Re: Oh no! Not the Succubus Club!

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:06:18 -0500, Peter D Bakija
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scrawled:

>salem wrote:
>
>> now, the question i have: if the first assumption is correct, jut how
>> much stuff do they have, to give to someone? surely if they have
>> enough items to make a LARGE swing in the balance of the game, then
>> they'd not actually be in a 'losing position'? and thus the judge
>> could deny the trade on the grounds of 'not playing to win'.
>
>A few vampires in torpor, maybe one ready, 5 or 6 pool, a hunting ground,
>with a significantly stronger prey? That strikes me as a reasonably losing
>position.

could they not make deals with the person who would be screwed by
their kingmaking instead then? to try and get them out of this losing
position? ie: to try and get more vps, maybe win?

> If all of that suddenly got moved to my prey, I'd say that was a
>pretty large swing. Especially if the losing position guy was the prey of my
>prey (who now has 11 or 12 more pool, a VP, more vampires, more stuff,
>without expending any resources or actions).

i'd say it was a large swing too. i'd also say it would require judge
arbitration to make sure it wasn't in violation of the rules.

>> admittedly, tis means more judge arbitration, but then, that's what
>> judges are for.
>
>Not for my money, primarily. Judges are there to make the game run smothly
>and settle rules disputes. Making arbitrary decisions about the obscure
>motivations in obscure situations is like, the last thing I'd want to do as
>a judge. Or want a judge to have to do. Why encourage this?

it's already there. asking a judge to do what a judge should expect to
have to do anyway is...well, reasonable, surely?
sure, a judge might not like to have to do it, but it's part of the
job. that's why they're called Judges an not 'Archon Data Entry
Monkeys'.

>> if you point out that you think the deal your prey and
>> grandprey are about to do with the succubus club is probably in
>> violation of the play to win rule, the players might agree to not do
>> it, so you won't even have to call the judge over. if they disagree,
>> then call the judge, and they'll judge.
>
>Which is a pain for everyone involved. Why put judges through more of a pain
>than they need?

because they need to?

i assert that most rules questions could be adequately answered by
some sort of quick poll of players at the table, and entering data
into the archon is stupidly easy. hell, recording tournament scores
manually on paper only adds a few extra minutes, depending on ability
to divide 12,24,36,48,60 among people.

it's the motivations and cheating/collusion type things that make it
important to actually HAVE judges, imo.

succubus club has been petitioned to be downpowered before. and it has
been, to it's current state.

i'll add in i haven't seen it abused in it's current printing
personally, so you can all go and dismiss my opinions on the need to
change succ club. (explicitly: i don't think it currently needs
changing).

however, having judged many a tourney, and been at tourneys judged by
others, i don't think you can dimiss my opinions on what a judge
should expect to do. (explicitly: judge).

salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm