Kibitzing

In tournament play, should rule errors be pointed out during play?

  • YES

    Votes: 45 42.1%
  • NO

    Votes: 62 57.9%

  • Total voters
    107
  • Poll closed .

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Chas Argent said:
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.
So what we had here was a DNF result (Did Not Finish).

A DNF must *NEVER* happen in a tournament, never.

One side must win and one side must lose.

In the above situation, you had two options:

1. Replay the scenario in the time given. If the scenario could not be completed in time, then there will be an adjudication.

2. One player will concede that match.

Harsh, but there it is. Two assumingly experienced ASLers made a *HUGE* horkin' game error. They must suffer the consequences accordingly.

IMHO, the TD did not handle the situation in a satisfactory manner.

Again, a DNF result must never occur in a tournament.

Yes, that about completes my Masters thesis defence in Tournament Directorship.

Next up is my Doctrate of Tournament Directorship (DTD)

:)




=Jim=
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
562
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
"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.

:D
Nope...the generally accepted understanding of "Kibitzing" is that it is something done by spectators (none involved parties). Players communicating (commenting) on their own game is not, by definition, "kibitzing". In fact, it would be literally impossible for two players to play a game without commenting/questioning/communicating at various points of the match.
 

danstudentvcc

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
838
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Life as a Western power..

Jim McLeod said:
Gents, ... However, I am now beginning to question that aspect of Kibitzing.

I would never, ever tell a player how to play his match, make suggestions or comment on his play during the match.

But, what if ... I am beginning to consider the wisdom of making such an error known to the players involved.

The same could be said for other rule errors.

I am not saying that each match should be refereed. But, if observers are observing and they see a mistake being made that will have a major impact on the games outcome, perhaps a comment should be made.

What do you think? ...

=Jim=
Hello.
I love your post. If followed through to it's logical conclusion then an error must lead to a mistrial. Of course a mistrial requires a large error, so something small would only result in a turns change, or if not important, the loss of the unit with play continuing from the current turn - from where the correction was made..

The pro and con of not having separate and specific rules about observed games is that players entering such a game would not have made an agreement to abide by correction thru observation.
In hockey this is the video replay. If used it can affect the decision but until it is written in to the rules worldwide (ladder wise) then it is one of those nascent, in development rules still in evolution, for the players to someday hug 'n hold.

Of course life in the West depends heavily on fair play. To the extent that the weak must be protected. Mistrials affect rulings; even the dismissal of criminal charges. On a grander scale, western powers cannot have their military forces engage in atrocities or other heinous activity, unlike their opponents forces. As well, women and other marginalized people are given full status for civil rights, including ownership of property - they may even vote.

So the underdog gets well represented in the Western world even if they are not in the current govt's priority list; to such a degree that we all understand at an early age, to expect that if we are right, then we should be listened to and supported. Not so in Dictatorships, single party rule countries, or nations whose government is made up of religious fundamentalists - not to fail to mention rules free wargaming.

So not just for the newbie, but also for my opponent whom accounts for 20% or more of my official, ladder or tournament games. As well for the No 1 ladder alias with the less than 100% recored or 100% win record. Surely, it is easier to insist that they get a fair and accurate game call. I think, maybe, perhaps ...
:nuts:
Gus
 
Last edited:

McFinn

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
860
Reaction score
4
Location
Santa Fe
Country
llUnited States
Kibbitzing:

Should never be done.

Unless the person desiring to do the kibbitzing has asked for and recieved permission from both the players in the game.
 

wrongway149

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,006
Reaction score
1,181
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
McFinn said:
Kibbitzing:

Should never be done.

Unless the person desiring to do the kibbitzing has asked for and recieved permission from both the players in the game.
I think scenario designers should be able to Kibbitz their own designs, especially WRT SSRs. If I see someone playing 'Urban Guerillas' and not using the sniper to activate partisans properly I want to say something.

We work hard on those SSRs, and by golly , the players oughtta use them right!

Pete 'and since it was playtested using a dice glass, it is likely to be unbalanced if played with wooden towers' Shelling
 
Last edited:

McFinn

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
860
Reaction score
4
Location
Santa Fe
Country
llUnited States
wrongway149 said:
I think scenario designers should be able to Kibbitz their own designs, especially WRT SSRs. If I see omeone playing 'Urban Guerillas' and not using the sniper to activate partisans properly I want to say something.

We work hard on those SSRs, and by golly , the players oughtta use them right!

Pete 'and since it was playtested using a dice glass, it is likely to be unbalanced if played with wooden towers' Shelling
Then idendify yourself as the scenario desiginer and simply ask permission to kibbutz, and I bet most of the time the players will say go ahead.

Keith "gosh all the scenarios I play must be dorked balance-wise because I roll my dice on the table" Collins :OHNO:
 

Chas Argent

Play to the end.
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
720
Location
Catonsville, MD
Country
llUnited States
Pete's bald head and bandana are internationally recognized. He does not need to identify himself :hail:
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
McFinn said:
Then idendify yourself as the scenario desiginer and simply ask permission to kibbutz, and I bet most of the time the players will say go ahead.

Keith "gosh all the scenarios I play must be dorked balance-wise because I roll my dice on the table" Collins :OHNO:
Keith, what about your statement of "no kibitzing"?

If the designers of ASL were to comment on a misplayed rule that would be kibitzing and would be frowned upon. The same rule should/must be held for the scenario designer.

He, the scenario designer, is free to make any comments post-match.




=Jim=
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
562
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
wrongway149 said:
I think scenario designers should be able to Kibbitz their own designs, especially WRT SSRs. If I see someone playing 'Urban Guerillas' and not using the sniper to activate partisans properly I want to say something.
It's your design...but it's their game...stay out. If you have to say something go talk to the TD about it.
 

WaterRabbit

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
2,566
Reaction score
29
Location
Somewhere
Country
llGreenland
Robert Wolkey said:
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.
That does seem like a change in the way it is run. I have to ask how is it that Brent and Dade are playing in the first place? Dade should have been required to beat two other players before he and Brent joined battle. It is also surprising that both Dade and Brent got the boards wrong given their experience.

If the TD used the system I set up it would be virtually impossible for someone to win the tournament without an unbeaten record. The system I used was simple:

Each win is worth 10 points. You also get one point for each of the wins scored by the players you have beaten. This system was to encourage good players to seek out good players. The points really only determine the order for players in third place and below.

The monkey wrench is when you have to create byes, but even then you shouldn't have a 4-0 and 2-0 playing each other. If there were no other unbeaten opponents Dade should have had to play a 1-1, then a 2-1 player, and then finally Brent. If Dade was knocked out then Brent should have had to play the player with the best record at that point for the 5th and final game. If he lost then the two of you should have played for the horns.

The other confusing point here is why did they not start over and finish the game with the correct board alignment?

In the case Rob describes, it should have been the TD that discovered the board problem. I think you should have reported the problem to the TD and then let him decide it. After all, he is going to have to step in on the last turn of the game and make a ruling anyway when one of the players discovers the mistake. :eek:

The desire "to kibitz" quickly goes away if you have been a TD for more than even a single year. Kibitzing would be a breach of etiquette, IMHO. Even to spectators discussing someone else's game within earshot is somewhat rude. The only time a person should kibitz is if asked by both players -- generally only enough to resolve a rules dispute or perhaps an egregious misunderstanding of the scenario by the participants. Probably better just to let the TD know and fix the problem.
 

McFinn

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
860
Reaction score
4
Location
Santa Fe
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
Keith, what about your statement of "no kibitzing"? QUOTE]

Jim,

What about it?

My original post said no kibbitzing, unless permission was granted by both players in the game. The same rules apply to all pontential kibbizers (even scenario designers). In my subsquent post I suggested the scenario designer ask before kibbitzing.

There is no inconsistancy here.

By the way I believe Pete was being a bit tongue in cheek when he suggested scenario designers have special kibbitzing privileges.
 
Last edited:

Thomas Gillis

Astral Deva
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Most players have a good knowledge of the rules. But not an unempeachable knowledge. I want to learn the game better. Pointing out errors/kibbitzing is ok with me if its not meant to influence the game but to help the player(s) learn the rules better. I know this is not the cup of tea for many. In that case kibbitzers should be quiet. This can be done with friendly off hand remarks. In our club its ok to make comments, but not to interfere with a game. Interesting topic anyway! I voted yes.
 

Jim McLeod

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
3,332
Reaction score
11
Location
Manitoba
Country
llCanada
Jim McLeod said:
Keith, what about your statement of "no kibitzing"?
McFinn said:
Jim,

What about it?

My original post said no kibbitzing, unless permission was granted by both players in the game. The same rules apply to all pontential kibbizers (even scenario designers). In my subsquent post I suggested the scenario designer ask before kibbitzing.

There is no inconsistancy here.
Fair enough Keith.

McFinn said:
By the way I believe Pete was being a bit tongue in cheek when he suggested scenario designers have special kibbitzing privileges.
Hmmmm, I took him at his word lacking any appropriate emoticom that would indicate otherwise.



=Jim=
 

wrongway149

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
9,006
Reaction score
1,181
Location
Willoughby, Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Jim McLeod said:
Fair enough Keith.



Hmmmm, I took him at his word lacking any appropriate emoticom that would indicate otherwise.



=Jim=

My tongue-when in my cheek-is a little more subtle.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
68
Location
Atlanta, GA
Country
llUnited States
I was going through some old ASL stuff earlier and I stumbled upon my old ASLOK Oktoberfest XI 1996 tourney/agenda sheet. Under the ASLOK 1996 SSR's, point three says:

3. KIBITZING will not be tolerated. Do not comment on any game in progress other than your own. NOTE: Even comments you may think to be harmless can be KIBITZING.

And #4 kind of struck me funny:

4. Please roll dice into some container - not on the game board.
 

larth

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2003
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
154
Location
Close to a keyboard
Country
llSweden
Corporal Kindel said:
And #4 kind of struck me funny:

4. Please roll dice into some container - not on the game board.
This is a rule at several tournaments to ensure that there is less chance of a die rolling onto the mapboard and wreaking havoc among the cardboard heroes. The chance of a cocked die is also smaller.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Jim, the tournament rules we use require illegally setup units to be eliminated.

However, if a player sees that his opponent is setting up illegally, he must tell his opponent as much before play begins.

After play starts, those same units will be eliminated.
Although many years have passed.
Why should he TELL his opponent anything?
If his opponent is screwing up his setup, then he is under NO obligation to tell him.
JUST AS someone walking by might say, UH hey DUDE your setup is illegal.
You can't justify the opposing player to HAVE to tell him his setup is incorrect. Let him learn....

Now saying that...This happened to me and I let my opponent setup his entire force correctly...YET he failed to return the favor in kind for my Turn 2 Reinforcements...essentially costing me the game....
He's a prominent TD and a dick for not letting me setup. I learned my lesson...Win at all costs..that is the lesson taught to me that day.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
Hopefully, the TD would step in and correct the situation. He should inform "Mr. I'll wait until the other guy has setup and then let him know he is in error and I will win!" that, no, you will reboot the game since nothing more than setup and a WC DR have likely been made.

Slime that would claim a win by way of knowingly allow an opponent to setup illegally has no place in a tournament.
Again, the only reason why this is done is that both players want to play.
YET, if you setup your GUN illegally, it's eliminated or you forfeit the match...its the SAME VIOLATION.
WHEN it happens is irrelevant.
 

Stewart

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
242
Location
California
Country
llUnited States
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. Know the rules at a reasonable level before playing in tournaments.

hex
There is nothing saying you can't sit back on your turn and read the rulebook to learn a rule.

That's what has been said throughout the entire thread...go to tournaments and Learn....WHEN? at the end of a match after its over? You don't learn then as you can't truly ascertain its effect upon the game.
ASK questions to others.
I intentionally ask questions of my opponent
A) to see if he knows the rules,
B) to see if he even wants to help me understand the rule.
C) if he ignores my simple question (you should know the rules before playing attitude, which is mostly bullshit), then I'll take my damn sweet time looking it up...likely sipping on my beverage of choice and nibbling on some snacks in the meantime.

He is either going to facilitate an "error" minimized game as Mark likes to see, or he doesn't care about the rules violations.
Knowing the rules and allowing them to be violated is Cheating, pure and simple.
 
Top