9 minutes ago, Brunas said:

also, pretty much 10/10 except the collusion rules are going to be a dumpster fire disaster. 

It's so far beyond their usual level that I'm willing to give FFG an A for effort on this one. The fact that the community will burn it down is a whole separate issue.

7 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

I looked at those and started mentally ticking off the number of very public people in the XWM community that I've heard stating they did something that falls into how they define that.

literally everyone - even running events is going to be a huge pain now, because a player has to either randomly concede the last game (seems unlikely), play a meaningless game (seems unlikely), or set up and pretend a game and go eat or whatever and salvo anyways (seems most likely)

When will Tabletop.to and Cryodex be updated to track penalty points? I'm sure a bottom 50 could be built if the community put a little effort into it. Another Krayt Cup side event, the Bottom 50 invitational, with GSP streaming that dumpster fire?

11 minutes ago, Brunas said:

literally everyone - even running events is going to be a huge pain now, because a player has to either randomly concede the last game (seems unlikely), play a meaningless game (seems unlikely), or set up and pretend a game and go eat or whatever and salvo anyways (seems most likely)

you can just concede. It's a functionally the same thing, its just weird that you don't get the fun of rolling dice.

I guess you could final salvo to see who concedes?

Just now, jagsba said:

you can just concede. It's a functionally the same thing, its just weird that you don't get the fun of rolling dice.

I guess you could final salvo to see who concedes?

I think final salvoing to see who concedes would technically be collusion still, and oddly, checking to see whether or not you can blindly concede also probably involves your opponent checking to see if they can blindly concede, which would also be collusion (maybe?)

I have to say that I was pretty impressed that they came up with a decent framework for behavioral issues - it's very much on judges to enforce it, but having that stuff spelled out is a big help and will hopefully help judges feel empowered to crack down on players that are negatively impacting the community.

But yeah the collusion rules could use some adjustment (or the tournament rules could use adjustment).

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I think final salvoing to see who concedes would technically be collusion still, and oddly, checking to see whether or not you can blindly concede also probably involves your opponent checking to see if they can blindly concede, which would also be collusion (maybe?)

Concession is fine as long as there's not a discussion.

Quote

Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion. Players are allowed to concede a game at any time before the end of the game, so long as there was no discussion or solicitation involved.

If you're undefeated on the final table, I think you should be able to say 'I don't want to play, I just concede' without hitting any collusion issues.

Well I guess we've discussed it now, so if we ever see each other on the final table, we have to play.

Just now, jagsba said:

Concession is fine as long as there's not a discussion.

If you're undefeated on the final table, I think you should be able to say 'I don't want to play, I just concede' without hitting any collusion issues.

Well I guess we've discussed it now, so if we ever see each other on the final table, we have to play.

...yep, and now you've run into the issue lmao. Having pre discussed all this is having a discussion - also, do you just stand around to see who awkwardly concedes first?

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

...yep, and now you've run into the issue lmao. Having pre discussed all this is having a discussion - also, do you just stand around to see who awkwardly concedes first?

we used to just dummy joust down the gutter, right?

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I think final salvoing to see who concedes would technically be collusion still, and oddly, checking to see whether or not you can blindly concede also probably involves your opponent checking to see if they can blindly concede, which would also be collusion (maybe?)

Correct, both would qualify. To "blindly" concede you have to not talk to your opponent about it and just concede the match.

"Collusion occurs whenever two or more players discuss an outcome for their game before the
game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on
that discussion. Collusion can take place at any time, even between tournament rounds, and is
never tolerated. Collusion violates the integrity of a tournament as a whole by invalidating the
efforts of those who earned their place in the standings purely through the skill of their
gameplay. This can drastically decrease the enjoyability of the event as a whole, and thus
collusion warrants a Disqualification for each player involved.
Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion. Players are allowed to concede a
game at any time before the end of the game, so long as there was no discussion or solicitation
involved. However, convincing or manipulating an opponent to concede in order to give any
person a distinct advantage is dishonest and is considered a form of cheating. Asking an
opponent to concede in any shape or form falls under collusion and is grounds for
Disqualification.

The following are some examples of collusion:
1. A player offers to concede to their opponent in return for some of the prizes their
opponent will win.
a. This is also a form of bribery.
2. Two players realize that they both will make the top cut regardless of who wins. After
discussing it with each other, they decide to randomly determine the outcome of their
game rather than play it out.
a. As soon as there is discussion, the integrity of the game has been lost. If players
do not want to play the game, then one of them should concede.

3. Player A and Player B are friends. Player A is already going to advance to Day 2, but
Player B needs one more win to do so. After discussing it with each other, Player A offers
to concede so that Player B can also advance, and Player B agrees.
a. As soon as there is discussion, the integrity of the game has been lost. Player A is
allowed to concede the game at any time, but should do so without soliciting the
concession.

For the purpose of determining collusion, a “discussion” is when the involved players negotiate
and agree upon an outcome of some sort. It is largely up to a Judge’s interpretation on whether or
not a particular conversation between players is a discussion leading to collusion."

10 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I think final salvoing to see who concedes would technically be collusion still, and oddly, checking to see whether or not you can blindly concede also probably involves your opponent checking to see if they can blindly concede, which would also be collusion (maybe?)

That was my reading too, which makes me a retroactive cheater I guess?

Just now, Transmogrifier said:

That was my reading too, which makes me a retroactive cheater I guess?

If it makes you feel better, almost everyone in every cut I've been a part of (and TO'd for) would be DQ'd by these rules. Can I retroactively lose a regional?

the floor rules are a cursed text

to merely gaze upon them is disqualifying

To misquote Poe

"Do you concede first, or do I concede first? It’s hard to tell with all this discussion."

33 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

That was my reading too, which makes me a retroactive cheater I guess?

No ex post facto in the US

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

No ex post facto in the US

Hopefully not in this for certain.

It's a simple fix for FFG too. They just have to determine that the "collusion clock" resets to zero when an event start. Talk theory all you want. Discuss the day before if you must. But once results start rolling in, shut it with the collusion.

I insist we have a meme-fest with things that are now against the rules.

15 minutes ago, drjkel said:

It's a simple fix for FFG too. They just have to determine that the "collusion clock" resets to zero when an event start. Talk theory all you want. Discuss the day before if you must. But once results start rolling in, shut it with the collusion.

I think it started when the floor rules were released.

There’s validity to this collusion stuff, cuz it does ruin the integrity of the tournament when solo guy has to play in and I get a concession from a friend. Course it doesn’t just happen among friends

But, just means people will be less transparent about the collusion.

I dunno. Kind of sucks regardless. Like, if I’m next to @Brunas and @Tlfj200, hear one of them basically agree to concede to guarantee the other is in, like on a pair up, and I have to play in? How am I not the ******* by calling a judge on them? How do they not just decide to faff about and have @Tlfj200 win in a “real” game anyway?

Does agreeing to split the prizes and playing the game count?

so is final salvoing the final table because everyone wants to go home still allowed? what happens if two players do that? #3 wins?

2 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

so is final salvoing the final table because everyone wants to go home still allowed? what happens if two players do that? #3 wins?

No, and... good question

Fyi the Destiny peeps (namely the Hyperloops which are their Krayts but serious) have pointed out an error in the collusion rules (technically asking your opponents record could count as colluding?). So, Matt Holland said they are going to look into clarifying it more to avoid that unintended rule.

Edit: And now a Gencon Judge told them that they could get DQ'd for asking? Ok, not sure where its going now.

Edit 2: Looks like Gencon judge wants it changed, but won't be in time for Gencon, so they are sticking with it. But they will only DQ you if the judge believes you are asking them to decide if you're going to concede.

52 minutes ago, Brunas said:

No, and... good question

uh, sorry, I had three question marks in the post, which one are you saying no to, the final salvo or player 3 winning?