Conceding, The Spirit of the Game, and A Proposal

[Iamfishman]

The Background:
Round 3: I am paired against Adam Barnello. I very much respect Adam and have only good things to say about him as both a player and as a person. We play 3 games. Game 3 goes to turns. He is beating me down and I barely starve off defeat with enough chump blocks to draw the game and the match. I say, "I guess we draw." Adam replies, "Do we?" This seemed like an odd question to me. I end turn five and the judge goes to report the result to the scorekeeper.

Round 4: I am paired against James Rynkiewicz. No need for introductions, he is one of the best Legacy players around. Just like Adam, I have always respected James and enjoyed our matches. Even with a deck he has never played before he takes a game 1 away from me when it seemed was impossible for me to lose. In game 2, I get a great hand and take the game. In game 3, a similar situation to my round 3 match occurred. I ripped consecutive blockers to chump a reanimated angel and draw the match. During the match, James asked me if I had the intention to draw if the game got to that point and it looked like it would be in his favor. The answer seemed obvious to me. Draw > Loss. Say what you want about it not being so, but with top 16 prizes you never know what weird things would happen. Afterwards, James expressed his frustration to me that he obviously would have won the match and that conceding to him was the right thing to do. It was, as he explained it to me, what, and I'm paraphrasing here, is expected amongst those who are tight with one another in the Community(not sure if this should be interpreted as those on MTGThesource, those who are well known, or some other criteria for who is "in" the Community). What made the issue infinitely more frustrating to him was his feeling that I wasted time, which to me seemed to be the opposite of how I played. Our opposing views are obviously both a little biased, and since this isn't the main point of the post, let's keep the conversation in this thread about what I propose below.

The Reflection:
After these matches, I talked to Adam, Alix Hatfield, and a few others about the rounds. I have since come to understand that amongst a contingent of players it is considered appropriate that I scoop in those situations with the understanding that if the situation is reversed that those players would do the same. From a game-theory perspective it makes sense because assuming an equal distribution of people being in the losing situation, the net result is an average of 1.5 points per round as opposed to 1 point per round for the "team" of each pair of players who are in on this Community specific agreement on the appropriateness of conceding. It also explained why Adam and James were so surprised/frustrated with my refusal to concede. I see that now.

Unfortunately, it still bothers me from a few angles. And I would like to discuss those now:
1.) Deciding who would win the match if it were carried out longer is sometimes a tough thing to do. Granted, in both of my matches it was pretty obvious. In both case I would likely be dead the next turn. But, what about less obvious cases? What if the outcome was a few turns away? What is the threshold on that? Would 0 cards in each players hand and each at 20 life but player A having a 1/1 on an otherwise empty board constitute a concession? How about a situation where one player has an advantage but the extra turns favor the other player such as player A with a small army of Merfolk, versus a Landstill player with 8 Wraths, 4 Vedalkin Shackles, 2 Moat, etc.? Also, where is the line drawn with regard to "I will win eventually?" Fifteen different players would give fifteen very different answers to that question. And from a technical standpoint, unless all players can agree on common answers to all these questions, the understanding of when to concede is not without bias.

2.) What guarantees are there that a player will reciprocate, should the opportunity arise? I would say with 100% certainty that I would expect a player like Adam Barnello to return this favor but what about someone, like (insert name of person I have never met before here), whom may not have embraced the "Gentleman's Agreement" of concession. Unfortunately this is a system that requires trust and integrity to work.

3.) Is this something everyone buys into? I can't feasibly see the answer to this being a yes, since 100% buy in to anything is typically impossible. I got the impression that it was exclusively a kind of "Community" agreement amongst people known for playing Eternal(namely Legacy) a lot. The problem is this creates a very elitist system which only serves to convey the same kind of "cool kid table" syndrome that has hurt Vintage. How unfair is it be to be on the outside looking in at all the community kids who are averaging 1.5 points per match to your 1 point per match simply based on a popularity contest?

4.) Although this system feels more fair, since it is how the game would play out if not for the tournament imposed time limit, keep in mind that the rational for not permitting rolling a dice to determine a match winner sounds very akin to letting "who you know" determine if you concede or get a concession.
Quoting from the infraction guide, the definition of "Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner" is "Players use or offer to use an outside the game method to determine the winner of a game or a match". Also, in the philosophy section of this infraction it is written that "Using a random method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament." (I know the Gentleman's Agreement is not technically random, but by all accords, neither is the example given of arm wrestling to determine a winner.) Finally, the very next line states "Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported in this way..."
Now, you may contradict me by quoting the phrase from Rule 104.3a of the comp rules that says, "A player may concede the game at any time." That is fine. My point in saying all that I said above is not to try to argue whether or not the Gentleman's Agreement is technically breaking the rules, but rather to continue to explain why it feels like it is not in the spirit of the game.
Let me parallel it with an example that comes up a lot. It is the last round of a swiss, cut to top 8 event. Player A is x-1-1. Player B is x-2 with awful tiebreakers. Player C and Player D are both x-2 with the best tie breakers. Player A will make top 8 with a win or draw. Player B can't make top 8 no matter what happens. The winner of Player C and Player D will make it in IF player B dream crushes Player A. Player A says to player B, "Cmon, there is no prize for top 16, and you can't make top 8. Don't be that guy to ruin it for me. Scoop me in. You know I would do the same if I was in your shoes." Player B concedes.
Do you see what is wrong with this? Going with the Gentleman's Agreement Player B decided the 8th player to round out the top 8. It wasn't like he was denying anyone from being in the top 8 by not scooping. There would be 8 people one way or the other. But not only did he essentially control the outcome of his match and the ability to choose who would make top 8, but he did so in a way that had nothing to do with the results of matches of Magic. Rather, it was his feelings toward Player A (or maybe player B or C) that primarily influenced the decision. Obviously, being friends with Player B is more important than Magic skill in this very common situation.
This gets even worse if there was some other Gentleman's Rule of throwing some packs the way of Player B later on in the evening for the scoop in. This is not something that is obviously discussed ahead of time since that is clearly collusion, but some Player B's may scoop Player A in just on the hope that they might get a little "kindness" later.
Although not the same scenario, the concession of games to avoid draws is similarly linked more to social factors than anything else. When a draw would be the result within the time limit allotment as set forth by the tournament rules, not based on a subjective matter of who "was supposed to win eventually", players gain no advantage from having lots of friends or being part of the "in" crowd.

The Conclusion:
(And let me say right now that I am in no way against a sense of Community to help grow Legacy. I am just concerned with a possible negative that could come from it.)

Although I have laid out some reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the Gentleman's Agreement that, up until this weekend I was aware of, probably linked to being a member of the "community" which I wasn't aware I was part of, I haven't given a solution. And as the saying goes, "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Fortunately, I do have a suggestion. It is, however, going to be seen as a radical idea since it proposes a change to fundamental part of the common tournament structure.
To fully understand it, you must know how a single elimination event is run. Let's say you have 11 people for a single elimination event. Because this is not a power of 2(which would be ideal), we must assign byes in the event. One option is:
Round 1:
11 people in event.
5 matches are played. One person has a bye.

Round 2:
6 people in event.
3 matches are played.

Round 3:
3 people in event.
1 match is played. One person has the bye.

Round 4:
2 people in event.
1 match is played.

There are two flaws with this system. First, because everyone has the same record (no loses) byes can't be given out to the lowest point player. It is possible that one player will get more than one bye. Second, it is considered unfair to have such "late tournament byes." Byes in round 1 are considered more tolerable than a player getting a bye into the finals. A better alternative(and the one that DCI reporter uses) is:

Round 1:
11 people in event.
3 matches are played. Five people have a bye.

Round 2:
8 people in event.
4 matches are played.

Round 3:
4 people in event.
2 matches are played.

Round 4:
2 people in event.
1 match is played.

In this method, enough byes are given in order to end round 1 with a power of 2 number of players. In this way, no byes will be given past round 1.

My proposal is to change the cut part of a swiss style tournament from "top 8" to "certain record or better" to make the single elim playoffs. From there, the first round of the post-swiss rounds includes whatever number of matches/byes is required to cut to the next power of 2. Rather than assign byes randomly, those who get the byes are those who have the highest standing after swiss. For example, with 11 players at 7-1-1 or better at an SCG Legacy event, the top 5 seeds would have a bye and 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10, and 8 plays 9 to take the three remaining spots in the top 8.
This system does a number of things well. First, it removes any uncertainty of whether you will make the single-elim rounds of an event. No longer will you be disappointed as you take 9th based on breakers. Second, it gives no reason for a lot of the last swiss round shenanigans that do take place currently: watching the results of other matches before making a decision to draw or not, tricking your opponent into drawing with you when you know they can't make top 8, etc. True, it doesn't eliminate the temptation to collude for a match win, but it does at least prevent the scooping someone in, and by consequence, scooping someone out of top 8 scenario described above. It puts the opportunity of every player to make it beyond the swiss rounds in their own hands. Finally, it gives an incentive for players to finish as high up in the standings as possible. You may decide to play that last round if it means a guaranteed bye in the first round of the top 11.
I already see that one flaw in my proposal is the extra round(although more like a half round if those first couple of matches to get to a power of 2 go quickly) that it creates in the single-elim portion of an event. While not the best solution, starting the event 30 minutes earlier may help alleviate this issue. Remember, like Field of Dreams, if you start it earlier, "they will (still) come."

I am very curious about your thoughts on all the things I have mentioned above. Please feel free to reply, but I ask that you please do so in a constructive manner.

Thanks,
Ray Robillard

[TUMBLES]

Just a quick bit regarding concessions vs time draws... I would not concede or expect someone to concede to me in that kind of situation, and I'm a bit surprised at the attitude that you experienced in regards to it. The time limit is part of the game, and if someone can't win within it they should not feel entitled to win just because, in a world with no round limits, they would have (or, at least, 'probably would have').

On the flip side though, I don't see anything wrong with conceding to someone who is in the process of beating you but won't be able to finish due to time. Or for any other reason (outside of the obvious bribes etc). I just find it kind of gross that anybody would actually feel the slightest bit entitled to that outcome.

[median]

I think you need to realistically look at your math for large events. At things like GPs ruling out tiebreakers would make the single elimination round too big to be feasable.

[hyc8028]

I feel this is an issue a lot of player face when they play against "pros" in big events. Pros use their MTG celebrity status trying to "tell" you they are better than you, they are on the way to win, etc, so you should scoop to them. Ultimately, it come down on the player himself. Do you feel like you have a shot at money If not, it doesn't hurt to scoop. It is very hard to draw a clear line between this, but yea 1 point could be a difference between money and no money and 1 point is better than 0 point.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It's funny you say that, actually, Antonino de Rosa spent an afternoon trashtalking me once because I didn't give him the win on an unplayed game three when we had the same record. Also I don't even know him. Also he is playing Landstill and I run 4 DoJ main and 4 Eternal Dragon in this scenario.

I think this is an issue where people just have to figure it out for themselves. There isn't a clear cut right or wrong unless you've actually given someone a win in that situation, and with a similar setup they refuse to reciprocate.

I will usually concede to a friend in a tight situation if a tie knocks us both out of top 8 contention, because it boosts my self-image as being a generous person and also because most of my Magic friends are frankly better players than me.

[Taurelin]

Pros use their MTG celebrity status trying to "tell" you they are better than you, they are on the way to win, etc, so you should scoop to them.

If they are really such good players, it should be easy for them to beat you in-game. If they are not able to do that, you have every right in the world to laugh in their face and brag "Hey, I managed to achieve a draw vs Pro XY. Isn't that a great success?".

[PanderAlexander]

I think it really depends on the situation. I don't think anyone should scoop if they don't want to, but I scolded my friend for not scooping to his opponent recently. It's game 3 of the final round, my friend has the worst tiebreakers and his opponent has the best tiebreakers. Time is called and my friend was in no position to win, his opponent was going to win 100% if he had one more turn. My friend took the draw instead of giving the win to the opponent. The opponent would have made top 8 for sure with the win, this was a top 8 for a Mox as the prize. On the other hand I could see it sucking for "that guy" who missed the top 8 because of something like this.

[lorddotm]

I think it really depends on the situation. I don't think anyone should scoop if they don't want to, but I scolded my friend for not scooping to his opponent recently. It's game 3 of the final round, my friend has the worst tiebreakers and his opponent has the best tiebreakers. Time is called and my friend was in no position to win, his opponent was going to win 100% if he had one more turn. My friend took the draw instead of giving the win to the opponent. The opponent would have made top 8 for sure with the win, this was a top 8 for a Mox as the prize. On the other hand I could see it sucking for "that guy" who missed the top 8 because of something like this.

In this situation, I would offer a prize split if I was your friend, without telling them I would scoop (not illegal) and then just scoop.

I definitely would only give the scoop to one of my friends, or if it helps gets my friend into Top 8. To be fair, most of my friends are my opponents in the later rounds, and I highly doubt I will be going to time any time soon, so I'm not too worried about this.

On the issue with pros, I would only scoop if I liked them. There is a 100% chance I would never scoop to Edgar Flores (after watching his match against Jim Davis, he came off as a complete dick), but someone like Gerard Fabiano, I would definitely scoop to in that position. Same with a lot of other pros, since I'm pretty sure that they would do it for me too.

TLDR: Don't be a douche, scoop to your friends if you are going to lose that game.

[MMogg]

It's a competitive game. Seems bloody rich to me that anyone would try to make anyone else feel guilty for hanging on until the last minute and get a draw. Can you imagine in professional sports, let's say American football or rugby, one side conceding the win because the other team is chomping at the end zone (football)/try line (rugby) and the other team holds them off until the final whistle? Ah well, eventually they would have scored. That's nucking futs! Don't feel bad; it sounds like you did nothing wrong. Remember a lot of highly competitive players try to get an advantage through mental games. If someone got into the top 8 of a tournament because another player inappropriately/too easily conceded, do you think they'd bat an eye? Doubt it. Those wins were not earned, just prospectively, potentially earned. Funny how such a narrow view of honour is enforced socially.

[Watcher487]

Actually, I find this kinda funny. Since we drew at GenCon 5 years ago... If you earn the draw, you earn the draw. I've seen people attempt the brow beat people into accepting the loss so many times and it's just wrong. Considering the 2 examples you offered, I would have been happy with my draws regardless of the situation. But given the Top8 situation, I would probably lean with lorddotm but in most of those situations I normally say I'm willing to prize split with any of my friends regardless.

[nayon]

Most people in my meta wouldn't scoop to each other. Don't know about "the pros". However, I am unlikely to concede to someone I don't even know. Why am I doing them a favor? As most pros say, they should have "played better" and killed me within the time allocated by the rules of the game. It's a part of the game.

If it's a guy I like, and I feel like my concession will give him a real shot at it, and I feel like I have no way of making it anyway, then MAYBE I'll concede.

A lot of pros nowadays are playing ultra-slow control decks, and they should realize that sometimes they might go to time.

[Eatatjoes]

@ OP. - Bardo

Have you ever thought you might be the reason for going to time? 2 rounds in a row, against very competant legacy opponents and the game ends in a draw? If i ever feel like i was the cause for a draw, and my opponent has the obvious advantage, i will concede. No point in being a dick and keeping others out of the money. Or just ask for some kind of prize split, depending how far along in the tournament you are.

[nayon]

Have you ever thought you might be the reason for going to time? 2 rounds in a row, against very competant legacy opponents and the game ends in a draw? If i ever feel like i was the cause for a draw, and my opponent has the obvious advantage, i will concede. No point in being a dick and keeping others out of the money. Or just ask for some kind of prize split, depending how far along in the tournament you are.

Everyone is entitled to do whatever they want, he doesn't owe anything to these guys. We are talking about a cutthroat environment, a competitive tournament. "Being a dick" is an irrelevant concept.

He might have been playing slow, but conversely, his opponents could have urged him to play faster or called slow play on him if that was indeed the case. It works both ways, you know. And that's assuming that the OP was the issue.

Time management is a part of the game. You get what you deserve.

Also, did you really need to quote that huge post?

[frolll]

I highly doubt that Ray was on a slowplaying game, really.
For what I know, many pros are playing somewhat slower than most people, and are borderlining on stalling when they "go in the tank" as the coverage says (which sounds to me like an euphemism for stalling)...

I am also very supportive of the initial post. And, on a personnal level, I never concede.
I came to play, I paid my entry fee, if we are going to time, it's not my fault (I tend to not play slow control decks and plays fairly fast). No one should ever feel bad because they didn't concede to a pro/name player. It's just effin absurd.

[Atwa]

I highly doubt that Ray was on a slowplaying game, really.
For what I know, many pros are playing somewhat slower than most people, and are borderlining on stalling when they "go in the tank" as the coverage says (which sounds to me like an euphemism for stalling)...

I am also very supportive of the initial post. And, on a personnal level, I never concede.
I came to play, I paid my entry fee, if we are going to time, it's not my fault (I tend to not play slow control decks and plays fairly fast). No one should ever feel bad because they didn't concede to a pro/name player. It's just effin absurd.

Same for me. I am never the obvious cause for going to time (be it playing slow, or playing slow decks), hell before GP Madrid I never even had played a game going to time.

If the game draws out because both players (and their decks) are equally competent and goes to time, they both deserve the draw because they weren't obviously better them their opponent. Even if you are playing against a pro or another well known good player, what's the difference?

If a game goes into time, there's a reason for it. Just accept that. Scooping to someone is sometimes a great gesture, but should never be something people will either expect or take for granted.

[DragoFireheart]

I don't concede. I play it out until either one player wins or time.

Fuck these "pros" for trying to tell others how to play.

[Amon Amarth]

I don't concede. I play it out until either one player wins or time.

Fuck these "pros" for trying to tell others how to play.

QFT. So many times I've missed obvious lines of play that would allow me to win. For me, conceding early is a misplay.

[dontbiteitholmes]

It's funny you say that, actually, Antonino de Rosa spent an afternoon trashtalking me once because I didn't give him the win on an unplayed game three when we had the same record. Also I don't even know him. Also he is playing Landstill and I run 4 DoJ main and 4 Eternal Dragon in this scenario.

I think this is an issue where people just have to figure it out for themselves. There isn't a clear cut right or wrong unless you've actually given someone a win in that situation, and with a similar setup they refuse to reciprocate.

I will usually concede to a friend in a tight situation if a tie knocks us both out of top 8 contention, because it boosts my self-image as being a generous person and also because most of my Magic friends are frankly better players than me.

Haha, what was that like 7 years ago. I actually remember that shit storm because I got DQ'd in the top 8 that day and he was still bitching about it when I left.

Anyways TL;DR on OP. The thing you do is if you are going to game 3 and it looks like time might be an issue you say, "Look, if one of us is in a commanding position and the game goes to time, I'll agree to scoop if I'm buried if you do the same. If it's a grey area we can still draw, but if it comes down to one person in an extremely likely winning position we should agree now to give that person the win."

[troopatroop]

the 1.5 points to 1 points argument makes sense, so the concept amongst friends is legitimate.

However, if that 1 point gives me a shot at prizes, I'm probably not giving them three. That should be understandable.

[saspook]

I am surprised that no one has brought up the difference that a draw makes in a 63 player event vs a 65 player event.

In one of these cases, an early draw is as good as a loss. If half of the 13 pointers wont make the top eight, taking the draw is just forcing your opponent to take a "loss". As now a real loss will almost certainly knock a player out of top eight. The draw is of no advantage to you.

But when there is an additional round, and everyone with 16 points is going to make it in, the draw isn't so bad.

Rule of thumb, if there are slightly less players than the threshold to the number of players to add another round, you won't be automatically able to draw the final round at X-1. If there are slightly more, then you should be able to.

Also, to Lorddotm, with regards to offering the split in the final round and going to time, this has been discussed with a lot of judges and conceding at this point is DQ'able to some. So be careful.

[android]

On one hand, it's a competitive game. On the other hand, it's a competitive game. :confused:

What I mean by that is Magic is not a physical sport like Basketball, Football, Tennis or Soccer, nor is it completely a game of skill like Chess.

Expanding on that premise; in a physical sport, if teams/players deliberately gave wins to their opponents, it would challenge the notion that the match/game was valid. It would be viewed as a farce if a concession were openly given. Now consider a concession in a professional chess match. What a joke. Why even show up to the event.

So taking a look at the issue from two different ends of the spectrum, how can anyone even defend scoops? The game is already based off luck/odds/skill, why do we need to extend the numbers game into standings? At that point it dilutes the credibility of the event and instead becomes an insiders numbers game. This is a huge turn-off in playing competitive Magic for me personally. I'd like to view the game more of a match between warriors rather than between conniving snivellers.

Defend it if you want but this is what will forever prevent Magic from being an accepted legitimate professional game. Even Poker, the ultimate game of douchebags would never see a concession.

[GradStudentGuy]

I have had a similar experience in the past about a player wanted a win where it was a draw. This was round one of a nine round tournament so a draw is basically a loss in this case. There was no time for a third game(time was called before side boarding) but because my opponent was playing storm he insisted that he should get the win. I disagreed and a bunch of his friends bothered me for the rest of the event.

[Tsnowflake]

I have had a similar experience in the past about a player wanted a win where it was a draw. This was round one of a nine round tournament so a draw is basically a loss in this case. There was no time for a third game(time was called before side boarding) but because my opponent was playing storm he insisted that he should get the win. I disagreed and a bunch of his friends bothered me for the rest of the event.

Wow that guy and his friends are PSA grade 10 douches. Props for not conceding to those clowns and clearly getting them so butthurt that they felt the need to bother you for the rest of the event.

Back on topic: Yeah its frustrating to lose to time, but I agree with what a previous poster said in regards to the clock. Playing against the clock is also part of the game. If you choose to play a slow control deck, then you also choose to accept the risk that your game may go to time and that your opponent will want to draw. Tough shit. A "pro" more than anyone else should be aware of these issues.

I find the anecdotes in this thread follow a disturbing trend; borderline attempts at bullying to get people into to taking losses they shouldn't have. This is straight up wrong.

Don't let other people intimidate you into doing something you don't want or make you feel bad just because of their status or because things simply didn't go their way.

TLDR: This guy said it succinctly.

I don't concede. I play it out until either one player wins or time.

Fuck these "pros" for trying to tell others how to play.

[dahcmai]

The maturity level of some people leaves something to be desired. Play your game how you want to play. They can cry it off later.


I don't even ID for people unless I really, really like them. I hate whiners.

[Arsenal]

IDs, pre-match concessions, time limit concessions, prize splits, etc are all terrible aspects of competitive Magic. The most common response I've heard from people is "it's always been like that, so..." which is just nonsense. I never concede a match. Ever. If we draw, we draw. If it somehow effects your record and puts you in/keeps you out of the prizes, then that's life.

[workingdude]

It sounds like the OPs deck might be a slower playing deck that runs the risk of draws. This is a part of your deck and you most likely realized that you would have a higher chance of drawing matches compared to other people.

Because YOU are the one who has to hold the burden of these draws, which are closer to losses than wins in terms of match points, any draws (points) that you have earned, you should be able to receive, if you choose. Your deck is more likely to stall itself to time than other decks and therefore you have a higher chance throughout the tournament to get these semi-losses than other decks.

TLDR; Your opponents should understand if you say something like this, "It sucks that you have to draw against the occasional player, but I have to draw against a lot more. Suck it up if I take a mini-loss against you."

[TeenieBopper]

the 1.5 points to 1 points argument makes sense, so the concept amongst friends it legitimate.

However, if that 1 point gives me a shot at prizes, I'm probably not giving them three. That should be understandable.

Pretty much this.

I rarely give, nor do I expect the concession in these situations (good friends with top 8 locks excluded). However, I almost always ask for the concession, even if I'm on the "losing" side. I ask once, in a neutral tone, and that's it. If I don't get it, sometimes I'm frustrated, but mostly at the idea that my prospects to making top 8 or prizes is diminished.

What it boils down to is this: if you want the win, win the match. Don't give me this time bullshit. Everyone is aware of it, and there are legitimate strategies that take round time into account (IDing round one to get into the draw bracket if you smash congrol).

[rocketrae21]

This is obviously a tough situation and depending on my record depends on what I actually do for my opponent. I have been playing Lands for a while and I have gone to time a lot, and the problem is that players do not know when to concede game 1 or 2 (whichever I win). I just feel like if you are locked out completely (such as wasteland or ghost quarter lock for Lands) you should just concede. Unless you have the most badass one drop to win you the game, nothing is going to come of it.
So Ray,
if your deck had no way to really deal with the creature you were chump blocking then I feel the concession is legitimate. I understand not all people would do it, but I am the type of guy who would definitely do it. The thing is though, Adam and James may have been mad at you for drawing, but they will just be mad at that event and then get over it. Its a game and you can't get too frustrated with a game.

[Bardo]

IDs, pre-match concessions, time limit concessions, prize splits, etc are all terrible aspects of competitive Magic. The most common response I've heard from people is "it's always been like that, so..." which is just nonsense. I never concede a match. Ever. If we draw, we draw. If it somehow effects your record and puts you in/keeps you out of the prizes, then that's life.

It may be subtle, but I think it's more that those things are "a part of the game," rather than "it's always been that way," which is an effect of being part of the game.

As for me, I'll concede for the same reasons IBA mentioned above. This seems to me very much a thing that people need to figure out on their own, and there isn't (at least to me) anything black/white about it.

[Iamfishman]

Wow, this got a lot more posts than I thought it would in such a short span of time.

That said, even though I don't have time to respond to the many people that I wish to right now, I want to clarify two things:

#1.) My deck was the slow control deck, specifically mono-blue control. Adam was Stoneforge Aggro and James was reanimator.

#2.) This thread has some posts going in a very different direction than what I intended. I wasn't looking for a number of posts to the effect of "Pros think they can bully everyone". I don't think Adam or James were bullying but rather simply surprised that I don't share a view point they considered obvious. I, obviously, had to include the stories though as background. Instead, I would like the direction of the thread to focus on a.) Merits/drawbacks of a "Gentleman's Agreement" to handle situations like the ones I mentioned and b.) Merits/drawbacks of using a cut to top x tournament setup as I outlined.

[Mon,Goblin Chief]

If a match looks like it might be going to time (you should be aware of that before time is called, usually) once it's clear that a draw hurts both of us, I generally ask my opponents something to the effect of "If we happen to go to time, would you agree that the player in the losing position will concede? A draw hurts both of us."
I don't see why we should eliminate both of us if the guy who would have won with a little more time on the clock could have gotten somewhere. Earlier in the tournament I usually just take the draw as it's generally much better to go X-1-1 than X-2 (outside of something with a clear cut off, say a GP in which a draw is basically the same as a loss day 1).

[Nihil Credo]

This classic Magic Lampoon article is extremely relevant (http://magiclampoon.com/blog/2009/07/03/fans-furious-as-rays-refuse-to-concede-to-yankees/).


ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Fans and sports analysts were enraged Thursday as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, with no reasonable chance of making the playoffs, stubbornly refused to concede to the New York Yankees at Tropicana Field.

(...)

'I mean, sure, in any other sport we would call such behavior ‘grotesque collusion; immoral; a slap in the face to the very concepts of fair play and sportsmanship; a mockery of competition that apparently is merely alleged to be professional; unmanly; dirty; and downright fraudulent,’ but, um, they don’t call it that in Magic and so that’s what I’m saying,” Beaver said.

Preempting the obvious: yes, spectator sports (which Magic will never be) have an incentive to always put on their best performance since support and sponsorships are more important than prizes. But competitors in amateur leagues, or in less popular sports (most Olympic disciplines, for examples) have no such incentive yet they do not brazenly game the system anyway.

Less obvious follow-up: Magic doesn't have even the small prestige and Coubertinesque aura of fencing or curling, or chess for that matter, so players don't feel held up to ideals of sportsmanship. That's a chicken-and-egg problem, though: the fact that collusions are an everyday matter contributes to making Magic less of a respectable game (although it's by no means the primary factor).

[the Thin White Duke]

When I played competitively I rarely conceded. Mainly because when I went to play, I went to play. 1. I didn't get to play much between tourneys, so I took advantage of every moment I had playing wherever that was. 2. I also usually played very slow, control oriented decks. I was a notorious Wombat pilot, so I would usually drag things out until time most rounds. Granted, if the game was obviously a no-win for me I would concede but I usually played on to see what happened. That was part of the learning experience to me, but if some people thought I was dickbag, that was their problem.
Since I've moved I rarely play due to lack of legacy support and the group of players in the area. These guys are good players, don't get me wrong, but there is a particular mindset they share. If I'm drafting or playing in a release event I see these guys scoop in a heartbeat if things are not to their liking. I can see when games end up in a no-win and scooping, but there are times when someone concedes after their third turn draw because (I guess) they just want to get to the next round because they can't see a way to win. That blows my mind when I see someone so eager to get to the next game/round.

[TeenieBopper]

This classic Magic Lampoon article is extremely relevant (http://magiclampoon.com/blog/2009/07/03/fans-furious-as-rays-refuse-to-concede-to-yankees/).



Preempting the obvious: yes, spectator sports (which Magic will never be) have an incentive to always put on their best performance since support and sponsorships are more important than prizes. But competitors in amateur leagues, or in less popular sports (most Olympic disciplines, for examples) have no such incentive yet they do not brazenly game the system anyway.

Less obvious follow-up: Magic doesn't have even the small prestige and Coubertinesque aura of fencing or curling, or chess for that matter, so players don't feel held up to ideals of sportsmanship. That's a chicken-and-egg problem, though: the fact that collusions are an everyday matter contributes to making Magic less of a respectable game (although it's by no means the primary factor).

http://www.plegros.net/content/collusion-sumo-wrestling

I'm not saying I disagree with you (I don't), but I'm just pointing out that collusion in major sports is probably more prevalent than we think or know. Younger, better boxers "carry" older, washed up boxers for a variety of reasons. People routinely look the other way when it comes to PEDs. There are probably more, but those are the obvious ones to me.

[HAVE HEART]

It's funny you say that, actually, Antonino de Rosa spent an afternoon trashtalking me once because I didn't give him the win on an unplayed game three when we had the same record. Also I don't even know him. Also he is playing Landstill and I run 4 DoJ main and 4 Eternal Dragon in this scenario.

I would have never thought that about Ant. He seemed really upbeat and friendly the couple times I have seen him around. To be fair he was just drafting at a local store, so he probably was not taking it that seriously. I would not be surprised if that type of scenario made him take the jobs that he has taken overseas. Magic is just a game in the end; it is not worth it if you are getting upset over something like that.

[thecrav]

"OH MAN WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE ME THE WIN"

"Uh... because I didn't lose?"


On a side note, during a side event at PT: Austin, a judge issued a ruling to a friend of mine that, "scooping does not use the stack."

[Klazam]

"OH MAN WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE ME THE WIN"

"Uh... because I didn't lose?"


On a side note, during a side event at PT: Austin, a judge issued a ruling to a friend of mine that, "scooping does not use the stack."


What's the story here?

[dahcmai]

Next time someone asks you to concede because they think they should have the win instead of a draw. Just tell them "You should concede to me because you smell like like a frozen block of bull sperm". It's about the same difference, equally insulting.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

On one hand, it's a competitive game. On the other hand, it's a competitive game. :confused:

What I mean by that is Magic is not a physical sport like Basketball, Football, Tennis or Soccer, nor is it completely a game of skill like Chess.

Expanding on that premise; in a physical sport, if teams/players deliberately gave wins to their opponents, it would challenge the notion that the match/game was valid. It would be viewed as a farce if a concession were openly given. Now consider a concession in a professional chess match. What a joke. Why even show up to the event.

So taking a look at the issue from two different ends of the spectrum, how can anyone even defend scoops? The game is already based off luck/odds/skill, why do we need to extend the numbers game into standings? At that point it dilutes the credibility of the event and instead becomes an insiders numbers game. This is a huge turn-off in playing competitive Magic for me personally. I'd like to view the game more of a match between warriors rather than between conniving snivellers.

Defend it if you want but this is what will forever prevent Magic from being an accepted legitimate professional game. Even Poker, the ultimate game of douchebags would never see a concession.

You should read/watch Freakonomics.

[Shawon]

You should read/watch Freakonomics.

likes this. I just bought the book last week. Really intriguing. Think I might buy Superfreakonomics as well.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

I would like the direction of the thread to focus on a.) Merits/drawbacks of a "Gentleman's Agreement" to handle situations like the ones I mentioned and b.) Merits/drawbacks of using a cut to top x tournament setup as I outlined.
I just want to share a few personal experiences I've had with this "Gentleman's Agreement." I've played against friends in events, occasionally in a spot where a draw would leave us both in contention, but a loss would kick either of us out. I don't like the idea of IDing in this spot (because of how uncertain it would still be to make t8 with a draw), so I prefer to play it out and just have the result. If the match actually went to time, I'd neither request from my opponent nor likely honor a request to scoop. I think as a friend, it would be rude of me to ask or them to ask me even if the future result of the game was obvious. That's not to say I would never scoop (or accept one), I'd just never ask or feel pressured to do it. It just depends.

On the other hand, I've never been in a position where I could scoop a friend directly into top 8 but couldn't make it myself. I'd certainly scoop to them in that case (and hope they would do the same for me). In my opinion, that situation is completely different than the one above (where the winner would still have to play more matches afterward).

However, I have scooped someone I didn't know into money (if he won his next round) where I almost certainly couldn't even though we played it out and I won the match (which is when he asked me to scoop). He betrayed my trust and scooped his next opponent into more money in exchange for a kickback. As a result, unless you're my friend (as in I hang out with you, not "I've spoken to you at events"), I will never ever scoop to someone I don't know again.


Less obvious follow-up: Magic doesn't have even the small prestige and Coubertinesque aura of fencing or curling, or chess for that matter, so players don't feel held up to ideals of sportsmanship.
I can't speak for other sports, but as someone who was involved in the US national/ international fencing scene for a number of years, I have an unfortunate spoiler for you: cheating is rampant at all levels, collusion and bribery occur on an event-by-event basis and the "in" crowd will screw you to their heart's content even with video replay because referees have the (subjective) last call. I'd infinitely prefer what goes on in Magic to fencing.

[Michael Keller]

I don't concede. I play it out until either one player wins or time.

Fuck these "pros" for trying to tell others how to play.

I completely and whole-heartedly agree. It is no one's right to make you feel forced into conceding or suffering a "guilt-trip" for not doing so. It is your right as a player to decide what is best for you. If that means taking a draw in a dire situation with an overabundance of money on the line, then feel free to do so.

It would obviously sit sour with the opposing player, no question. It still doesn't excuse the fact that the opponent did not kill you in time and it is no one's fault but their own. If you're in a situation where the difference between a draw and a loss matters in a larger event, that's one thing. On a smaller scale (like local tourneys), I feel it is a little more acceptable to scoop someone into the Top Eight, as these are people you will likely play on a more regular basis and you would hope to expect the same courtesy extended back to you later on. It might even come back two-fold.

[Solaran_X]

My beliefs on this is simple.

If you want to make Day 2, you need to EARN Day 2.

Like the Brad Nelson thing with my friend at GP: Providence. Nelson came into the GP with three byes. Lost Round 4 and 5 (he was playing Junk against Storm, and then called Storm an almost unbeatable matchup for himself in his most recent "article") to be 3-2 going into Round 6. Won Round 6 and 7. Would've went to time to be 5-2-1 in Round 8, but his Round 8 opponent scooped when it was 1-1 and going to time. And then in Round 9, he faced my friend who was 5-2-1 (no byes - earned his 5 wins) after having only actually won TWO rounds...and expected my friend to scoop to him so he'd make Day 2...after my friend won 2-1.

Worst part is, he was asking my friend to lie on the result slip IN FRONT of some judges. Shouldn't there be a floor rule about that? And after my friend wrote down the results on the slip truthfully, Nelson stormed to the judge's stand to argue with the head judge about something.

Anyways...it's my firm belief that making Day 2 is to be earned, not given. Everyone should have to earn their Day 2, not just the non-pros while the "pros" come in with three byes, win a round or two, and then throw around their weight to get non-pro opponents to scoop them into Day 2.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I would have never thought that about Ant. He seemed really upbeat and friendly the couple times I have seen him around. To be fair he was just drafting at a local store, so he probably was not taking it that seriously. I would not be surprised if that type of scenario made him take the jobs that he has taken overseas. Magic is just a game in the end; it is not worth it if you are getting upset over something like that.

I can definitely understand someone who views this as a career, even if only a temporary one, getting more upset, but like with the Nelson situation above it was a wtf because there was literally no reason for me to concede to him. The third game hadn't even started and my deck (Rabid Wombat) had a very favorable matchup against his.



likes this. I just bought the book last week. Really intriguing. Think I might buy Superfreakonomics as well.

Here, I found the relevant portion on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDz-v5Z7do4)

[ns2973]

I'd scoop if i was "beaten" and he was in a circle of people i respect or trust. That list is relatively small, but still.

[Scordata]

This may be slightly off topic, but I think its important to share.
As a competative player, I'm in it for the money. Just like there are instances in the game where
you can jedi-mind-trick your opponent, you can often trick them into scooping you in. I've done this, and its been done to me. As far as I'm concerned, the match isn't over untill you both sign the slip. This is not about being shady, far from it.
I'm bringing it up, as a matter of fact, to help stop this process.

The power of suggestion is mighty indeed. Don't fall prey to lesser players who can "sell" you into scopping to them.

[Forbiddian]

likes this. I just bought the book last week. Really intriguing. Think I might buy Superfreakonomics as well.

Not as good. If you liked Freakonomics a lot, then you'll get through Superfreakonomics happy. I assume people are talking about the sumo wrestlers.


@Topic: I make sure someone has a win and someone has a loss if its amongst friends (and we don't both get an equal shot to t8 or whatever with a draw). Simple rule: if you wouldn't scoop to the other player in the same situation, you have absolutely no decent reason even to ask.

[wcm8]

I can't stand the following:

-People who try to rules-lawyer, particularly if it's at a smaller event (it's different at a GP, but you still don't need to be a prick about it)
-People who can't lose and/or win graciously (e.g. people who storm off, say things like "Must be nice," "nice topdeck", mutter stuff like "luck sac", or people who rub their win in your face.)
-General things like rudeness, poor hygeine, etc.

People who do these things are doing a huge disservice to the game. Not only are you embarrassing yourself, you are turning off potential new players and also making established players less likely to attend future events. For example, I am very unlikely to ever make the trip out to Blue Bell again because I witnessed/experienced all of the above first hand, and I'm sadly beginning to see some of those things play out in my local Legacy scene.

Rule #1 for anyone playing Magic, particularly in an eternal format: Don't be a deuchebag.

[android]

You should read/watch Freakonomics.

I argue from the position of the ideal, not the reality. Yes, I know I'll always lose. The reality is either frightening or very depressing. You don't want to know the truth because it undermines everything you've ever been taught about good and evil.

This reminds me of the law of the streets; you are either predator or prey. Obviously, nobody wants to be prey so everyone is a predator. I suppose there is an unspoken code that keeps the whole thing from degrading into a massive pile of shit, oh wait....

[Forbiddian]

I can't stand the following:

-People who try to rules-lawyer, particularly if it's at a smaller event (it's different at a GP, but you still don't need to be a prick about it)
-People who can't lose and/or win graciously (e.g. people who storm off, say things like "Must be nice," "nice topdeck", mutter stuff like "luck sac", or people who rub their win in your face.)
-General things like rudeness, poor hygeine, etc.

People who do these things are doing a huge disservice to the game. Not only are you embarrassing yourself, you are turning off potential new players and also making established players less likely to attend future events. For example, I am very unlikely to ever make the trip out to Blue Bell again because I witnessed/experienced all of the above first hand, and I'm sadly beginning to see some of those things play out in my local Legacy scene.

Rule #1 for anyone playing Magic, particularly in an eternal format: Don't be a deuchebag.

I'm curious how being a rules lawyer is a problem, or what you interpret rules lawyering as entailing.

Rules are there for a reason. If someone doesn't follow the rules, it's their fault. Like if you draw a card before upkeep, or say, "Ok, resolves" when you actually mean, "Wait" it's not just an innocent mistake, you're getting additional information. On a different note, if you mess up combat math or something, I don't you have the right to a do-over. I think that undermines a lot of the competitive nature of the game.

So I'm curious if you consider these things to be rules lawyering (because they can seem extremely harsh).

[Richard Cheese]

Whether or not I concede a match has nothing to do with my opponent, what game it is, how much time is left, or really anything other than game state. I will scoop if I know I am going to lose on the next turn, and not before that. Pretty simple.

[wcm8]

I'm curious how being a rules lawyer is a problem, or what you interpret rules lawyering as entailing.

Rules are there for a reason. If someone doesn't follow the rules, it's their fault. Like if you draw a card before upkeep, or say, "Ok, resolves" when you actually mean, "Wait" it's not just an innocent mistake, you're getting additional information. On a different note, if you mess up combat math or something, I don't you have the right to a do-over. I think that undermines a lot of the competitive nature of the game.

So I'm curious if you consider these things to be rules lawyering (because they can seem extremely harsh).

I think you are misunderstanding me. Rules are rules, and if you are playing a competitive game of Magic, you are responsible for following them and making sure your opponent does the same. I am NOT referring to things like missed triggers, asking to take plays back, or things of that nature. Oversight and play mistakes are part of what separates good players from bad players, and in fact making those mistakes and having them cost you a game is a way to become a better player. "A master is someone who already made all of the mistakes." I am certainly still learning, and have lost to better players due to dumb mistakes that were obvious in hindsight -- but you know what? If I didn't suffer any consequence for those mistakes, they wouldn't serve as an actual lesson.

I am referring to things like someone at a small local tournament requesting a judge to watch for slow play because their opponent wants to consider a legitimately complicated board state, or aggressively requesting for a time check when their opponent is sideboarding/shuffling to simply fish for a win (yes, you have a limited amount of time to do so, but when it's clear that you are doing it simply to get a technical win, it seems to me a form of deuchebaggery.) I've also seen people call others out on a foil card, when it's obvious that the card is indistinguishable from the rest of the deck when its all double-sleeved. [pro-tip: avoid this deuchebaggery by playing all non-foils, it's not worth arguing with these sort of players or judges]

There are innumerable examples, but I guess what I'm trying to point out as rules-lawyering are things where players are taking the 'letter' of established tournament rules, and distorting the 'spirit' of those rules to suit their own means. I think people should earn their wins via actually playing Magic, not grossly distorting rules to fish for technical wins.

[dahcmai]

I rules lawyered the crap out of someone who tried to rules lawyer me once. Probably wasn't his best idea ever. I think I pretty much got that game because of his bad decision and his own sloppy play. It's funny too since I normally will play quite loosely otherwise and tend to even let people have small "go back steps" if you're nice enough and it's not a game breaker.

I play to enjoy myself, but I most definitely have no problem reaming people who think they can get freebie wins. Always be nice, you never know who you will be playing against. Even if you lose game 1, it's not worth pissing people off who might take you to the cleaners for being an ass.

[Octopusman]

This is certainly not the case everywhere, but I feel the increase in players who act entitled is related to more players who are traditionally Standard players getting involved in Legacy.

It must be different everywhere, but I've always felt that Standard players were more whiny overall. Of course, there are whiners no matter what.

Keep in mind that someone could just be having a bad day. You never know what is going on in someone else's noodle. You can't take anyone seriously if they throw a fit when a game/round is lost/drawn within the rules of the game. Any self-respecting person would apologize later on.
I have thrown a fit when getting a draw against a slow player that I would have killed next turn, but I acknowledge that it is more of an expression of my frustration with certain game/tournament rules than with the stranger across from me.


If someone flips out over something like a match going to time tell them to get a job with Wizards/DCI and change the rules or to cry more.

[Pulp_Fiction]

I totally agree with lorddotm. I will always scoop to my friends if they need the victory and I have no chance or they are in contention for something I am not. I will also scoop if it is a fellow combo player. However, I will usually play against those fuckers running Landstill or Merfolk, hopefully beat them, then drop simply because I despise those decks.

So I scoop to friends and people who play cool decks but ONLY if I am totally out of contention.

IDs are different, I draw with anyone and everyone, I only play when I have too. In my local tournament, when it goes 5 rounds to top 8, u can usually go 3-0 then draw ur way it. The way I view it ... its just stupid 2 play cause luck is always a factor thats never on my side. I also split prizes EVERYTIME, regardless of how good my matchup is for that same reason. Usually its because I want to go drink beer but ... eh, I just think its good to leave with something rather than nothing.

[thefringthing]

Situations where a draw will put both players out of Top 8 contention are the reason I think random match determination (rolling a die or flipping a coin to decide who wins) should not be against the tournament rules.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Situations where a draw will put both players out of Top 8 contention are the reason I think random match determination (rolling a die or flipping a coin to decide who wins) should not be against the tournament rules.

The very good argument against that though is by randomly determining the outcome of the match you are also randomly determining to keep the guy who ends up #9 out of the top 8. Gentleman's agreement is one thing, in normal circumstances you are agreeing that if the game goes to time and a reasonable person could look at board state and declare a winner that person will win. So usually the person who would have won anyways gets the W. Either that or a friend is scooping to another friend which should be legal otherwise anytime a teammate vs. teammate match determined top 8 there would be suspicion of collusion and it's often hard to determine if someone is purposely misplaying in Magic even when watching the game. Several tournaments recently in the nerd spectrum have outlawed prize splitting and "scooping" to friends namely in the fighting game community where such things were allowed for a long time. At the same time a fighting game match takes 12-15 minutes max so many people stay to watch the finals and expect to see a show, not the players agreeing to split and then playing a half assed game for show. Magic is about the players though, not the show. While it's fine to make a show of matches and what not in the end the game is about and should remain about the players. If I play through 10 rounds of Magic I DO NOT WANT to play a single best 2-3 game over $1000 if it can be avoided. So splitting, gentleman's agreements, and scooping should remain IMO and if they are banned it should be pro tour banned only, where the stakes are higher and the standards are tighter and on teammate scooping to another is more likely not only to cause disruption, but also there are more judges available to monitor against such actions.

[Purgatory]

My beliefs on this is simple.

If you want to make Day 2, you need to EARN Day 2.

Like the Brad Nelson thing with my friend at GP: Providence. Nelson came into the GP with three byes. Lost Round 4 and 5 (he was playing Junk against Storm, and then called Storm an almost unbeatable matchup for himself in his most recent "article") to be 3-2 going into Round 6. Won Round 6 and 7. Would've went to time to be 5-2-1 in Round 8, but his Round 8 opponent scooped when it was 1-1 and going to time. And then in Round 9, he faced my friend who was 5-2-1 (no byes - earned his 5 wins) after having only actually won TWO rounds...and expected my friend to scoop to him so he'd make Day 2...after my friend won 2-1.

Worst part is, he was asking my friend to lie on the result slip IN FRONT of some judges. Shouldn't there be a floor rule about that? And after my friend wrote down the results on the slip truthfully, Nelson stormed to the judge's stand to argue with the head judge about something.

Anyways...it's my firm belief that making Day 2 is to be earned, not given. Everyone should have to earn their Day 2, not just the non-pros while the "pros" come in with three byes, win a round or two, and then throw around their weight to get non-pro opponents to scoop them into Day 2.

It's called elitism, and it's awesome if you're within the in-crowd, and less so if you're not.

Personally, I can scoop in friends or team mates if I'm not in contention, and of course I'll draw into the T8 like everybody else, but if someone were trying to coerce me into scooping simply because he has more pro points than I have eternal rating, that will probably make me do the opposite. I took time off from my extremely important life and I paid my tournament fee like everybody else and I'm here to play Magic, not to watch some prick flaunt his "MTG street cred" in my face.

It does make me somewhat of a hypocrite, but I also frown when someone refuses a draw when we're both safe for T8, I remember one time when someone refused a draw simply because he wanted to knock me out, and have a slim chance of seeing someone else in the T8. He was playing GWu Survival (pre-Vengevine, with Iona/Retainers, Squee and general shit) and I was playing Uw Merfolk. Bashing someone's face in with Lords has never been more rewarding.

[oldbsturgeon]

It does make me somewhat of a hypocrite, but I also frown when someone refuses a draw when we're both safe for T8

I would probably be that person too, as I want to play the game and not sit around and do nothing for like 2 hours. Luckily I have never gotten that opportunity.
I usually take it a step further than not scooping and never even quit a game, as the person doesn't actually win unless I'm at 0.
Sure tournaments have timed matches but I think this came from the time when I played where no one ever quit a game, no matter how bad the match was going, somewhere around 95-96 at my high school.
So it's carried over to today and since I don't actually play at all now, the chances I would get to play aren't enough to change me.

[jandax]

It's called elitism, and it's awesome if you're within the in-crowd, and less so if you're not.

Personally, I can scoop in friends or team mates if I'm not in contention, and of course I'll draw into the T8 like everybody else, but if someone were trying to coerce me into scooping simply because he has more pro points than I have eternal rating, that will probably make me do the opposite. I took time off from my extremely important life and I paid my tournament fee like everybody else and I'm here to play Magic, not to watch some prick flaunt his "MTG street cred" in my face.

It does make me somewhat of a hypocrite, but I also frown when someone refuses a draw when we're both safe for T8, I remember one time when someone refused a draw simply because he wanted to knock me out, and have a slim chance of seeing someone else in the T8. He was playing GWu Survival (pre-Vengevine, with Iona/Retainers, Squee and general shit) and I was playing Uw Merfolk. Bashing someone's face in with Lords has never been more rewarding.

I mean, the rules were clear stating that X-2 and better would advance on to Day 2 right? No chance that X-2-1 would make it because of not having 21 or more match points? Beat Brad Nelson fair and square, then sign the slip in his favor. There is Karma in the MTG world...

[Nightmare]

Well, didn't realize this thread involved me until now. I suppose that will happen if I only look at the Altered Cards thread. Oh well.

Here's my take.

Ray and I have played before, a bunch of times. I've been to a number of his events, and done well here and there. We speak at events whenever we're at the same location, and I'd consider him a "friend" in the sense that he and I are well acquainted - say, moreso that a person who I've only met through online contact.

It was our third round of seven, in an event with only 42 players - which means you need to basically go 4:3 to make money. We're both 2-0.

Game one, he resolves a Jace, and I feel capable of stabilizing through it if I can do so within a few turns. He is low on cards despite his Jace, and I play into it as best as I can, with the clock in clear view - if I hit 30 minutes left in the round and haven't gotten out of the spot I'm in, I'll move on to game two. This is what happens, and we start game two with about 28 minutes left. I resolve a turn 2 Stoneforge, and that basically allows me to get ahead far enough to take the game in a matter of 10 or so minutes. Our third game starts with just under 20 left on the clock. We battle back and forth, and we ultimately get to a point where Ray has a Sower and nothing stolen, a Shackles, and four Islands. I have a Stoneforge, a Batterskull, and a Jace at three counters. Turns are called, and I manage within those turns to get to a point where I force him to use the Shackles on my Stoneforge, but I've traded his Sower for my Clique, with Jace still in play. On "turn 6" I can bounce the Stoneforge with Jace, equip a Factory with the now tokenless Batterskull, and attack for lethal. Of course, I can't actually do that, but Ray has no cards in hand, and is totally tapped out by the end of his turn. He's facing an active Jace, is out-landed two to one in a control mirror, and is trying to stay in it with a Shackles and 4 land. I mean, it's possible, but he's facing lethal in another turn or two, and I get to control his draw step during those turns.

I'm sorry, but in that situation, were he in my spot and I in his, I scoop without question. I don't expect anything in return, either. Hell, I scoop in that position against any random guy who I've never met, assuming he wasn't a dick during the match. With a loss, I go to the 2-1 bracket. With a draw, I get paired down into it anyway, but I've now assured that my opponent is also in a single elimination situation. I just don't see a reason to do that.

Could I have scooped game one earlier? Probably. Each of our games lasted 20 minutes or less. Not extreme by any account in a control mirror. I wouldn't have expected the third game to go to time, and if we had maybe five more minutes, we wouldn't have.

In a situation where the game state is unclear, I see the debate. Here, I dunno man, I just don't.

By no means did I attempt to use my "celebrity," if that even exists, to try and "buy a win." I just wondered why he didn't see the situation the same way I did. Reading this thread, I'm apparently in the minority. So be it.

[brattin]

I don't know enough about tournament mechanics to even be able to parse that correctly. I think the whole 5 turns thing is lame, but it's the way it is (I'd rather have like a chess clock, where each player gets 5 minutes, and the game ends when either someone wins, or both players run out of time and 5 turns have elapsed. This way if you play fast, you can get more than enough turns.)

I didn't read the whole thread, but it looked like OP didn't bear you ill will, Nightmare, and I don't think anyone was accusing YOU of using celebrity to your advantage. Could be wrong.

Slightly more on topic, this came up in a tournament I went to Sunday. Two dudes would be out of top 4 if they tied, but if one scooped then the other would be in contention. The one who was obviously losing refused to scoop, and somehow he hassled the other dude into scooping to him (because otherwise his rating would suffer *cough whocares*). He ended up getting into top 4, and then proceeded to force the rest of us to play it out instead of splitting. I wish I'd seen it happening earlier so I could have peer pressured the moral victor into not scooping. I realize this would be cheating, but really the whole thing is, in my opinion. Offering a prize split isn't legal, mid-game, but having a pre-arranged agreement is fine, as is insinuating at a prize split? Very lame.

[Zamussels]

He ended up getting into top 4, and then proceeded to force the rest of us to play it out instead of splitting. I wish I'd seen it happening earlier so I could have peer pressured the moral victor into not scooping. I realize this would be cheating, but really the whole thing is, in my opinion. Offering a prize split isn't legal, mid-game, but having a pre-arranged agreement is fine, as is insinuating at a prize split? Very lame.

I understand in this situation the guy was probably an ass overall, but I really don't understand how not wanting to split top4s or top8s makes you a bad person or something. I get to play legacy maybe once a month if I'm lucky, and when the tournament is 4 rounds and I go 3-1 to make top4, sorry but I want to play more games. I don't really care if I get 20$ or 80$ of credit and people will always try to make you split. I get it that most kids play magic everyday and they'd rather go draft or drink beer or whatever, but when you join a tournament with a fixed prize split you should be prepared to play it as is and not try to force people into changing the structure.

The whole 'try to draw as much as possible into top8, then split' just really sucks and makes me not want to go to tournaments. Same thing when I go 2-2 and don't drop to get a few rounds of practice, get paired up, then my opponent doesn't want to play cause I'm not in contention and I should scoop him up. Maybe consider than the reason I didn't drop is that I want to 1) play some magic and 2) get my rating back up and that scooping to someone I don't know doesn't accomplish either. Except people do antagonize you if you don't scoop =/

[Solaran_X]

I mean, the rules were clear stating that X-2 and better would advance on to Day 2 right? No chance that X-2-1 would make it because of not having 21 or more match points? Beat Brad Nelson fair and square, then sign the slip in his favor. There is Karma in the MTG world...
First off, at the beginning of Day 1 of GP: Providence, an announcement was made saying that X-2-1s had a chance at Day 2. Going into Round 9, there was no announcement made saying X-2-1s no longer had a chance, and so to the best of anyone's knowledge at the time my friend still had a chance at Day 2 after beating Brad Nelson.

And why should my friend lie about what happened? Brad Nelson didn't earn Day 2, and thus he didn't deserve to be in Day 2. His legitimate record, excluding byes, was 2-3-1. That isn't Day 2 material (that's the exact record I had after dropping following Round 6).

You're right...there is karma in the world. And Brad Nelson got a taste of it at Providence.

[MattH]

All I will say is, if you ask for a concession, you better be prepared to compensate the opponent something from your prize support. HOWEVER: be aware that you can't make mention of this at the time (that is Cheating - Bribery and an automatic disqualification). Just find the guy after the tournament and giev him something.

[Michael Keller]

I understand in this situation the guy was probably an ass overall, but I really don't understand how not wanting to split top4s or top8s makes you a bad person or something. I get to play legacy maybe once a month if I'm lucky, and when the tournament is 4 rounds and I go 3-1 to make top4, sorry but I want to play more games. I don't really care if I get 20$ or 80$ of credit and people will always try to make you split. I get it that most kids play magic everyday and they'd rather go draft or drink beer or whatever, but when you join a tournament with a fixed prize split you should be prepared to play it as is and not try to force people into changing the structure.

The whole 'try to draw as much as possible into top8, then split' just really sucks and makes me not want to go to tournaments. Same thing when I go 2-2 and don't drop to get a few rounds of practice, get paired up, then my opponent doesn't want to play cause I'm not in contention and I should scoop him up. Maybe consider than the reason I didn't drop is that I want to 1) play some magic and 2) get my rating back up and that scooping to someone I don't know doesn't accomplish either. Except people do antagonize you if you don't scoop =/

The problem people have with assimilating drawing is that is really bears a negative connotation along with it. Fact is, drawing is a part of the game and is a strategy within itself that cannot be overlooked. If a draw places you into the Top Eight (or gives you a legitimate shot at it) and your opponent (for whatever reason) refuses to concede, then it is their right to force a game to be played out. It might not sound appealing, but it's the nature of the beast. Competitive magic is at an all-time high, and it is sure to bring the worst out of people. It's an unfortunate reality of the game that has only gotten worse over time with the influx of newer, more brash players.

Drawing and conceding is such a gray area because so many people have so many varying opinions on it. I know for one I would never concede to an opponent unless they were kind-hearted and I knew they had a better chance than I did to make it.

[Tammit67]

I'm sorry, but in that situation, were he in my spot and I in his, I scoop without question. I don't expect anything in return, either. Hell, I scoop in that position against any random guy who I've never met, assuming he wasn't a dick during the match. With a loss, I go to the 2-1 bracket. With a draw, I get paired down into it anyway, but I've now assured that my opponent is also in a single elimination situation. I just don't see a reason to do that.

Could I have scooped game one earlier? Probably. Each of our games lasted 20 minutes or less. Not extreme by any account in a control mirror. I wouldn't have expected the third game to go to time, and if we had maybe five more minutes, we wouldn't have.

In a situation where the game state is unclear, I see the debate. Here, I dunno man, I just don't.

By no means did I attempt to use my "celebrity," if that even exists, to try and "buy a win." I just wondered why he didn't see the situation the same way I did. Reading this thread, I'm apparently in the minority. So be it.

I feel the exact same way you do, Nightmare. So long as my opponent was not a douchebag, and I don't realistically have an out to a blatant loss on board, I don't care that I could use the additional point. I got outplayed and the record should reflect that. Now if you are going to be an asshole about it, and I could use the point, then go fuck yourself.

Always be courteous. Assholes just make everyone else act like assholes. The clock is there to determine how much time it should take for a match to be decided. If it is decided, someone should scoop.

[Forbiddian]

In a situation where the game state is unclear, I see the debate. Here, I dunno man, I just don't.

I think part of the game is that you have to earn the win.

I'm not a professional, so I'm not a huge fucking douchebag, and I won't STALL you out of your win, but if you're in five turns and can't get there, it's a draw. To me, scooping that situation is similar to an opponent revealing the top card of his library after losing game 3 and saying, "I would have won if I'd draw this!" I would never go: "Oh yeah, good point. Guess you win." You didn't draw the card, you lose. You didn't win in time, you draw.

More than seeing the player who had the winning position as having "won" the game, I see the player on defense as having earned a draw.

Probably this comes from playing Chess where sometimes you just fuck up and get into a trash position, but then heroically force a draw. That's part of chess, and I can't imagine a single chess player thinking you should resign there. Your opponent let you get the mating net off despite being up material, you're a hero.


That said, in a game between friends, it's a shame that you collectively only get 2 points and not 3, so I generally make an agreement with my friends to scoop to whoever has the advantage barring better victory math, but if I don't know the guy very well, fuck him, give me the 1 point.

[ns2973]

I actually had nightmare scoop to me in a tourny in the cuse back in the day in pretty much the same scenario. Hollywood also scooped me into a top 8 once as well.

If i was playing them again, and it was reversed? I'd pick up my cards.

[Tammit67]

I think part of the game is that you have to earn the win.


Probably this comes from playing Chess where sometimes you just fuck up and get into a trash position, but then heroically force a draw. That's part of chess, and I can't imagine a single chess player thinking you should resign there. Your opponent let you get the mating net off despite being up material, you're a hero.



That's a completely different game though. If you get outplayed after being up in material, then a draw is necessary. The clock is not a factor here, only player skill.

The clock only exists in magic as a necessary evil. If I'm playing a match inbetween rounds against a complete stranger where I am dead on the board, but the next pairings are posted, I'm not going to be like "Oh, I guess you didn't win". Fuck that. You guys are all too focused on winning that you forget humanity. I don't see why it should make a difference whether or not you know the guy, so long as he isn't an asshat.

[Forbiddian]

That's a completely different game though. If you get outplayed after being up in material, then a draw is necessary. The clock is not a factor here, only player skill.

The clock only exists in magic as a necessary evil. If I'm playing a match inbetween rounds against a complete stranger where I am dead on the board, but the next pairings are posted, I'm not going to be like "Oh, I guess you didn't win". Fuck that. You guys are all too focused on winning that you forget humanity. I don't see why it should make a difference whether or not you know the guy, so long as he isn't an asshat.


It's not an issue of simply being competitive more than it is a difference in how we view the game.

If I showed up and said, "Hey, man, scoop to me for no reason." Would you say, "Of course I will because, unlike everyone else, I am not too focused on winning and I can recall my humanity!"


If someone hasn't won by turn 5, I don't see them as having a winning board position (or not). I see them as having failed to win and having earned a draw.

If I want to scoop to them because that would let them into top 8 and they were a nice opponent (and they wouldn't scoop me in obviously) or because I'm friends with them, that's my prerogative, but to me it's not an issue of competitiveness at all.

In a completely casual, unrated tournament, with no prizes I wouldn't scoop in that situation, and frankly I barely understand the people who would (and I don't at all understand the people who feel entitled to a win in that situation).

My thoughts are basically in that analogy of the guy showing you his topdeck and saying, "I would have won, so you should scoop to me because I earned the win!" Yeah, you WOULD HAVE won, but you DID NOT win.

[HAVE HEART]

That's a completely different game though. If you get outplayed after being up in material, then a draw is necessary. The clock is not a factor here, only player skill.

The clock only exists in magic as a necessary evil. If I'm playing a match inbetween rounds against a complete stranger where I am dead on the board, but the next pairings are posted, I'm not going to be like "Oh, I guess you didn't win". Fuck that. You guys are all too focused on winning that you forget humanity. I don't see why it should make a difference whether or not you know the guy, so long as he isn't an asshat.

I now want to do that to someone.

[jandax]

First off, at the beginning of Day 1 of GP: Providence, an announcement was made saying that X-2-1s had a chance at Day 2. Going into Round 9, there was no announcement made saying X-2-1s no longer had a chance, and so to the best of anyone's knowledge at the time my friend still had a chance at Day 2 after beating Brad Nelson.

And why should my friend lie about what happened? Brad Nelson didn't earn Day 2, and thus he didn't deserve to be in Day 2. His legitimate record, excluding byes, was 2-3-1. That isn't Day 2 material (that's the exact record I had after dropping following Round 6).

You're right...there is karma in the world. And Brad Nelson got a taste of it at Providence.

Ahh, see I didn't know X-2-1 could be good for the cut, makes sense

[jandax]

First off, at the beginning of Day 1 of GP: Providence, an announcement was made saying that X-2-1s had a chance at Day 2. Going into Round 9, there was no announcement made saying X-2-1s no longer had a chance, and so to the best of anyone's knowledge at the time my friend still had a chance at Day 2 after beating Brad Nelson.

And why should my friend lie about what happened? Brad Nelson didn't earn Day 2, and thus he didn't deserve to be in Day 2. His legitimate record, excluding byes, was 2-3-1. That isn't Day 2 material (that's the exact record I had after dropping following Round 6).

You're right...there is karma in the world. And Brad Nelson got a taste of it at Providence.

Ahh, see I didn't know X-2-1 could be good for the cut, makes sense

[Explosion]

Ahh, see I didn't know X-2-1 could be good for the cut, makes sense

It couldn't. The judges made the standard spiel about "top 64 from each side, or X-2, whichever is more players." As it turned out, X-2 was the cutoff, and that was known from Round 1. The math dictates that X-2-1 won't get there simply by the number of attendees, but judges shy from making comments about records or breakers that could bite them in the behind if the 0.1% chance weirdness happens.

Did Brad Nelson deserve the free scoop? Not necessarily. Scooping him in helps him, but hurts anyone who'd have to play against Brad Nelson. However, the opponent at X-2-1 was either monumentally stupid, or just really stubborn.

[Solaran_X]

It couldn't. The judges made the standard spiel about "top 64 from each side, or X-2, whichever is more players." As it turned out, X-2 was the cutoff, and that was known from Round 1. The math dictates that X-2-1 won't get there simply by the number of attendees, but judges shy from making comments about records or breakers that could bite them in the behind if the 0.1% chance weirdness happens.

Did Brad Nelson deserve the free scoop? Not necessarily. Scooping him in helps him, but hurts anyone who'd have to play against Brad Nelson. However, the opponent at X-2-1 was either monumentally stupid, or just really stubborn.
Or he was just playing the game how it is intended. To play to the best of one's ability and to be truthful about outcomes.

[Tsnowflake]

I can't believe some people have such an overblown sense of entitlement. If you didn't explicitly win, and time runs out, then you don't deserve anything but the draw. This is pretty black and white imo.

Maybe they should implement some rule where someone with a very favorable board or game state can take the win, but until they do... sorry :(

[jandax]

It couldn't. The judges made the standard spiel about "top 64 from each side, or X-2, whichever is more players." As it turned out, X-2 was the cutoff, and that was known from Round 1. The math dictates that X-2-1 won't get there simply by the number of attendees, but judges shy from making comments about records or breakers that could bite them in the behind if the 0.1% chance weirdness happens.

Did Brad Nelson deserve the free scoop? Not necessarily. Scooping him in helps him, but hurts anyone who'd have to play against Brad Nelson. However, the opponent at X-2-1 was either monumentally stupid, or just really stubborn.

Fair enough. If I was X-2-1 going into the "bubble" round, I'd be sure my opponent would be going to the next day if they were paired up to me. I reason with Brad, knowing the math behind it, and that he pays rent with Magic so a day 2 means more, etc. It just makes more sense to ask a judge going into the round to make sure if the cut is enough. I once knocked a friend out of a Nat's Q because I was X-1-1 and thought I could make Top 8 still (ninth on breakers, obv) I should have just scooped him in, given retrospect.

However, if some guy, pro or not, sat down across from me in a bubble match and demanded a scoop, giving any air of entitlement, I'd let him know about his poor play and force him to earn it. Moral victories to be had by signing the slip for him after winning, or just knock a dick out of the tournament.

[Solaran_X]

Fair enough. If I was X-2-1 going into the "bubble" round, I'd be sure my opponent would be going to the next day if they were paired up to me. I reason with Brad, knowing the math behind it, and that he pays rent with Magic so a day 2 means more, etc. It just makes more sense to ask a judge going into the round to make sure if the cut is enough. I once knocked a friend out of a Nat's Q because I was X-1-1 and thought I could make Top 8 still (ninth on breakers, obv) I should have just scooped him in, given retrospect.

However, if some guy, pro or not, sat down across from me in a bubble match and demanded a scoop, giving any air of entitlement, I'd let him know about his poor play and force him to earn it. Moral victories to be had by signing the slip for him after winning, or just knock a dick out of the tournament.
Brad Nelson's opening line to my friend went along the lines of "If I win, I make Day 2. If you win, neither of us make Day 2. Do you want to scoop?" (and I don't care what Explosion says...unless the judges say going into Round 9 that an X-2-1 has no chance at Day 2, no one could have known until after Round 9...for all we know, several 6-2 matches could've went to time in Round 9 and then a big bracket of 6-2-1s is suddenly in contention for Day 2).

But I digress.

This is a game. It has rules and consequences for losing or drawing.

If you can't beat me in best of 3 matches in 50 minutes and we go to time, I won't scoop to you and I won't expect you to scoop to me. We went to time. We drew. We deserve the X-X-1 or whatever we are after that.

And if you can't beat me, don't try to pressure me into giving you the win anyways by saying you'll make Day 2 with a win and I won't make Day 2 with a win. You didn't beat me, you don't deserve Day 2. It's that simple.

If you want Day 2, earn Day 2...by winninh. It's bad enough that these "pros" come in with 3 byes typically and only have to win 4 of 6 rounds (67% win rate) to make Day 2 and the rest of us have to win 7 of 9 (78% win rate) without them pressuring the non-pros to scoop to them so they make Day 2.

You don't see behavior like this in sports. You don't see Team A telling Team B "If we win this series, we're in the play offs. If you win this series, neither of us are in the play offs. Do you want to concede?" in real life, so why should we be so accepting of it in our game?

[evanmartyr]

A while ago I scooped a guy into the top 8 of an LGS, since hitting top 8 in our tournaments means you at least make back your entry fee. When we were playing, he seemed courteous and a good sport, but in hindsight, scooping it in (after I'd represented a winning position in game 2, after winning game 1) knocks someone else out of the top 8 who either had harder matchups and did as well, or did better than he did previous to his *win* against me.

My point is, if someone's in the position where to make day 2, or top 8, or whatever, they need one more win, then just giving it to them through a concession will almost necessarily take it away from someone else. I dunno if this is the case when it's like "All x-2s make day 2", it wouldn't seem so, but the rest of the time it does.

Here's my (recently amended) take:

If you are not going to see direct monetary or product gain from a loss, but your opponent definitely will from a win, AND it's easy for them to demonstrate that they would have won, it would be courteous to concede at some point in the five turns.

If they ask for a concession because without a win they will be out of the money, and even with a concession you will be, I would only concede to them if I were friends with them or they had been super excellent awesome dude the whole match. There's harm in this, in that they get in when someone else doesn't, but people should be rewarded for sportsmanship and humor (at least in my mind) and this is pretty much the only time it's going to happen.

If your opponent was a bit dickish at all, fuck them. If you're trying to engender good will for the future concession to you on their part by shipping them to day 2 or something, that's fine, and you should make that decision regardless of how they behaved. I wouldn't expect that this situation would arise very often, though.

If it's one of those situations where no one is served to some great extent by a win, and you both lose equally from a draw, then either establish the "on turn 6, I'd attack you with my Emrakul for the second time from 500 life and win so you should concede" understanding first, or insist upon the draw. If someone is enough of a dick, or just an idiot, to refuse to agree to this ahead of time KNOWING FULL WELL the situation they're in, then they deserve to go down with you, or concede to you. If someone's like " I'm 3-2 from three byes, wanna concede to me?" After not agreeing to it ahead of time, then they can diaf.

That may have been a bit rambling, but really, concessions are currently part of the game, and if you choose to concede to an opponent you should have a good reason for doing so. I'm not passing judgement on those reasons though, but looking back on my most recent concession, I would not have repeated it. Just because the guy was going to lose to me doesn't mean I owe him anything, at least not any more than the guy who got knocked out of the top 8 due to my concession.

And my rating went down a bit, and shit, rating's all that matters in this game anyway.

[Tammit67]

It's not an issue of simply being competitive more than it is a difference in how we view the game.

If I showed up and said, "Hey, man, scoop to me for no reason." Would you say, "Of course I will because, unlike everyone else, I am not too focused on winning and I can recall my humanity!"


If someone hasn't won by turn 5, I don't see them as having a winning board position (or not). I see them as having failed to win and having earned a draw.

If I want to scoop to them because that would let them into top 8 and they were a nice opponent (and they wouldn't scoop me in obviously) or because I'm friends with them, that's my prerogative, but to me it's not an issue of competitiveness at all.


I would agree being asked to scoop for no reason is bullshit, and wouldn't do it except for maybe a friend. I just disagree in a situation that Nightmare depicted where someone has the win on board. Maybe I'm not competitive enough, who knows...

[Zamussels]

Brad Nelson's opening line to my friend went along the lines of "If I win, I make Day 2. If you win, neither of us make Day 2. Do you want to scoop?"

You mean his opening line instead of 'Hi I'm Brad, gl hf?' Or after the game?

[Explosion]

Or he was just playing the game how it is intended. To play to the best of one's ability and to be truthful about outcomes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat agnostic about the notion of a "deserved scoop." I meant only that someone's stupid or stubborn if they believe they have a chance at Day 2.

I also think Day 2 and Top 8 are 2 different situations, and I'd be a lot more willing to scoop someone into Day 2 than Top 8. A scoop into Top 8 knocks out someone else. A scoop into Day 2 just broadens the pool.

[TheDarkshineKnight]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here.

Under no circumstances aside from absolute necessity should a player scoop in a competitive environment. This is regardless of the player's current standing and/or whether said player is a friend. You are playing in a competition. If you have scooped to an opponent then you have violated the very spirit of the competition: letting a competitor who has not proved himself to be worthy of advancement to proceed further in said competition. If a player's advancement requires him or her to win a match, then he must do so if the integrity of the competition is to be intact. To do anything except play the match out is unethical and harmful to the very nature of competition.

[Klazam]

In the recent SCG standard open in Baltimore, Edgar Flores sat across from me with a pimped out caw blade deck, in the fourth round. We both were 3-1 (Me, played all matches, hm 3 byes and 1 loss). I was playing a homebrew deck (that took me to a 7-3 record and 36th place). We play three really close games, ending up 2-1 in my favor. No mana screw or bad beats was involved on either of our parts, whatsover. I feel elated at beating a pro for the first time, with a homebrew. I grab the match slip, and Edgar then asks me if i'm willing to concede. WAIT WHAT? I tell him no. He asks me my rating. I tell him. He sighs. I tell him that i came to play, and he replies "I came for the rating, so I can qualify for the Pro Tour".

I'm sorry, but this makes me lose respect for him. If he wanted to get his rating higher, he should have beat me in the first place. What was he trying to do, asking me to concede after i won fairly? I think the fact that he had 3 byes made it worse...

[Nightmare]

In the recent SCG standard open in Baltimore, Edgar Flores sat across from me with a pimped out caw blade deck, in the fourth round. We both were 3-1 (Me, played all matches, hm 3 byes and 1 loss). I was playing a homebrew deck (that took me to a 7-3 record and 36th place). We play three really close games, ending up 2-1 in my favor. No mana screw or bad beats was involved on either of our parts, whatsover. I feel elated at beating a pro for the first time, with a homebrew. I grab the match slip, and Edgar then asks me if i'm willing to concede. WAIT WHAT? I tell him no. He asks me my rating. I tell him. He sighs. I tell him that i came to play, and he replies "I came for the rating, so I can qualify for the Pro Tour".

I'm sorry, but this makes me lose respect for him. If he wanted to get his rating higher, he should have beat me in the first place. What was he trying to do, asking me to concede after i won fairly? I think the fact that he had 3 byes made it worse...

No one gets byes at SCG Opens anymore.

[MDB]

I understand conceding when you're losing, either to start quickly with match 2/3 or when you would've clearly lost, if not for time, which is quite honorable actually.

However, in what universe does 'friendship' or 'pre-match standings' have anything to do with deserving to win a match? What about the guy that didn't get into the top 8 because you conceded, when it WAS a draw? If you concede, you might be helping the guy accross the table, but you're also screwing someone else over, that's an inevitable consequence of competitive play. Which is why scooping for other reasons than being in a losing (board) position has no place in competitive play, period.

I'm disgusted by the practice for ethical / fairness reasons, and still surprised it's not a reason for disqualification. The blatantness of the practice is outright appalling.

There is nothing honorable in helping a friend by screwing a stranger. You wanna help your friend, that's fine by me. But at least shuffle up them cards, play like a tool, and feel guilty about it.

[RogueMTG]

...
There is nothing honorable in helping a friend by screwing a stranger. You wanna help your friend, that's fine by me. But at least shuffle up them cards, play like a tool, and feel guilty about it.

What is the point of this? You would have someone intentionality throw a game rather than just concede and be done with it? How is that any better? It's the same result but a waste of time. :confused:

[Richard Cheese]

In the recent SCG standard open in Baltimore, Edgar Flores sat across from me with a pimped out caw blade deck, in the fourth round. We both were 3-1 (Me, played all matches, hm 3 byes and 1 loss). I was playing a homebrew deck (that took me to a 7-3 record and 36th place). We play three really close games, ending up 2-1 in my favor. No mana screw or bad beats was involved on either of our parts, whatsover. I feel elated at beating a pro for the first time, with a homebrew. I grab the match slip, and Edgar then asks me if i'm willing to concede. WAIT WHAT? I tell him no. He asks me my rating. I tell him. He sighs. I tell him that i came to play, and he replies "I came for the rating, so I can qualify for the Pro Tour".

I'm sorry, but this makes me lose respect for him. If he wanted to get his rating higher, he should have beat me in the first place. What was he trying to do, asking me to concede after i won fairly? I think the fact that he had 3 byes made it worse...

Byes issue aside, that is just completely fucking ridiculous. Props to you for winning and not backing down.

[Jim Higginbottom]

By no means did I attempt to use my "celebrity," if that even exists, to try and "buy a win." I just wondered why he didn't see the situation the same way I did. Reading this thread, I'm apparently in the minority. So be it.

You may be in the minority of the community as a whole but most better players see the situation the same way you do.

[Zamussels]

I'm sorry, but this makes me lose respect for him. If he wanted to get his rating higher, he should have beat me in the first place. What was he trying to do, asking me to concede after i won fairly? I think the fact that he had 3 byes made it worse...

If Edgar Flores is trying to qualify for the PT with rating from SCG opens... sorry but he's doing it wrong. And that guy seems to be getting quite a negative reputation lately, no one I speak to ever has something good to say about him.

[GGoober]

In the recent SCG standard open in Baltimore, Edgar Flores sat across from me with a pimped out caw blade deck, in the fourth round. We both were 3-1 (Me, played all matches, hm 3 byes and 1 loss). I was playing a homebrew deck (that took me to a 7-3 record and 36th place). We play three really close games, ending up 2-1 in my favor. No mana screw or bad beats was involved on either of our parts, whatsover. I feel elated at beating a pro for the first time, with a homebrew. I grab the match slip, and Edgar then asks me if i'm willing to concede. WAIT WHAT? I tell him no. He asks me my rating. I tell him. He sighs. I tell him that i came to play, and he replies "I came for the rating, so I can qualify for the Pro Tour".

I'm sorry, but this makes me lose respect for him. If he wanted to get his rating higher, he should have beat me in the first place. What was he trying to do, asking me to concede after i won fairly? I think the fact that he had 3 byes made it worse...


GJ, and keep up the good work with your decks. Play the game, love the game. I understand the importance of ratings and byes, but to ask for concession after results of a game is almost very much like 'bribery'. There's no bribery, but the essence is that he wanted the outcome of the result to be the outcome after the game has been determined.

I don't follow Edgar Flores or much of the pros, but this story, whether true or false, is most definitely giving me a very negative impression on this guy. And FFS, he's playing Cawblade, unargubly the best deck in the format.

Also the line "I came here to play MTG" is always going to fucking beat "I came here for ratings". You cannot argue and support someone who plays for rating v.s. someone who is playing the game because they enjoy it and have fun. The fact that he even followed up with "I came here for ratings" makes him look even bad considering that you already said something that cannot be trumped ("I came here to play MTG").

[Rico Suave]

Play the game as dictated by the official rules, or don't play at all. Players should not and cannot adjust the rules of the game or the system in which the game is played to suit their own expectations without degrading the game itself.

[Arsenal]

No one gets byes at SCG Opens anymore.

Where are you getting this incorrect information from?

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Where are you getting this incorrect information from?

I was at the SCG open in Indy where they announced this change. No one gets buys at opens.

http://static.starcitygames.com/www/images/banners/media/Open_Series/main/players-club.jpg

[Arsenal]

I apologize. I forgot that the bye change was instituted with SCG Denver. For some reason, I thought that the bye change was going to take effect later in the season.