2003 VP Reporting

Calidus · Post by **Calidus** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 3:31 am

My group 10 has finally ended with a shared win going to Saladin (Scholars) and Smashface (BoV).

An Honorable Mention goes out to Gorzag, who played an unbelievable game. Several times players thought they would kill him easily, but he managed almost every time to escape, and even sent several to meet the gatekeeper before he was finally overwhelmed. Dark Stone can be proud. I just wish there was a VP award for tenacity. Kudos Gorzag.

-GM Larry

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:39 am

uh yeah.... shall i list the clans?

Dark Stone
BoV
Merc
First Family
Merc
AdG
Merc
Thuggee

Thats all..... and so i think i take the cake sorta speak.... five clans and three times a merc... hmmm maybe i should find a hobby.

Ec

Lowebb · Post by **Lowebb** » Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:31 pm

My group 10 has ended with Allister Fiend of the First Family and Dameon, mercenary sharing 3 VP's between them.

I will be emailing bjorn probably tomorrow to confirm this with him, so thanks very much to all who took part.

On a side point this was a WOK5 game which I didnt allow the use of +LEV as an aim, the game lasted 13 turns, just a pointer for any GM's looking for a quick WOK5 game.

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Tue Feb 04, 2003 10:45 pm

My (GM Matt's) Group #02 (the last?) WOK4 Beginner Game has finished .... with 1 VP going to Xero of clan Thuggee. Congrats!!

(Only 1 VP was awarded in this game due to the few players that started the game, and the number of quits that resulted.)

-GM Matt

Funtastick · Post by **Funtastick** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:11 pm

GM Andy's Group #01 has finished with a shared victory between Sleffie for the Hell Hounds and Mason for the Kaomarian Guard who each recieve 1 VP

Special mention goes to Thin King for putting up a good fight 2 vs 1.

Thanks for a great first game all

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:46 am

OK, updates complete.

Just a friendly reminder to the GMs, you should email the gatekeeper the results of your games. Posting results here is a good thing, but I should still receive an email.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:37 pm

But I actually did survive the game, and I had the second place in the
score (out of the 4 remaining players). I know that it was only thanks to Raw now but he wouldn't have
attacked me so we two would become the two allied winners. That would
give Raw and me 1VP each, but as I suggested to Raw we agreed to split
the points 1.5 for Raw and 0.5 for me. Please revise the verdict Roland.

Raw and anyone involved please say what do you think about it.

trewqh

PS And it actually was my second game

Tristao and Lardmaster wiped out Grave Maker and myself in Stephen's game (4 I think)

<editted to add the following:>
I e-mailed Roland about this and he said that it's ok with him as long as Raw confirms. So I'm satisfied. And it's a pity that Roland is na longer a GM.

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:59 pm

Allow me to walk on eggshells here...........

1. I believe that all remaining players need to agree as to how the VPs shall be divided, or the game continues. One player cannot "give" his VPs to another. (I think the GM has to approve of this as well, but I don't remember the WSC ruling on this. Can anyone help me out here?)

2. I am not sure if you are now allowed to split VPs unevenly. I believe this was tried in the past, and Al gave a big "no" to it. I have not been on the WSC this entire time, so I don't know if the WSC ruled on it.

Sorry for causing more problems.

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:22 pm

Baron Roland wrote:For cripes sakes, can't I even post game results without someone making it into a situation on the boards? Trewqh, you e-mailed me 20 minutes ago with almost exactly the same as you posted here, and I replied, and ccd Raw, that if Raw agreed to it, it was fine with me. This will not change the BoV VPs, so the only thing at stake here is if Raw wants to share his personal VPs. I am therefore awaiting Raw's reply and expected you to do the same instead of posting directly to the board.

You're right, I shouldn't have. I'm sorry.

Baron Roland wrote:As for me no longer being a GM, I haven't decided it yet, and nobody has specifically told me I can't be a GM. I still have Game 2 to finish, so don't be so happy to see me gone yet.

I wouldn't be even a bit happy if you went away! It's just that your games have been deleted from the Kaobase (I suppose only you and Al can do it) and your GM homepage also wasn't active so I thought you decided to leave. I'm sorry for turning my false assumption into a suggestion.

I really did enjoy the Bussiness District game and the way you commented it! I hope that (after some things are sorted out) we can forget about all this and still enjoy you're wonderful work as a GM.

trewqh

Post by **Egbert** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:42 pm

BR, thanks for taking the time to lay everything out. I took a look at all of the rulings of the WSC, and only found this:

°° 01-11-01 Vote#003 is out
>> The new question : Should the final awarding of VPs be solely a GM power ? Your votes please until Sunday.

°° 07-11-01 Vote#003 Results
>> The decision : 4 YES, 9 NO, 1 UNDECIDED.
The proposal was REJECTED, a GM cannot award the VPs on his own if the Players disagree with him - the game will need to continue then.

So, there has apparently never been a WSC ruling which changes the general rule that VPs can only be split evenly. Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. As for the players voting, I have no idea if it has to be unanimous --- I wouldn't think so.

On a side note, I would also urge BR to eliminate any thought of leaving WOK or not being a GM. You nearly always (well, other than your recent tirade in the WSC Chamber

) bring an intelligent and interesting perspective on many topics, and I am anxiously awaiting to play in one of your ingeniously-created games.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:14 pm

Well the rule clearly states:

"a GM cannot award the VPs on his own if the Players disagree with him - the game will need to continue then."

So ALL players have to agree with the winner(s) to end the game. Seeing that it's not the case here, the game has to continue or people have to agree to share the vps in another way.

About vps being split different from 1 vp each. Well the only difference in vp splitting other than 1 vp each has been when a player couldn't continue a game and somebody else took over for him. When he won, they split the vps 1.5 0.5 i believe after approval of the Gm committee.

So up till now all vp splits have been 1 each (wok 4). If people want to split the vps differently i would suggest the contact the GM Committee and ask for a ruling on their game (of course only after all the other players agree to surrender to these players).

On a different note, i'm wondering why the vps don't simply get split between the two BoV players (1 each) seeing as they obviously worked together. General practice in most clans would be that if as BR says, Trewqh has been protecting raw so he could build up strong enough to help win the game, looks like a team effort to me. Actually reminds me of the first game that Raw and i got our first vp. raw had been protecting me throughout the game (even though we were not in the same clan) and in the end i was strong enough to wipe everybody off the board, but of course Raw and i split the vps as without him i couldn't have gotten so strong.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Thu Feb 20, 2003 5:50 pm

When I assumed the gatekeeper responsibilities, I went throught the WSC rulings to see what the current rules were regarding ending games and awarding VPs. There is very little there, other than what has already been stated. There can be one winner, or two players can share the win.

The most important ruling is that the GM cannot end a game and award VPs. Only the players can end the game and award VPs. If there is no agreement among the surviving participants in the game, then the game goes on until the dissenters are eliminated, quit, or change their minds.

Each GM is free to devise their own method of polling the players. When I was a GM, my houserule was that anyone (including the GM) could propose a vote. The concept of .5VP was not even considered, as this was before WOK5 so you either received 1VP for a shared win or 2VP for a solo win. Those were the only options.

The only problem I recall having was someone not reading my houserules on voting. The first time a vote is proposed, any NO vote would kill the proposal, although it could be offered again by someone else. Any abstension was treated as a NO vote the first time a vote was offered, but if the only NO votes were from abstensions, then the same proposal would be resubmitted for a revote. On the revote, any abstension was treated as a YES. I think someone missed two votes in a row, so I ended the game on the revote. There was then a protest that I had ended the game without someones approval. My response? Read the houserules! It was so long ago I don't remember the details.

Other than the decision to rerun a turn, this can be one of the more difficult parts of being a GM. Upon occasion, there will be some blood feud where one player simply will not give in and "give" someone a VP. Make 'em work for it. If that is your position, just tell the GM so he can get on with running the game. One individual who just won't quit, for whatever reason, can make a lot of work for the GMs and other players that is really not appreciated.

Please note my comments preceding this discussion. I have not posted any VPs for the game "Roland 01" yet. I will wait until I receive an email from the GM with the official notification of VP awards. As gatekeeper, the only time I will add VPs from now on is when I receive the official game ending summary from the GM. The ONLY thing that can override this is an email from the current WSC chairman.

Raw · Post by **Raw** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 1:11 am

Sure I'll take 2 VP's

.

Cheers,
Raw

Post by **trewqh** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 7:36 pm

OK, I'm very sorry for bringing this up earlier but since it looks that it only added to the fire I don't care for the VP's any longer. Let Raw have all of them.

Although I still can't understand why the points aren't split in half since I survived and we're allied clanmates with Raw.

trewqh

PS I will anyway e-mail you about this Roland just to make sure you get this.

Post by **gm_al** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 8:42 pm

This thread is quite a proof that actually the WSC is here for a reason! Imagine ppl would have asked me to rule on these kind of things, Im pretty sure any decision I would have had to take would have caused a small revolt.

Let me just clarify a few points:
1. There is no rule against splitting 1.5/0.5
2. No more then 2 Players can win a game
3. The minimum VP you can get is 0.5 VPs
4. The decision on who wins and who gets how many VPs has to be UNANIMOUS, accepted by all PLAYERS still in play - the GM has no right to vote on this. He can suggest a VP split, but its the sole Players decision in the end
5. If someone opposes the VP split one can either suggest another split or continue the game

Post by **Count Henri** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:40 pm

As an aside I keep getting Trewqh's name wrong in posts so from now on I'm going to call him 'Mr. T" for simplicities sake...

On the bright side he does get to :
1. Have a Mohawk
2. Wear 50kg of Gold Jewellery
3. Call everyone "Fool!"

The Worlds of Kaomaris

2003 VP Reporting

Group 10 over