For all who want to do ANYTHING take the prizes away from the winners of the round of four (Ro4) just because they don't want another slugging match what happens when/if a loser in that round of four has already left and/or doesn't want to play another round? Is the remaining Ro4 loser now declared the tournament winner without a battle because the other Ro4 loser is no longer there and the Ro2 winners didn't want another slog? Or do we now go back and see if the guy from the Ro8 that lost to the Ro4 loser who's already left is still around so he/she can now play for the overall title? Seems really strange to me how someone knocked out in the Ro8 could now win the entire thing and place higher than the person who eliminated him/her earlier.

What I find funny is people saying that the top two rolling for it is a collusion, but a TO deciding to use the 3 and 4 to do the final is suddently not collusion...

Don't take the prizes away. They can just joust for a quick match, or they can drop.

My feeling is, if you wouldn't allow it in any other round, then it shouldn't be allowed in the final round. And by the same logic, if you're OK with it at the final table, you should be OK with the same thing happening at any stage of the event.

On 3/27/2018 at 1:04 PM, muribundi said:

What I find funny is people saying that the top two rolling for it is a collusion, but a TO deciding to use the 3 and 4 to do the final is suddently not collusion...

Probably because it in no way matches the definition of the word collusion?

7 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Probably because it in no way matches the definition of the word collusion?

Neither are, so it's still a double standard.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Neither are, so it's still a double standard.

Well no, since MoV is tracked, both players pre-determining with each other a method to force a final salvo at any point in the game is technically colluding even though the points aren't "relevant" at that point.

Which you, of all people, should understand the logic of.

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

Well no, since MoV is tracked, both players pre-determining with each other a method to force a final salvo at any point in the game is technically colluding even though the points aren't "relevant" at that point.

No they are not tracked anymore in the cut match. There is no collusion when two people talk in a top match. This does not affect the ranking of other anymore.

If two players talking to decide who win a final of tournament is collusion, then the TO deciding for them is also collusion. Everyone here that are against two players doing a final salvo seems to ommit that collusion do not apply anymore and that you have totally the right to just concede to your opponent.

If you concede, there is also no final match for the streamer. I find it weird that if the two players concede, this is SO BAD FOR THE STREAMER. But if only one concede, then too bad for the streamer.

You see the problem is there. Everyone make such a big deal if there is no match because the two players don't want to play. But the exact same thing happen if only one concede. But in the end, there is still no match, whatever one or the two refuse to play...

Edit: Typo

Edit: Also, this situation happen in the last Chicago Open, the game was so boring that the two player brought a weird game direct in live stream and started playing that instead of finishing the match... when the timer was done they just run a Final Salvo

13 minutes ago, muribundi said:

No they are not tracked anymore in the cut match. There is no collusion when two people talk in a top match. This does not affect the ranking of other anymore.

Technically under tournament rules MoV is tabulated at the end of each round of the tournament. People generally don't actually track it because it is no longer relevant at the later stages, but the tournament guidelines do not distinguish between swiss and elimination for this.

Just now, RampancyTW said:

Technically under tournament rules MoV is tabulated at the end of each round of the tournament. People generally don't actually track it because it is no longer relevant at the later stages, but the tournament guidelines do not distinguish between swiss and elimination for this.

Except, they are not round anymore

2 minutes ago, muribundi said:

Except, they are not round anymore

Well no, they are, and Single-Elimination Rounds are referred to as such on multiple occasions.

I'm making a strict RAW argument here and utterly ignoring RAI and RAF, but it is what it is.

I suggest that anyone that say final player can't do what they want because stream is sooooooooo important to look at this not boring final at all:

https://youtu.be/CcaI7OYsW8U?t=9h25m11s

45 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Technically under tournament rules MoV is tabulated at the end of each round of the tournament. People generally don't actually track it because it is no longer relevant at the later stages, but the tournament guidelines do not distinguish between swiss and elimination for this.

I suppose MoV can still accumulate to decide EXACTLY how 9-16, 5-8, and 3-4 get ordered but how many places actually care about the distinction? Do people who lose in the Ro16 get different prizes based on where exactly they finish? If so there is probably something wrong. You get to the top table what difference is MoV going to be when it's winner take all no matter how that winner is determined? Is everyone else going to be so desperate that they need to look at strength of schedule that these two will make a difference if their MoV is zero?

4 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

Which you, of all people, should understand the logic of.

It's not a matter of logic. It turns out that British English and American English have different definitions – even if I could only find a single source that even mentions it (both Oxford and Mirram-Webster have only 1 definition)

To a British speaker, collusion requires secrecy for the purpose of deception or fraud. For the apparent American-English-use-I-can-only-find-in-one-place, it can technically extend to absolutely any agreement, just especially to agreements made in secret to deceive or defraud. So the way I see it, you have two choices: either every agreement made by any two players anywhere is technically collusion, even if it's just deciding who wants which board edge, or it isn't collusion unless it's in secret and for the purpose of deception (which your example isn't).

Feel free to pick one, but I think the vast majority of people everywhere use that standard English definition.

It is amazing to me that anybody exists who thinks that not only can two X-Wing players be forced to play a final, rather than resolve it by whatever means they want, but those players should be so forced, and punished if they don't.

I mean ... really?

Poker can possibly have literally millions of dollars at stake, and poker players are well aware that only those players who still have equity in the remaining purse can decide if play continues or not. The TO certainly can't. (It's possible that in this era of televising huge tournaments, players might waive their right to determine, solely by equity in the purse, what happens. I don't actually know. But in any event, that's contractual, and separate from the question.) But X-Wing is going to force players to play.

Uh, no.

30 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

To a British speaker, collusion requires secrecy for the purpose of deception or fraud. For the apparent American-English-use-I-can-only-find-in-one-place, it can technically extend to absolutely any agreement, just especially to agreements made in secret to deceive or defraud. So the way I see it, you have two choices: either every agreement made by any two players anywhere is technically collusion, even if it's just deciding who wants which board edge, or it isn't collusion unless it's in secret and for the purpose of deception (which your example isn't).

Feel free to pick one, but I think the vast majority of people everywhere use that standard English definition.

The common American English connotation does not have to include secrecy. 2 people can collude in plain sight just fine. There is a very heavy implication of wrong doing in the word, people who are simply working together would be cooperating whereas people colluding are implied to be working together for nefarious purposes.

And as an American, I've never heard anyone use collusion to refer to a simple agreement

Bully: “Make them play, or punish them hardcore for being exhausted and/or daring to put real life ahead of a game!”

#FirstWorldNerdBullies