During Swiss rounds, players may intentionally draw a game so long as a leader is present for any discussion between players prior to the agreement. The leader’s presence is required to prevent any breach of the tournament’s integrity. The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3.

What is tournament integrity?

Do players also have any responsibility regarding tournament integrity?

What are some things that would damage a tournament's integrity? And what should a tournament organizer's response to them be?

I think the goal here is to prevent players from intentionally drawing to help their friends advance or "fix" the tournament. I've interpreted it to mean any discussion of tournament points or MOV during the discussion to intentionally draw is a breach of the integrity of it.

It's solely to prevent bribery or a misstatement of facts in order to illicit acceptance of the offer, in my opinion. Giving players the ability to ID means you are allowing them some limited ability to "fix" the tournament.

It's simply recognizing that players will be aware that a draw will let them both into the cut, while either suffering a loss leaves them on the bubble, thus it is not in either players interest to do anything but fly around and not shoot at each other. This just makes it so they don't even need to fake the game they weren't going to play anyway.

Giving players the ability to ID means you are allowing them some limited ability to "fix" the tournament.

That word "fix" is a problem for me in this sense. It's synonymous with "manipulate". Another word that comes to mind is "rig".

You can call it something else, but it still seems like it's the sort of thing that FFG has "expressly forbidden" when it comes to intentional draws.

I don't care what you want to call it, but there is no reason for FFG to give players the ability to Intentional Draw with each other if they are not intending for them to do so in a situation where an draw would be in both players interest, while playing the game out wouldn't be. They are explicitly allowing a limited ability to manipulate the standings by offering one option for players to contrive a match result. There is no other purpose to this rule if that isn't what it is intended to do.

They are litterally adopting MTG standards on the subject.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

One of the hardest things for this draw is the leader must be present before the draw idea is agreed on. You can't agree to draw and then go find the leader (TO) but he/she has to be present prior to the agreement.

I don't care what you want to call it, but there is no reason for FFG to give players the ability to Intentional Draw with each other if they are not intending for them to do so in a situation where an draw would be in both players interest, while playing the game out wouldn't be. They are explicitly allowing a limited ability to manipulate the standings by offering one option for players to contrive a match result. There is no other purpose to this rule if that isn't what it is intended to do.

They are litterally adopting MTG standards on the subject.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Or as people might remember, the reason we stopped using SOS.

at worst, it's collusion. At best, it's cowardly.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right?

When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present.

How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right?

When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present.

How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

But I will ask you again, what purpose does this rule have if not to allow players to decide to take a draw if both players agree to it being within thier interests? Because, irregardless of the reasoning for doing so, anytime players decide what the match outcome is without playing it they are manipulating the standings to some effect.

As I said earlier, this is just FFG adopting a fairly standard practice on the subject and not forcing players to act against thier own interests.

Ask FFG if you need further clarification from them, but I am confident enough to bet money that they will come back to you saying yes players can ID themselves into a top cut, that's the purpose of the rule.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right?

When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present.

How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

I've explained in two seperate posts the exact circumstances in which two players would decide to take a draw rather then playing thier game, I'm not going to do it a third time.

But I will ask you again, what purpose does this rule have if not to allow players to decide to take a draw if both players agree to it being within thier interests? Because, irregardless of the reasoning for doing so, anytime players decide what the match outcome is without playing it they are manipulating the standings to some effect.

As I said earlier, this is just FFG adopting a fairly standard practice on the subject and not forcing players to act against thier own interests.

Ask FFG if you need further clarification from them, but I am confident enough to bet money that they will come back to you saying yes players can ID themselves into a top cut, that's the purpose of the rule.

And in my eyes, as a TO, that affects the integrity of the tournament and would not be allowed.

I wish they'd not beat around the bush regarding what kinds of behaviors they are now trying to allow, and what behaviors they still want to prohibit.

Vague statements like "breach of the tournament’s integrity" are going to mean wildly different things to different people.

Are the last two undefeated players in swiss taking a draw in violation? I have opinions about if that should be okay or not, but my opinion (and yours, dear reader) are far less important than there being a consistent set of guidelines that we can all refer to (and agree on the meaning of), even if we don't agree that those rules are the best rules possible.

Nevermind interpreting FFG's intent. Read the rules.

The rule is that players can't discuss an intentional draw before the TO is called over. So intentionally drawing cannot be the reason for your discussion. It can be the outcome.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right?

When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present.

How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

I've explained in two seperate posts the exact circumstances in which two players would decide to take a draw rather then playing thier game, I'm not going to do it a third time.

But I will ask you again, what purpose does this rule have if not to allow players to decide to take a draw if both players agree to it being within thier interests? Because, irregardless of the reasoning for doing so, anytime players decide what the match outcome is without playing it they are manipulating the standings to some effect.

As I said earlier, this is just FFG adopting a fairly standard practice on the subject and not forcing players to act against thier own interests.

Ask FFG if you need further clarification from them, but I am confident enough to bet money that they will come back to you saying yes players can ID themselves into a top cut, that's the purpose of the rule.

And in my eyes, as a TO, that affects the integrity of the tournament and would not be allowed.

Under that criteria no Intentional Draws would ever be permitted as they all would constitute a contrived, agreed upon, manipulation of the standings.

You could have two players that win, lose, or draw will make the cut. But those players agreeing to a draw would still manipulate the standings and thus the match-ups within the cut. So by your criteria you would not allow them take a draw. Even players in last place could affect the SOS and change who makes a cut.

What's the purpose of the rule if viewed through a criteria in which it won't ever be utilized?

I think permissible intentional draws would be situations like where one player has to deal with something outside of the game, but may be able to return later. Their opponent may be very sporting and offer them a draw rather an a concession, since it won't necessarily knock either of them out of the running. Because sportsmanship.

The details matter. This sort of thing won't be suspicious if it happens to some middle-of-the-pack players in the second round. It will be very suspicious if it happens at a top table in the final round of Swiss. That's why it's important to have good tournament organizers, and why it's important for us to have these discussions publicly so players are not surprised when they confront a standard of sportsmanship that they aren't used to in other competitive scenes.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right?

When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present.

How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

I've explained in two seperate posts the exact circumstances in which two players would decide to take a draw rather then playing thier game, I'm not going to do it a third time.

But I will ask you again, what purpose does this rule have if not to allow players to decide to take a draw if both players agree to it being within thier interests? Because, irregardless of the reasoning for doing so, anytime players decide what the match outcome is without playing it they are manipulating the standings to some effect.

As I said earlier, this is just FFG adopting a fairly standard practice on the subject and not forcing players to act against thier own interests.

Ask FFG if you need further clarification from them, but I am confident enough to bet money that they will come back to you saying yes players can ID themselves into a top cut, that's the purpose of the rule.

And in my eyes, as a TO, that affects the integrity of the tournament and would not be allowed.

Under that criteria no Intentional Draws would ever be permitted as they all would constitute a contrived, agreed upon, manipulation of the standings.

You could have two players that win, lose, or draw will make the cut. But those players agreeing to a draw would still manipulate the standings and thus the match-ups within the cut. So by your criteria you would not allow them take a draw. Even players in last place could affect the SOS and change who makes a cut.

What's the purpose of the rule if viewed through a criteria in which it won't ever be utilized?

It puts the burden of that decision on the TO as opposed to actually making a decision they know will anger different groups of players. It's called "delegating".

During Swiss rounds, players may intentionally draw a game so long as a leader is present for any discussion between players prior to the agreement. The leader’s presence is required to prevent any breach of the tournament’s integrity. The leader will not intervene as long as players follow the “Unsporting Conduct” on page 3.

What is tournament integrity?

Do players also have any responsibility regarding tournament integrity?

What are some things that would damage a tournament's integrity? And what should a tournament organizer's response to them be?

Manipulation tournament standings for example would damage tournaments integrity. Be it with win trading, arranging for draws to benefit both, etc … speaking of draws I do like that they now allow let the players call the TO to call a game a draw while still having this clause in the rules to prevent rigging the tournament that way. There are situations which call for a draw. it would be silly to now allow draws in them, but that is still different..

I get a kick out of those who believe that an Intentional Draw is some kind of game/tournament DESTROYING event. If two players want to draw there isn't a thing someone can do to FORCE them to take risks unless you're just going to throw them out. If the official policy becomes throwing out someone who doesn't want to take unnecessary risks then maybe it needs to apply to every instance in the game. You're ahead as time is expiring and decide it's better to protect your lead then to go for that last kill? DISQUALIFIED!

If you want to make an ID more dangerous to take just make sure that someone's tournament standing isn't exactly clear all the time. Two undefeated players meeting in the last swiss round with nothing but full wins should be in a good position to take an ID especially if the cut is likely to include a good number of X-1 players. Now as you move away from all full wins you may still have a good chance at making the cut who knows for sure; a 4-1 player could have more points than one who is 4-0-1 if the 4-1 is all full wins and the 4-0-1 player has even one modified win.

Now me the things that would be hardest on tournament integrity would also be those things that could be very hard to see at a tournament because they could be put into motion long before things get started. If a group of friends decide they want to manipulate tournament results in may be hard to spot them even if you completely forbid things like concessions of IDs. Instead of an obvious concession you could just see terrible play and draws could be something similar although they may be hard to obtain naturally.

The rule is that players can't discuss an intentional draw before the TO is called over. So intentionally drawing cannot be the reason for your discussion. It can be the outcome.

The interpretation expressed by the second sentence above doesn't seem to be supported by the rules. Consider:

Player 1: "Hi, I'm your opponent this round."

P2: "Hi, I'll be right back."

P1: "O...kay?"

P2 gets TO.

P2: "Now that the TO is here, I'd like to propose an intentional draw."

P1: "Sounds good to me."

Certainly seems like a draw is the reason for the discussion. What about that violates the rules?

The rule is that players can't discuss an intentional draw before the TO is called over. So intentionally drawing cannot be the reason for your discussion. It can be the outcome.

The interpretation expressed by the second sentence above doesn't seem to be supported by the rules. Consider:

Player 1: "Hi, I'm your opponent this round."

P2: "Hi, I'll be right back."

P1: "O...kay?"

P2 gets TO.

P2: "Now that the TO is here, I'd like to propose an intentional draw."

P1: "Sounds good to me."

Certainly seems like a draw is the reason for the discussion. What about that violates the rules?

The part when players agree to manipulate tournament scoring in front of a TO.

My question to you would be, "Why? What would be the purpose of that? More to the point: Why did you ask me to come over to the table in the first place if you didn't have a problem to discuss?"

What if I let the rest of the room decide whether you should be allowed to take that intentional draw, since you're being so honest about it. I mean, it sounds totally anti-competitive to me, but nobody's judgment is perfect. So I'll pose the question to the rest of the players in this hypothetical tournament. How would you explain it to them?

Considering that a draw is only 1 point which mean that the "team" still loses 3 points I don't see draws having that much of an effect on swiss MOV rankings as it would against strength of schedule.

The main problem I see is forfeiting which gives a full MOV win. If a team comes into play other team members may forfeit to propel their main competitor up to the front. Now as far as ethics go then the question would be should tournaments be entirely an individual effort or can players use teams in ways that are not unfair to non-teamed competitors?

I don't care what you want to call it, but there is no reason for FFG to give players the ability to Intentional Draw with each other if they are not intending for them to do so in a situation where an draw would be in both players interest, while playing the game out wouldn't be. They are explicitly allowing a limited ability to manipulate the standings by offering one option for players to contrive a match result. There is no other purpose to this rule if that isn't what it is intended to do.

They are litterally adopting MTG standards on the subject.

So in the last round of swiss if two players realize that they have both gotten enough wins to possibly advance, they can both agree to call thier game a draw to ensure they both advance as opposed to leaving the losing player at the mercy of tiebreakers.

The problem with this, is that if I'm on the bubble and a good win gets me into it, my day can be ended by a handshake 3 tables over. Ending my day by something completely out of my control.

Or as people might remember, the reason we stopped using SOS.

Then dont lose a game. Your fate at a tournament is totally in your hands if you win all your games.

In reality if im making it to the top table on the final round of swiss I am definitely using this. If my opponent doesnt want to, no big deal. Having a good day and being paired with another apparently good player having a good day is fine by me. This is doubly true if I feel like I am going to meet them in the cut anyway.

This is all dreaming however, I am strongly middle of the pack and usually have a loss on rd 2.

If choosing to intentionally draw is against the collusion rules, which it must not be since they introduced the rule, then why would it even be there?

It IS going to manipulate the score as you know exactly what you will get - 1 Tournament point and 100 points MOV. The only other way of knowing this is to concede at the start of that game. You then know you're getting 0 tournament points and 0 points MOV.

This is going to cause some issues but I can't see it coming into play a whole lot.

The biggest problem is that the TO MUST rule on this with what was actually said and not what could have been implied or any other form of "reading between the lines" which then makes it impossible to say you cannot intentionally draw your game.

You don't introduce a rule for all of your products that is impossible to ever utilize.

Any Intentional Draw is always going to be a manipulation of the event standings, that is never not true. But clearly it must be a legal way to manipulate standings, because otherwise there is no purpose in giving the players the option to utilize it.

If you take the position that players may never make an agreement in order to manipulate the event standings, then you are taking the position that no Intentional Draw could ever be valid. That is an untenable stance in the face of what FFG has added to the ruleset.