/2010 7:29:00 PM

0

On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, squidalot <hugh.angsees...@gmail.com> wrote:
> also clearly you only got the 1-1 time with Jay by buying him a beer
> Eno?

I did buy him a beer, but what's a little graft between friends?

Actually, he departed from our table rather soon after he arrived, as
your own photographic evidence shows. How I got my one on one time
with him isn't something that would be appropriate to print.

John Eno

Kushiel

7/5/2010 8:36:00 PM

0

On Jul 4, 1:58 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-......

There's actually been some discussion following this post about how
legal pre-finals discussion between players is or isn't. Anonymous has
said that he thinks there was collusion happening because Jay and
James talked before seating took place. I've seen this kind of thing
take place before, without anyone getting upset by it, but now I'm
curious. I couldn't find anything about it in the VEKN tournament
rules, one way or the other.

John Eno

Rhavas

7/5/2010 10:28:00 PM

0

On Jul 5, 4:36 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 1:58 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://enoplay.blogspot.com/2010/07/origins-special-report-......
>
> There's actually been some discussion following this post about how
> legal pre-finals discussion between players is or isn't. Anonymous has
> said that he thinks there was collusion happening because Jay and
> James talked before seating took place. I've seen this kind of thing
> take place before, without anyone getting upset by it, but now I'm
> curious. I couldn't find anything about it in the VEKN tournament
> rules, one way or the other.
>
> John Eno

I think discussions like; "what deck is so and so playing", "what are
you playing", etc are ok, but any kind of agreement, per the
definition of collusion, is a violation of the rules. Jay and James
agreed to work together as 'vote-buddies' and to try and stop Hugh
from winning. That's two secret agreements. Whether they were
sucessful is irrelevant, so long as the goal of the agreements is to
have an effect on the result of the game, simply making the agreement
is against the rules.

In reading Jay's comments, it appears he has heard and been affected
by these kinds of discussions before, and they have gone unpunished/
unstopped, so it would be understandable that he think they are ok.
In cases like Jay pointed out, something should be done at the time
(seating rearranged) but in a situation where the collusion is
discovered later, its hard to say. Do you strip Jay of his
championship for cheating? He didn't think what he did was a
violation of the rules, but ignorance of the rules is often not a good
defense (at least not in US criminal law). I don't think Jay did what
he did with any malice, but that may not be enough.

Like John said, a reinforcement of what is and is not allowed in the
way of pre-game discussion should be done prior to each game/tourney/
final, but the definition of the word collusion seems to make it clear
enough: no pre-game agreements that could affect the result of the
game.

alex fnurp

7/6/2010 12:34:00 PM

0

On 6 Juli, 00:28, Rhavas <anthony.lun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jay and James agreed to work together as 'vote-buddies' and to try and stop Hugh
> from winning.  That's two secret agreements.  

The Hugh-part was partially a joke, or at least thats how i read it.
Not letting Hugh win should be written in the rules anyway ;)

But this however:
"James and I sat down and cautiously spoke. Though he and I are
friends and members of the same playgroup, we have a history of
betraying each other at the V:TES table. I told him I needed a vote-
buddy, and that he should be it. I also
told him that my number one goal was to win the Championship, and that
my number two goal was to make sure an American won it."

Is textbook collusion. It might not have been in the way it is
described here, but if it is - that is cheating. This requires
clarification.

alex fnurp

7/6/2010 12:43:00 PM

0

On 6 Juli, 00:28, Rhavas <anthony.lun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 4:36 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nvm i just read Jays comment on the blog:
"Jay said...
My understanding is that those sort of pre-finals discussions are
legal and common. Earlier this year I was ousted quickly from a final
table after the other finalists arranged to place the stealth/bleed
deck to my right. "

haha, wow. Most buddies at the final table win: The eternal struggle?

Xaddam

7/6/2010 4:38:00 PM

0

I gotta say..

I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal and
common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends to outnumber
the american players.

Hope this misinformation about the rules have been cleared up until I
want to tour the western isles. :)

Matthew T. Morgan

7/6/2010 5:27:00 PM

0

Rhavas

7/6/2010 6:50:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Xaddam wrote:
> > I gotta say..
>
> > I was hoping to go play at one of the major events in the USA some
> > time. Though now I don't know if I want to if collusion is "legal and
> > common" in the US. At least not without lots of friends to outnumber
> > the american players.
>
> > Hope this misinformation about the rules have been cleared up until I
> > want to tour the western isles. :)
>
> I wouldn't say it's common.  Most of the time finalists in the US are
> there to win and don't really care that much who wins if they don't win
> (barring the appearance of a hated deck like Una or something, which is
> another matter entirely).
>
> As for the US Championship going to Hugh vs. going to an American.  I
> think it should go to an American if an American earns it (such as
> happened this year - whether or not collusion was intended, it didn't
> alter the outcome of the game from what I saw; James was out too fast).
> Let us not forget that the NAC 2009 featured a German, a Hungarian, a
> Swiss, myself and that Hugh character.  I was the only American to earn
> even a single game win that day.  Clearly we didn't deserve to win.
> Playing to keep Europeans out of finals/keep them from winning American
> events is a pretty foolish notion when good ol' USA can only score one
> game win all day (out of 16 possible).
>
> So I'm not sure how serious Jay was about denying Hugh the win on the
> basis of his pedigree, but hopefully in the future we'll all keep in mind
> that the best way to deny him the win is to beat him, as evidenced by the
> USA Championship final this year.

The problem is, simply making the agreement is a violation of the
rules, whether or not a party is sucessful in carrying it out is
inconsequential. It is like a charge of conspiracy in US criminal
law, the agreement itself is the violation. The fact that the two
parties had no chance to utilize their agreement or make an effort to
prevent Hugh from winning doesn't matter, they went in with the intent
to do so if the opportunity arose. If I colluded with a friend of mine
that he would throw me the final, but we both got ousted prior to
being able to doing anything meaningful, we would both still be
violating the rules due to our intent.

It is easy to overlook a violation when it has had no impact, but to
do so greatly reduces the weight of the enforcement when it does have
an impact. Selectively enforcing rules can be very problematic. This
kind of violation is probably very rare to be exposed, but this is a
case where one party of the agreement has laid it out, apparently with
the misbelief that this kind of agreement was not a violation.

At the very least, this opportunity should be used to promote the fact
that agreements such as this are rules violations. As to what to do
in this case, I haven't the foggiest idea.