Kibitzing

[Pitman]

It refuted your Black Hole theory of rules error, whereby if a player points out a rules error he has somehow passed the event horizon and can never leave.

 

[Tater]

It refuted your Black Hole theory of rules error, whereby if a player points out a rules error he has somehow passed the event horizon and can never leave.

In your dreams maybe...

Either you believe what you say..."correct" ASL is so important that you will interfer in someone else's game...or you don't. If you do, you will stay to make sure ASL is played "correctly"...if not then your just being selfrighteous.

Make all the pointless comparisons to starving people and invading nations you want. You either back-up what you say you believe...or it's just so much hot air.

 

[Pitman]

Once more you are in fantasyland.

 

[Hexagoner]

On the basis of the main point being discussed, I have to agree with Tate and Lars. Although we all try to play as correct and error-free all of the time, errors are truly a part of the game. If I was playing in a tournament and someone stopped by to point out an error (unsolicited), I'd be a bit ticked. This happened to me years ago when a well-meaning player in the same tournament pointed out an error that my opponent made, and I didn't catch. Turned out to have a huge effect on subsequent play, and I won handily mostly because of it. Both me and my opponent were ticked by this, and let the kibbitzer know. He seemed utterly surprised at our displeasure.

A different situation:
In my first tournament way back in the 80s I was playing a very good, experienced player in the 2nd round. I kept asking others for rules interpretations as they came up. That effectively brought our game to a screeching halt and (in retrospect) gave me rules knowledge that I should have had, but didn't. This was really unfair to my opponent, although I didn't realize it at the time. I should have tried to play faster and just go with what rules knowledge I had at the time. My opponent was good enough to know what was legal/illegal, and ended up beating me soundly in any case. Moral of the story: strive to make rules questions rare events. Know the rules at a reasonable level before playing in tournaments.

hex

 

[Tater]

Once more you are in fantasyland.

I suspected as much...it is that picture of a gnome that accompanies all your posts that was my first clue!

 

[Paul S NJ]

kibbitzing

I hate kibbitzing during tourney play- once had someone point out to my opponent that my opponent's HT MG still had rate of fire in a very close game. Pissed me off royally. I keep my mouth shut tight around games in progress.

I have told several people they were using an improper setup (illegal sounds like we're discussing something important - like ASL's not a game) before a game starts, even when it's not my game. Once the first wcdr is done, play has begun. Before then I agree with those saying why waste everyone's time, travel + effort.

I have both allowed and accepted a 'gimme' on repositioning a misplaced unit to a reasonable nearby hex. I agree though that it's up to the other player to make that call.

Th question of 'gimmes' is worth a new thread. hopefully without so many personal attacks. :blab:

Paul

 

[Jim McLeod]

Winning, and then finding out that you may not have won if the game had been played correctly is just not fun, IMHO.

I agree 100% with that sentiment Ole.

A win gained by grievous rule error on one's part is hollow.



=Jim=

 

[Jim McLeod]

[/i]

No, if another DR/dr/move/action hasn't taken place the play has not "passed" that point. But then, if it is pointed out at such a point it isn't an error yet.

However, since play has not passed can a player change their mind on the action. For example, a DRM is missed and the player rolls...a spectator points out the extra DRM...the rolling player says "oh, well if I had seen that DRM I wouldn't have taken that shot...my shot was in error". Now we are into the realm of spectators changing the play.

I don't know if I can see that happening. How many times have you taken a shot with lots of DRM in effect and you say to your opponent, "if the TH DR is lowish we'll add up the mods and see if there is a hit."

I do that quite a bit as it speeds up play. So personally, I discount your concern.

Again...safer, fairer, and easier...no kibitzing.

Tate, I officially still have a "zero tolerance" on kibitzing. However, my initial Q' on this matter came about from having seen one critical error too many that did/could effect the match result.

If some claims to be using APCR and I know damn well his gun doesn't have that ammo type but buddy on the recieving end is either to green or intimidated to say anything, what is wrong with bringing this error to light?

Having said that, I am in direct contradiction of my "School of Hard Knocks" philosophy.

Such difficult things to ponder ... :OHNO:

Anyway, that poll result still amazes me. I voted YES but the poll itself is practically neck and neck. Again, I thought it would be a runaway NO result.




=Jim=

 

[The Hermit (IX)]

Jim,

I think the poll is close and the debate protracted because the question hinges on perceived degrees of kibitzing. You all 'almost' agree - even the passionate debaters.

I don't think anyone has argued in favor of receiving or giving a drubbing that resulted from a grievous error (wrong board set-up, 75 cannister, set-up of several 88mm gamewinners in buildings).

The contentious issues were those that had the potential to tilt the favor a bit(RST will probably affect one side more in 1940 French vs German AFVs)

One side leans to NO (i.e. none) is easiest.
The other side (which you find yourself in) says YES, some must be OK

The hard part for the YES side is (as always) "how much" is OK?

 

[Tater]

I don't know if I can see that happening. How many times have you taken a shot with lots of DRM in effect and you say to your opponent, "if the TH DR is lowish we'll add up the mods and see if there is a hit."

I do that quite a bit as it speeds up play. So personally, I discount your concern.

Of course...since it doesn't fit neatly into your little box.

However, again you refer to a player-to-player interactions...I am talking about spectator interferance...and that is the title of the thread. I don't think you should discount anything relative to player reactions to outside interferance

Tate, I officially still have a "zero tolerance" on kibitzing. However, my initial Q' on this matter came about from having seen one critical error too many that did/could effect the match result.

So what! Lots of things can effect the match results. What you want to do is nannify ASL.

Catching illegal set-ups, sure...if the players announce before hand that "kibitzing" is OK...fine. Otherwise spectators should but-out.

If some claims to be using APCR and I know damn well his gun doesn't have that ammo type but buddy on the recieving end is either to green or intimidated to say anything, what is wrong with bringing this error to light?

Then buddy will learn and buddy will eventually grow a pair _OR_ he will start playing Barbies.

You keep using these extreme examples but you know that what we would be dealing with 99% are fairly minor issues. Thing is if you make exceptions for the big issues you open the whole pandoras box of "kibitzing". Before you know it you got guys making tactical suggestions.

Having said that, I am in direct contradiction of my "School of Hard Knocks" philosophy.

Although that is part of my reasoning it isn't the main point for me. Rather, I think allowing individual spectators decide, on their own, when it is acceptable to "kibitz" is a recipe for problems. The line will just get more and more blurred.

 

[BLAZZER]

what a wierd word. I always like when someone corrects the rules will im playing on vasl. Don't claim to know them all, but want to be playing right. But there is a difference in pointing out a rule error and correcting a tactic. couple of games ago I was setting up a scenerio.(tournement game) Both me and my opponent missed some important SSR. Luckly someone watching caught us before we started. Probally is better to ask first though.

 

[Legion]

No in tournament play i believe that a rule doesn't have to be pointed out, though after the game or at a 'safe point' it would be polite to do so...

 

[Ole Boe]

I hate kibbitzing during tourney play- once had someone point out to my opponent that my opponent's HT MG still had rate of fire in a very close game. Pissed me off royally. I keep my mouth shut tight around games in progress.

But this is something very different than pointing out a rule error. Noone is breaking the rules by not firing the MG again. This example is to help one player with his game-play, and I agree that it should absolutely be avoided.

Now, I have no problem with accepting that some players will rather play a game with any error in place, than be told that they forgot that CE RST AFV cannot fire or whatever. For myself, I appreciate any input that prevents the outcome from being affected by an error though.

As said before, I think the proper thing is to politely mention that I think I see a rule error, and ask whether the players want to know about it. If they don't, then I keep my mouth shut for the rest of the game.

 

[Ole Boe]

That makes absolutely no sense and is clearly not true. If all of player _B's_ errors are pointed out but none of player _C's_, how does that make the game more fair?

I didn't you were talking about helping one player but deliberately ignore the errors detrimental to the other player. Such help is of course not acceptable.

I were discussing the act of pointing out any error I discover, not only player B's errors though.

The fact is, it doesn't. The fairest thing would be to let errors fall where they may for both players.

Why is it fair that a player gets to continue firing its Gun from an illegal position, or to continye using Canister with its German 75 Gun, or continue firing with CE RST AFV?

Do you think that there is a higher force that even outs the errors in every single game, so that one less error offsets the balance?

 

[Ole Boe]

Some people say that they would have liked to have errors pointed out to them, but that doesn't mean that all other players would like that.

Once a game has started I think it is best not to say (unless asked) anything and risk that one/both guys gets upset

I mostly agree with this, although a small "Is it ok if I mention any rule error I see" should not upset the players IMHO - of course assuming that a "No" is fully respected.

And also assuming that only direct rule errors are commented - not legal play like forgetting that you may attempt PF twice with one squad or that you retained ROF with your MG etc.

 

[RobZagnut]

I never kibitz EVER, unless it's to point out an incorrect mapboard setup.

Hate to say it, but kibitzing this past weekend might have cost me the WWF tournament.

I was 4-1. Brent Morris is 4-0 but is playing Dade Cariega (2-0) who is beating him. On turn 3 it is pointed out that the boards are backwards, so they choose to discontinue the game.

Because of a weird scoring system that gives you points for your opponent's wins even though you lose the scenario, I'm ahead on points. So, playing 5 games is critical for the points.

But, the next day the TD allows Brent with a 4-0 record to play a quick makeup game with a player with 1-3 record (one of the worst players at the tourney) even though the tourney rules state that you can only play a player who has one loss more or less than you. He easily wins the match and wins the tourney.

The main problem was that the TD had a point system and wouldn't tell anyone what it was. He had changed the system from the previous year, so that it you had one loss early in the tourney you still had a chance to win it all. He changed the point system once during the tourney, because he didn't like the results of someone losing and still getting more points than a winner, but he kept giving points to a loser in a scenario. Go figure.

I didn't say a thing, although I was annoyed by the TD's behavior. Brent deserved to win the tourney, although I would have liked to see the point system. Or I wish he would have been required to play his final match against a better player.

Who is in the wrong?

1) The player who kibitzed?
2) The player who screwed up the setup?
3) The TD who broke his own rules.

 

[rdw5150]

"3) The TD who broke his own rules."

This would get my vote. This would be like someone in the running for the ASLOK playing me when he is 6-0 and I am 2-5.

The TD should have found another way to deal with it.

Playing someone early is one thing, playing somone like me later in the tourney is "fishing":>)

I think I have the ability to give people a good game, but lets face it, I will never be in the elite class (which is OK by me).

Peace

Roger

 

[Jim McLeod]

Although that is part of my reasoning it isn't the main point for me. Rather, I think allowing individual spectators decide, on their own, when it is acceptable to "kibitz" is a recipe for problems. The line will just get more and more blurred.

That is true Tate, if you call on one I suppose you must call on all and that would basically mean refereeing a match and we know that that is not going to happen.

Here is one for you. This is the rule in our tournament rules concerning kibitzing (which I believe was lifted directly from Russ Giffords tournament rules for DonCon)

"12. KIBITZING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! Absolutely no comments on any games in progress!"

Now, what this rule tells me, or can be interpreted as, is that players can't even comment on their opponents actions during play.

By that I mean, you can't ask him if he has anyone else to rally, if any guns have ROF or make any suggestions/reminders of any aspect of the match being played. Even asking if he has remembered his reinforcements would be a Kibitz on your part.






=Jim=

 

[Jim McLeod]

I never kibitz EVER, unless it's to point out an incorrect mapboard setup.

Hate to say it, but kibitzing this past weekend might have cost me the WWF tournament.

I'm sorry to hear that Rob but this thread will benefit from your misfortune.

I was 4-1. Brent Morris is 4-0 but is playing Dade Cariega (2-0) who is beating him. On turn 3 it is pointed out that the boards are backwards, so they choose to discontinue the game.

Whoa! I would have kept traps shut once the game had started.

Because of a weird scoring system that gives you points for your opponent's wins even though you lose the scenario,

Huh!? Could you please explain the point thing Rob?

I'm ahead on points. So, playing 5 games is critical for the points.

But, the next day the TD allows Brent with a 4-0 record to play a quick makeup game with a player with 1-3 record (one of the worst players at the tourney) even though the tourney rules state that you can only play a player who has one loss more or less than you. He easily wins the match and wins the tourney.

Hello, the TD just f'd up in a serious way.

The main problem was that the TD had a point system and wouldn't tell anyone what it was.

I am liking this less and less Rob ...

He had changed the system from the previous year, so that it you had one loss early in the tourney you still had a chance to win it all. He changed the point system once during the tourney, because he didn't like the results of someone losing and still getting more points than a winner, but he kept giving points to a loser in a scenario. Go figure.

You answered my earlier Q, thanks Rob and yes, that is weird.

At the CASLO, we award a player 10 points for the win and 1 point for each point your defeated opponents have at the end of the tournament. Ex.: if you defeat a guy who goes 3-2 in the event, you will receive 13 points for defeating that guy. In our system, you can post a loss and still possibly win although it is difficult.

Anyway, on with the story ...

I didn't say a thing, although I was annoyed by the TD's behavior. Brent deserved to win the tourney, although I would have liked to see the point system. Or I wish he would have been required to play his final match against a better player.

I agree. The point system should be known to all and the player chosen to play that makeup match should have been on parr with a player whose record for the tournament was similar to his at that time. A 1-3 record bears little similarity to 4-0 other than they both use numbers.

Who is in the wrong?

1) The player who kibitzed?
2) The player who screwed up the setup?
3) The TD who broke his own rules.

Yes, no and yes.

JMO.

The TD is the TD and his ruling must be repected even though we may not agree with him.




=Jim=

 

[Chas Argent]

Brent Morris is 4-0 but is playing Dade Cariega (2-0) who is beating him. On turn 3 it is pointed out that the boards are backwards, so they choose to discontinue the game.

A clarification:

I was the one who said that the boards were reversed, but only after Brent and Dade had already realized that something was seriously wrong when Brent's reinforcements were not set up where Dade had expected to see them enter. Since they had set the boards up incorrectly, Dade had sent a squad to the wrong side of the map to try to interdict the reinforcements and couldn't understand why they were at the wrong edge.

We all checked out the scenario card in an effort to figure out what was happening, and I was simply the first to notice. It was not an unsolicited comment, which I never give during a game, especially when one of the guys playing is 4-0 and might win the whole enchilada.

It was certainly their decision to not continue, or start up another game instead. But, as I understood it, part of this was because Dade would only have 3 games in for the tournament and could not attend on Sunday, so was ineligible anyway to finish in the running anyway because he would need 5 like everyone else.