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


 

Forums >

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Pre-final discussion, what is acceptable and what is collusion?

Sudden Reversal

7/6/2010 11:16:00 AM

An interesting revelation came to light about pre-game discussions in
the US Championships.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/c07504...

My question to the community is what is acceptable in terms of
discussion before everyone has seated and the game commenced?

My feeling is that a brief description of each players deck,
mitigating somewhat the advantage of scouting or disadvantage of not
having faced any of the decks is ok, but anything else is not.
Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
without any input from other players.

I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
would be?

~ Aa
23 Answers

alex fnurp

7/6/2010 12:12:00 PM

0

On 6 Juli, 13:15, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> even to the extent where second seed put
> their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> seed.

This isnt allowed btw.

LSJ

7/6/2010 12:35:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 7:15 am, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An interesting revelation came to light about pre-game discussions in
> the US Championships.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyha......
>
> My question to the community is what is acceptable in terms of
> discussion before everyone has seated and the game commenced?

All discussion is allowed.

Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
of the game.

> My feeling is that a brief description of each players deck,
> mitigating somewhat the advantage of scouting or disadvantage of not
> having faced any of the decks is ok, but anything else is not.

Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
allowed.

> Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> without any input from other players.

Not true.

> I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> would be?

It is not collusion.

alex fnurp

7/6/2010 12:56:00 PM

0

On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > without any input from other players.
>
> Not true.

Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
correct?

> > I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> > the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> > the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> > their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> > seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> > deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> > would be?
>
> It is not collusion.

So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?

Aaron Clark

7/6/2010 12:56:00 PM

0

Is it legal to discuss the game and make alliances at the table while
another player has stepped away to go to the bathroom and the game is
paused?

LSJ

7/6/2010 1:01:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 8:55 am, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Juli, 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Furthermore, when determining table seating this should be done
> > > without any input from other players.
>
> > Not true.
>
> Right, but it has to be done at the actual event of seating a table,
> correct?

Determining seating has to be done.

Restricting input does not have to be done.

> > > I have seen discussion in a Continental Championship about what was
> > > the best place to be seated between first and second seed after all
> > > the the others had placed, even to the extent where second seed put
> > > their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> > > seed. Is this to be considered some form of collusion, the same as
> > > deciding pregame that an alliance to be the last two players standing
> > > would be?
>
> > It is not collusion.
>
> So I can declare my seating, have some reaction from it from one or
> more players and then proceed to re-seat myself?

Non-sequitur.

But I do acknowledge that making a decision is a process.

Aaron Clark

7/6/2010 1:03:00 PM

0

Sorry, that was a leading question. My understanding is that making
an alliance during a game while another player has stepped away (to go
to the bathroom for instance) is illegal. If that is the case, I fail
to see the difference between making an alliance before the game has
started. They both are unethical because the alliance is done without
the knowledge of the other player(s) - IMO.

Are the cases similar?

LSJ

7/6/2010 1:15:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 9:03 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, that was a leading question.  My understanding is that making
> an alliance during a game while another player has steppedaway(to go
> to the bathroom for instance) is illegal.  If that is the case, I fail
> to see the difference between making an alliance before the game has
> started.  They both are unethical because the alliance is done without
> the knowledge of the other player(s) - IMO.
>
> Are the cases similar?

The OP question doesn't include "without the knowledge of the other
players".

Sudden Reversal

7/6/2010 1:29:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 9:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:

So to be clear,

> All discussion is allowed.

> Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
> allowed.

and this is permitted before players have sat and the timer started.

Do all the table participants need to be present and privy to these
discussions despite the fact the game has not actually commenced?

> Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
> of the game.

How is deciding between yourself and one or more players where to sit
not going to alter the game? This has obviously been preceeded by much
talk of how and what will be done in said positions should they be
taken and what will be the result.

~ Aa

Sudden Reversal

7/6/2010 1:30:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 9:11 pm, alex fnurp <a.gyhles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 Juli, 13:15, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > even to the extent where second seed put
> > their card down then adjusted after an exclamation of disbelief top
> > seed.
>
> This isnt allowed btw.

Is this true, that once a card has been placed, in essence declaring
your position, that it cannot be (re)moved? Or is that only until the
next card is put down?

~Aa

LSJ

7/6/2010 1:41:00 PM

0

On Jul 6, 9:29 am, Sudden Reversal <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> So to be clear,
>
> > All discussion is allowed.
> > Everything that is not otherwise restricted (e.g., threats) is
> > allowed.
>
> and this is permitted before players have sat and the timer started.

Pre-seating discussion is permitted before players have sat, yes.

> Do all the table participants need to be present and privy to these
> discussions despite the fact the game has not actually commenced?

?
Of course.

> > Collusion is where two players conspire together to alter the result
> > of the game.
>
> How is deciding between yourself and one or more players where to sit
> not going to alter the game?

It has an effect on the game, of course. Not everything that has an
effect is collusion.

Perhaps you've overlooking the word "conspire" above.

> This has obviously been preceeded by much
> talk of how and what will be done in said positions should they be
> taken and what will be the result.

Obviously? No.

If you wish to analyze a new case, feel free to present the new case's
details.