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
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.
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.
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.
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.
For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
And found I was for endurance made
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?".Originally Posted by hyc8028
"My sky is darker than thine!"
SENTENCED - 1993
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.
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.
Who says the Internet isn't full of <3?
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.
Mythic Rogue Deck Builder
Team Freshly Baked Crayons
Team Albany
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.
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.
Last edited by Bardo; 06-19-2011 at 01:43 PM.
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?
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.
"In general admittedly the Wise of all times have always said the same thing, and the fools, that is to say the vast majority of all times, have always done the same thing, i.e. the opposite; and so it will remain in the future."
Schopenhauer
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.
4th: 293/363
5th: 82/434
Vi: 159/167
Wl: 100/167
Te: 318/335
St: 132/143
Ex: 136/143
US: 235/335
3/8 Sealed boosters
1/8 Sealed boosterboxes
Only 632 cards left for a full Korean set, over 69% done (last update 05/27)
Always looking for sealed product!
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.
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."
big links in sigs are obnoxious -PR
Don't disrespect my dojo dude...
Sweep the leg!
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.
Last edited by troopatroop; 06-21-2011 at 04:22 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote