Oh and Congratulations to who ever won the open!!!

Rinehart is the man. And a terrific sportsman.

And MJ, I dunno who this "David" Yun is, but there was definitely a Dee Yun that Brad Miller punted out of the tourney!

Hm. FFG results had it listed as "David" as #3 after Swiss. Was this you? I can update to Dee if it is.

Would love that; yeppers that was me. Thanks MJ!

Guys, sorry if my side to side "dancing" annoyed anyone. It's just something I do to help concentrate and focus my mind. I'm constantly ridiculed at home about it as well. It's actually completely involuntary, it just happens.

I have RLS(restless leg syndrome) and I do that all the time unconsciously. Thats the first thing i thought of when I saw you doing it.

Oh, and congrats on your win BTW!

So...

Intentional draws require a tournament authority present during the discussion of the draw, and the reason for that is to maintain the tournament integrity.

(This is a paraphrase of the Tournament Regulations, "Intentional Draws", p.6)

This section in particular refers the reader to "Conduct/Unsportsmanlike Conduct", p.3., which prohibits "stalling for time, placing components with excessive force, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, cheating, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly forbidden."

Now please correct me if I'm wrong.

But an intentional draw that will guarantee a player to make the cut (whereas a loss will make him miss the cut)...does that not fall under the category of manipulation of scoring?

Isn't this exact scenario why a judge has to be present to affirm the intentional draw decision isn't a breach of integrity?

On the other hand...if this is allowed, what situation could ever arise that needs an arbiter to ensure that the intentional draw isn't unsportsmanlike conduct?

Look, I have no opinions on intentional draws except that the rules must be upheld. As far as I can read, this looks like a textbook case of a breach of integrity, because the draw was used for scoring purposes.

If FFG wants all draws to be fine, then sure. Go for it. Put it in the rules as such. But if it violates the rules-- which this one certainly appears to-- then don't allow it at a premier level tournament.

What am I missing that would make this ok?

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are if your opponent offers an intentional draw, and you decline. For example, if you both know your squad has the clear advantage against his squad, and he asks for the draw, and you say "No thanks." That doesn't make you the bad guy, does it?

I would argue it never makes you a "bad" guy if you decline a draw. And if your squad has a clear advantage over your opponent's, what reason have you to need to take a draw anyway?

That was my thought process, too. I guess I'm just too sympathetic. To look into your opponent's eyes and think, "Sorry, you're not going to make it this time." It hurts a little inside. But hey -- I go to tournaments to play my best, not to sit around for an hour and watch others play.

With wild eyes start shaking and chanting, "Drive home, drive home, drive home" as you go out of the way to crush your opponent even if it would not benefit you.

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Player 1 would finish 4/1/0 and not make the cut, player 2 would finish 4/0/1. Player 1 didn't make the cut because he had a worse record in the end.

Also there's no player 2 "just calls a draw" scenario. His opponent must also agree, which requires him to be in a situation where it would benefit him as well. Further the TO must be present to make sure it's mutually agreeable and above board.

People are acting like everyone has a bye hidden up their sleeves to weasle their way into the cut.

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Yes... Which penalizes the player who has won all day until the last round, in this case player 2.

Player 1 likely plays a 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, and finally a 3-1 player, whereas player 2 will likely play a 0-0 player, then 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and finally 4-0 player. Player 2 has a lower chance of having a high MoV as his competition has been higher comparatively each round. Each round he faced an undefeated player, and Player 1, outside of round 1, always faced a player with a loss.

It's not really fair that either has to miss the cut, but I guess I just don't understand why people are defending the player who crawled from the bottom so fiercely when the player at the top is just as wronged if he is forced to play that final game and then misses the cut because he lost to the top ranked player.

One of our Mynocks had an argument that I've been trying to wrap my head around, and that I do think I favor. Give zero match points to both players in the event of a draw. If Mod Wins are also eliminated, it's a reaaaaaal simple tally of 1 point per win, with no incentive to draw.

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Yes... Which penalizes the player who has won all day until the last round, in this case player 2.

Player 1 likely plays a 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, and finally a 3-1 player, whereas player 2 will likely play a 0-0 player, then 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and finally 4-0 player. Player 2 has a lower chance of having a high MoV as his competition has been higher comparatively each round. Each round he faced an undefeated player, and Player 1, outside of round 1, always faced a player with a loss.

It's not really fair that either has to miss the cut, but I guess I just don't understand why people are defending the player who crawled from the bottom so fiercely when the player at the top is just as wronged if he is forced to play that final game and then misses the cut because he lost to the top ranked player.

It doesn't even have to be crawling up from the bottom though. Say you're in a 5 round tournament. Round 4 someone loses their match, putting them at the 1 loss before the final round instead of losing at the start? Now they've played against winners for 3 rounds too, and it's only the final round that changes who they play against, and they're still playing against someone else (theoretically) who's only lost 1 game. It's possible to do that in a tournament even if you ARE undefeated if there's an uneven number of undefeated players, so you can't argue too hard about it being a big unfair "advantage" as far as MoV goes.

No one is saying the player that lost earlier automatically should be in the cut and the player that went undefeated until the final round should automatically lose the cut. They're saying both players should be subject to the same rules and tiebreakers as EVERYONE ELSE, and the one with the higher MoV is the one that should make it. That no one should be able to just decide not to even play a game and just say "Oh, I'll just take a draw to get 1 extra tournament point then I make it no matter what", when the alternative is to eithe rwin their game (and make the cut), or lose their game and be subject to MoV just like everyone else who lost a game.

One of our Mynocks had an argument that I've been trying to wrap my head around, and that I do think I favor. Give zero match points to both players in the event of a draw. If Mod Wins are also eliminated, it's a reaaaaaal simple tally of 1 point per win, with no incentive to draw.

I don't mind a draw giving a tournament point if it comes from simultaneous fire killing each other at the end of a match. You should get SOME credit if you destroyed all of your opponents ships it seems like. Having the same number of points destroyed when time is called could be easier to game the system with if people really wanted to (just fortress and don't attack each other) but also is arguable since you could both destroy 50 points, or 75 points, or whatever before time, and again, if you didn't lose and destroyed a bunch of points.

I think adding ID was just a bad idea from the start. If draws were only from matching points at time or simultaneous destruction, it wouldn't really be a problem (and if someone has a simultaneous fire draw, and undefeated the rest of their games, I'm all for them making the cut over someone who lost a game). It's the fact that you can just not even bother playing and make the cut that seems odd...

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Yes... Which penalizes the player who has won all day until the last round, in this case player 2.

Player 1 likely plays a 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, and finally a 3-1 player, whereas player 2 will likely play a 0-0 player, then 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and finally 4-0 player. Player 2 has a lower chance of having a high MoV as his competition has been higher comparatively each round. Each round he faced an undefeated player, and Player 1, outside of round 1, always faced a player with a loss.

It's not really fair that either has to miss the cut, but I guess I just don't understand why people are defending the player who crawled from the bottom so fiercely when the player at the top is just as wronged if he is forced to play that final game and then misses the cut because he lost to the top ranked player.

It doesn't even have to be crawling up from the bottom though. Say you're in a 5 round tournament. Round 4 someone loses their match, putting them at the 1 loss before the final round instead of losing at the start? Now they've played against winners for 3 rounds too, and it's only the final round that changes who they play against, and they're still playing against someone else (theoretically) who's only lost 1 game. It's possible to do that in a tournament even if you ARE undefeated if there's an uneven number of undefeated players, so you can't argue too hard about it being a big unfair "advantage" as far as MoV goes.

No one is saying the player that lost earlier automatically should be in the cut and the player that went undefeated until the final round should automatically lose the cut. They're saying both players should be subject to the same rules and tiebreakers as EVERYONE ELSE, and the one with the higher MoV is the one that should make it. That no one should be able to just decide not to even play a game and just say "Oh, I'll just take a draw to get 1 extra tournament point then I make it no matter what", when the alternative is to eithe rwin their game (and make the cut), or lose their game and be subject to MoV just like everyone else who lost a game.

Okay this is understandable. The examples I was using were obviously extreme, but... I don't know. I guess I still feel like that player that wins all day and loses in the last round is getting the short end of the stick simply for having poor timing. I feel like the answer is somewhere in between. Maybe don't give them a tournament point for the draw, but give them a certain amount of MoV points that puts them at a healthy position still, but not so much so that they are guaranteed a spot if their MoV has been mediocre.

[snip]

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Yes... Which penalizes the player who has won all day until the last round, in this case player 2.

Player 1 likely plays a 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, and finally a 3-1 player, whereas player 2 will likely play a 0-0 player, then 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and finally 4-0 player. Player 2 has a lower chance of having a high MoV as his competition has been higher comparatively each round . Each round he faced an undefeated player, and Player 1, outside of round 1, always faced a player with a loss.

It's not really fair that either has to miss the cut, but I guess I just don't understand why people are defending the player who crawled from the bottom so fiercely when the player at the top is just as wronged if he is forced to play that final game and then misses the cut because he lost to the top ranked player.

Hell, the guy who was ranked 8th in Swiss at the Hoth Open won the event. Imagine if someone who started the day 0-1 wins out, finishes Swiss ranked 8th and then wins the event... are they suddenly deserving? Whereas previously they wouldn't have been simply because they weren't at the top table before the last round of Swiss ?

I feel like if you're at the top table for the last round of Swiss and consider yourself a top player, you should prove it by beating your opponent instead of agreeing to a draw. Regardless of the level of competition that got you to the top Swiss table, you still need to win that game or kill enough points to be included in the final cut. If you go to a tournament that uses wins and MoV to determine the cut, you should play all your games.

However, if you've already won a SC or that season's tournament kit and want to give your opponent a chance at prizes, I guess that might be justification to agree to a draw. Everyone needs acrylics, after all

At least we don't have players expecting others to concede them into top 8 due to "tenure" .

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/11th-in-houston-with-jeskai-black/

Consider this if there are 5 rounds of swiss.

Player 1 gets a bad matchup round 1 and drops the game but goes on to easily win his remaining 4 games.

Player 2 wins his first 4 games but gets a bad matchup in round 5 so he just calls a draw.

Player 2 finishes with 4/0/1 and makes the cut while player 1 finishes with 4/0/1 and doesn't make the cut.

Hmmmm fair, don't think so

Player 2 has played the tougher competition throughout if he is 4-0 heading into the final round, so there can be an argument either way. If there is no ID, and player 2 loses and player 1 makes the cut, you can just as easily make the argument it is unfair to player 2 since he played well all day but lost on a top table in the last round when he had dominated otherwise.

MOV does not care what round you loose. Only who killed more things while loosing the least.

Yes... Which penalizes the player who has won all day until the last round, in this case player 2.

Player 1 likely plays a 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, and finally a 3-1 player, whereas player 2 will likely play a 0-0 player, then 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, and finally 4-0 player. Player 2 has a lower chance of having a high MoV as his competition has been higher comparatively each round. Each round he faced an undefeated player, and Player 1, outside of round 1, always faced a player with a loss.

It's not really fair that either has to miss the cut, but I guess I just don't understand why people are defending the player who crawled from the bottom so fiercely when the player at the top is just as wronged if he is forced to play that final game and then misses the cut because he lost to the top ranked player.

It doesn't even have to be crawling up from the bottom though. Say you're in a 5 round tournament. Round 4 someone loses their match, putting them at the 1 loss before the final round instead of losing at the start? Now they've played against winners for 3 rounds too, and it's only the final round that changes who they play against, and they're still playing against someone else (theoretically) who's only lost 1 game. It's possible to do that in a tournament even if you ARE undefeated if there's an uneven number of undefeated players, so you can't argue too hard about it being a big unfair "advantage" as far as MoV goes.

No one is saying the player that lost earlier automatically should be in the cut and the player that went undefeated until the final round should automatically lose the cut. They're saying both players should be subject to the same rules and tiebreakers as EVERYONE ELSE, and the one with the higher MoV is the one that should make it. That no one should be able to just decide not to even play a game and just say "Oh, I'll just take a draw to get 1 extra tournament point then I make it no matter what", when the alternative is to eithe rwin their game (and make the cut), or lose their game and be subject to MoV just like everyone else who lost a game.

Okay this is understandable. The examples I was using were obviously extreme, but... I don't know. I guess I still feel like that player that wins all day and loses in the last round is getting the short end of the stick simply for having poor timing. I feel like the answer is somewhere in between. Maybe don't give them a tournament point for the draw, but give them a certain amount of MoV points that puts them at a healthy position still, but not so much so that they are guaranteed a spot if their MoV has been mediocre.

I've seen plenty of games between undefeated opponents in later rounds go 100-0. Nothing about playing against an undefeated player means you're automatically going to have lower MoV than you will playing agianst someone with a single loss. Maybe the person who lost a game round 1 had the bad luck to run into the 1 list that hard-counters them in the first round, while the player who lost in the final round ran into the list that hard-countered them in that round.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the player that went undefeated until the final round had mediocre MoV befofe the loss and the player who lost earlier has gotten high MoV every game they won, the player with the higher MoV is the one that DESERVES to make the cut. Plenty of people who lose the final round of swiss still make the cut. My last store championship, there were 3 of us undefeated in the final round of swiss. I played against 1 of the other undefeated players, while the third played someone with 1 loss. I won my game, but my opponent, even with 1 loss to my undefeated swiss record was still only 30 points behind me as far as MoV was concerned and ended up as the top MoV of all the single-loss players. (Ironically, we ended up as the #2 and 3 seeds for the top 4, so we immediately played each other again, where he beat me this time).

@Vanderlegion and ArdusKaine (no need to keep the quote stream going )

I think what the disagreement comes down to here between us is you both see MoV as getting the correct players in the top cut when all games are played out whereas I don't feel it always does.

I like MoV for the most part and think it is generally a good measure of player ability after win-loss ratio, but at your point ArdusKaine about MoV not being impacted whether you play a 0-3 or 3-0 player, I would disagree with that wholeheartedly. If I'm playing Paul Heaver round 4 or my neighbor next door who learned the game 2 weeks ago, I expect their skill level to impact my MoV heavily. And I expect it to be impacted even if there is a much smaller gap in skill level of my competition than this example. Apologies if I didn't understand your statement there and this isn't what you meant.

My feeling is the ID isn't any better or worse at getting the best players into the top cut than if games were forced to be played out. It's just a different way. You have to be in very good position entering that final round to take a draw and make the cut. But anyways. I feel like I'm becoming more and more the devil's advocate here so I'll cut my musings here. In the end, whether it's a good ruling or not, it's the rule, so I would hope no one would shame anyone for taking advantage of it (and I'm not saying anyone participating in this conversation would do that, I just say that as a general statement to all regardless of their stance on the subject). I'd be all for a revision which would better satisfy all though. What exactly that is though I can't say.

On another note- I like the ruling for vassal tournaments at least! It has reason to be used in rounds outside of the final round (for when players simply cannot schedule), and does not heavily penalize them or their competition, so there is that at least.

@Kdubb: Something else to consider is that while the undefeated player might get matched against Paul Heaver in round 4, maybe the player with 1 loss got matched against Paul Heaver round 1 and that's why he got the loss in the first place. Why should getting the matchup later make someone more deserving of making the cut? For that matter, it's entirely theoretically possible (though clearly a corner case) for the 2 players in question to have played against the *exact same opponents* over the course of the tournament. Take a pretend 16 round tournament with 4 rounds of swiss and a cut to the top 4. It consists of Player 1 and Player 2 (the heroes of our story), pheaver, sozin, majorjuggler and hothie (as the first 4 recognizable names that came to mind), and players 3-12 to fill out the ranks.

Round 1:
Player 1 loses to pheaver

Player 2 beats sozin.

mj and hothie both win their matches

Round 2:
Player 1 beats sozin (sorry sozin, it's nothing personal!)

Player 2 beats majorjugger

pheaver and hothie win their matches

Rankings:

Player 2: 2-0

pheaver: 2-0

hothie: 2-0

mj: 1-1

player 1: 1-1

sozin: 0-2

There should be 1 more 2-0 player, 3 more 0-2 players, and 6 more 1-1 players if I'm doing the math in my head right (assuming no modified wins or draws for simplicity).

Round 3:
Player 1 beats majorjuggler

Player 2 beats hothie

pheaver beats the remaining 2-0 player

Rankings:
Player 2: 3-0

pheaver: 3-0

Player 1: 2-1

hothie: 2-1

everyone else

Final round:

Player 2 vs pheaver

Player 1 vs hothie

Assuming player 1 beats hothie, he'll be 3-1. If Player 2 loses to pheaver, he'll be 3-1 as well. This puts us in the situation in question. (Not that a cut is even required in top 16, but some stores have still done them, and it's easier then writing out another round. It'd just be a top 4 cut). Again, going with full wins in every match, you'll end up with 1 undefeated and 4 people with 1 loss, meaining 1 person doesn't make the cut. If pheaver and player 2 decide to draw, they're both guaranteed to make the cut, but potentially at the expense of someone else. If player 2 loses and player 1 wins, leaving them both at equal records, they've ALSO played the exact same opponents, showing that the argument that even losing in the first round doesn't guarantee you play against easier opponents. In a situation like that, why should player 2 deserve to make the cut instead of player 1 (assuming player 1 had higher MoV against those same opponents) simply because he had the good fortune to be paired against pheaver in the last round instead of the first?

Edit:

I do agree that as long as its a rule and allowed, we shouldn't shame people, and if people in a tournament I'm at do it, I'm not going to argue that they shouldn't (though I'd be sad if I was the person who might have made the cut otherwise ). Personally I would decline if my opponent offered. I'd rather earn my way into the cut by legitimately winning all my games (or having the MoV to get there with a loss). I might accept it in we were top table and both had such an MoV gap over the next players that even with a 0-200 loss we'd both still make it, since at that point you aren't denying anyone a spot.

And I do like the idea for the vassal league/tournaments for cases where you can't make a time work between you and another player.

lol Hey is that the same Dee Yun from Dave the Direman?

lol Hey is that the same Dee Yun from Dave the Direman?

Yup

@Kdubb: Something else to consider is that while the undefeated player might get matched against Paul Heaver in round 4, maybe the player with 1 loss got matched against Paul Heaver round 1 and that's why he got the loss in the first place. Why should getting the matchup later make someone more deserving of making the cut? For that matter, it's entirely theoretically possible (though clearly a corner case) for the 2 players in question to have played against the *exact same opponents* over the course of the tournament. Take a pretend 16 round tournament with 4 rounds of swiss and a cut to the top 4. It consists of Player 1 and Player 2 (the heroes of our story), pheaver, sozin, majorjuggler and hothie (as the first 4 recognizable names that came to mind), and players 3-12 to fill out the ranks.

Round 1:

Player 1 loses to pheaver

Player 2 beats sozin.

mj and hothie both win their matches

Round 2:

Player 1 beats sozin (sorry sozin, it's nothing personal!)

Player 2 beats majorjugger

pheaver and hothie win their matches

Rankings:

Player 2: 2-0

pheaver: 2-0

hothie: 2-0

mj: 1-1

player 1: 1-1

sozin: 0-2

There should be 1 more 2-0 player, 3 more 0-2 players, and 6 more 1-1 players if I'm doing the math in my head right (assuming no modified wins or draws for simplicity).

Round 3:

Player 1 beats majorjuggler

Player 2 beats hothie

pheaver beats the remaining 2-0 player

Rankings:

Player 2: 3-0

pheaver: 3-0

Player 1: 2-1

hothie: 2-1

everyone else

Final round:

Player 2 vs pheaver

Player 1 vs hothie

Assuming player 1 beats hothie, he'll be 3-1. If Player 2 loses to pheaver, he'll be 3-1 as well. This puts us in the situation in question. (Not that a cut is even required in top 16, but some stores have still done them, and it's easier then writing out another round. It'd just be a top 4 cut). Again, going with full wins in every match, you'll end up with 1 undefeated and 4 people with 1 loss, meaining 1 person doesn't make the cut. If pheaver and player 2 decide to draw, they're both guaranteed to make the cut, but potentially at the expense of someone else. If player 2 loses and player 1 wins, leaving them both at equal records, they've ALSO played the exact same opponents, showing that the argument that even losing in the first round doesn't guarantee you play against easier opponents. In a situation like that, why should player 2 deserve to make the cut instead of player 1 (assuming player 1 had higher MoV against those same opponents) simply because he had the good fortune to be paired against pheaver in the last round instead of the first?

Edit:

I do agree that as long as its a rule and allowed, we shouldn't shame people, and if people in a tournament I'm at do it, I'm not going to argue that they shouldn't (though I'd be sad if I was the person who might have made the cut otherwise ). Personally I would decline if my opponent offered. I'd rather earn my way into the cut by legitimately winning all my games (or having the MoV to get there with a loss). I might accept it in we were top table and both had such an MoV gap over the next players that even with a 0-200 loss we'd both still make it, since at that point you aren't denying anyone a spot.

And I do like the idea for the vassal league/tournaments for cases where you can't make a time work between you and another player.

Dang it Vander! Guess I can play devil's advocate a bit longer.

In this situation, yes, I would like to see the final round played out, and a draw which put player 2 in to the cut and not player 1 would be a bitter pill to swallow for player 1. But at least in this case there is some possibility the right player still made the cut with an ID (as in the case of an ID we don't know that player 2 would lose to Paul and have a lower Mov than player 1), whereas an inverse situation which saw the two players play very different schedules, seems to me to weigh heavily in favor of needing an ID to get the correct player in the top cut.

Example:

Player 1 loses first round to Pao. That is Pao's only win all day.

P1 then plays Joe with the 0-1 pairings in round 2. He beats him. Joe goes on to lose all of his remaining games as well.

The same happens for all of P1's opponents, meaning his opponents finish (in order of rounds he played them) 1-4, 0-5, 1-4. 2-3, and 3-2.

Meanwhile, Player 2's competition finishes, lets say, something along the lines of 3-2, 4-1,4-1,4-1, 5-0, with P2's only loss coming against the 5-0 player.

P1, facing inferior competition all day, has higher MoV and makes the cut ahead of P2. P2 is clearly wronged here I feel, whereas in your case, we can at least feel somewhat justified in giving P2 the spot since we know both have performed at about the same level throughout the day. Understand I do NOT think this is preferable, but I do feel including an ID in your corner case gives a slightly better chance at getting the correct player into the cut than my corner case without an ID would.

Either way, I feel both sides have cases where the ID negatively impacts the experience, and others where the ID is a positive. So basically, it's kind of a wash in my opinion. There are scenarios where it works great, and others where it just makes things more convoluted.

Dang it Vander! Guess I can play devil's advocate a bit longer.

One does what one can . I always enjoy a civil debate .

Really I don't know that there IS a best solution (or at least, I don't know what it is). MoV can screw over the person who goes undefeated until the last round due to going against harder opponents and being less likely to get high MoV. SoS, (since that's basically what your arguments in favor of ID are using) can screw over the person who gets matched against a really hard opponent round 1 (paul heaver for example as used before), then ends up with easy opponents after who all lose every match after losing to the player in question. Personally I think I like MoV better of the two because it's something you as the player have some control over. Sure, your opponent is going to affect it too, but if you fly really well, you can potentially get your MoV higher than it would be if you fly poorly. If you get paired against a player you're never going to beat (whether due to their skill, or their list hard-countering yours, or wahtever), then get paired agianst people with the same ranking as you but then go on to lose all their subsequent matches so your SoS tanks, there's literally nothing you can do about it. The only thing you do that effects your SoS is either win or lose your matches, and with SoS its a lot easier to get punished harder for early losses than for late ones.

So to sum it up: You don't have a good answer. I don't have a good answer. So we'll just stick with the answer FFG gave us until they tell us to otherwise .

Besides, we all know the TRUE problem with the tournament setup. When you have a tournament with no cut and take second place because you have 1 loss while someone else is undefeated but you never got the chance to play them to see if you would have won! (I don't even know how many tournaments in a row I had this happen before the new round structure came out and we got to enough players to have a cut. I'd always lose 1 match, end up tied for second and i think only 1 time had I actually played against the person who took first. Can't *really* complain since they were undefeated and I wasn't, but it's galling in the times when you look at their list and *know* your list would have beat theirs, though that wasn't always the case).

A couple of us actually were advocating having cuts for all our store championships (all 3 of them) before the new round structure came out simply to avoid that potential issue. Ironically, the SC I won ended up only having 12 people (people out of town, lotta snow the day before IIRC, etc) and had no cut .

Can someone post the top 32 with MOV after Swiss?

Please

At least we don't have players expecting others to concede them into top 8 due to "tenure" .

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/11th-in-houston-with-jeskai-black/

Oh jeez "He didn't let me into top 8 by conceding when he was under no obligation to so screw him forever." Makes 'Pro' Magic sound like some sort of Good 'ol Boys club where if you don't play along by the 'rules' (i.e. concede to manipulate tournament results) you're a pariah. Lovely place.