Sorry rings, but as I said, because something is difficult to enforce is not a good, or even logical reason for allowing it, and your examples with passive effects proves the point. No playing field, whether it is or is not allowed is going to be even, those coming with fewer friends will be at a disadvantage, no matter what the rules are. Few if anyof the rules are truly enforceable without becoming a much stricter gaming group. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them, it does mean we should give due consideration to why we have certain rules and how they can effect the player base emotionally as well as in play.

You didn't answer the questions I put forward, if FFG banned the ability to watch games in between your own rounds, how would that affect you? How would it affect your experience? Would it have any? If it did have some would it be enough to cause you to depart the game? For me it would not affect me in any meaningful way at all, but I don't assume everyone plays the way or for the reasons that I do. If FFG said that everyone had every right to observe any game including hands whenever the person they were observing was not currently their opponent, it would negatively affect my experience, and I suspect it may negatively affect my playing, but that is mostly conjecture. It isn't enough to keep me from playing, but I would certainly not ever attempt to play this game competitively. I would have to relegate it to purely social, even in tournaments, because anything less would piss me off.

dormouse said:

I'll answer, it would just be sort of lame. Not a really good answer but it's my answer. It would make me a little crabby that I had to rush away or else get thought of breaking the rules. But, I'd get over it. It wouldn't be that big of a deal. Now you and others have said that having people watch would negatively affect your play, or it's annoying and that's a reason to stop it. And I find that a perfectly valid argument for stopping scouting. However, where does it stop? I know that if I played against someone who quickly, I mean VERY quickly riffles through there hand as a nervous twitch or so I can't guess a card to pull for intrigue or what have you it would effect MY play because it annoyed the crap out of me when I saw him do it. I would have a hard time concentrating. Should that be banned because it negatively affects my ability to play. I just think that banning could be a slippery slope.

That is an interesting point... but I would counter it with, people watching your play has absolutely nothing to do with the game, nor the tournament, it is completely divorced from you and your opponent and the mechanics of the game. Your opponent is part of the game, his searching through his cards, ordering them and re-ordering them could be specific to his play style (I do this at various point in any given round ordering my cards based on draws and what I think I need to keep in the front of my mind). I think if it seemed more than necessary a polite request would be perfectly appropriate, but the point remains that ordering your cards as a player is part of the game, someone not playing watching is certainly not.

As to where to draw the line... I think making a point of simply saying if you are not playing in the game it is inappropriate to stand or sit and watch. I think a glance is fine, but repeated glancing when you should be playing your own game may warrant a warning by the TO or a request by the players to stop.

A lot of people seem to think that it has to be a very strict rule which forbids all forms, I see nothing wrong with a rule that gets to the most troubling and disruptive aspects, no watching games while you are still in the tournament, and pretty much stops right there.

This thread has pretty much died out (thank the Seven, lol), but I wanted to make one final post before sending Nate an e-mail.

Intentional Draws:

I still remain unconvinced that taking an intentional draw with another player so that both players may advance is unsportsmanlike*. I don't find it to be an act of collusion, just like I don't find the 82' Germany/Austria game to have been an act of collusion. In 82', there was no intent to deprive anyone the right or opportunity to advance in the tournament. Rather the intent was to ensure that both teams playing would advance in the tournament, and, most importantly, they did this by legal means. I think the uproar and general disgust came about because they were "abusing" the rules and standards of the tournament.

*This is where my definition of sportsmanship differs from many others. I don't believe there is anything wrong with "abusing" the rules. Everyone abuses the rules of a game. In soccer, players "abuse" being able to kick the ball towards the other team's net in order to score a goal. There is blatant abuse of this every soccer game, but no one considers this unsportsmanlike. Most would argue that this kind of "abuse" is acceptable because the rules of the game were designed with the intent/expectation that players would often kick the ball toward's their opponent's net. I find this to be a legitimate point and think can help us greatly in determining whether or not intentional draws should or shouldn't go unpunished.

As previously pointed out by hklown, the current definition of sportsmanlike conduct at an AGoT tournament includes "players...to play within the rules and not abuse them." Deviating from this would be unsportsmanlike. Since just about every rule is "abused" to win games, the only way to decide what would constitute as acceptable abuse and unacceptable abuse would be to examine the original intent and purpose of the rule/standard that is being abused. If players are "abusing" a rule/standard in accordance to it's original intent/purpose, then it is acceptable. Conversely, If players are "abusing" a rule/standard not in accordance to original intent/purpose, then it is unacceptable.

It appears that the purpose of awarding 1 point to each player in an incomplete match (aka, a draw), is to award the players for having enough skill and resilience for not losing the match in the allotted time. That is, when you lose a match you get 0 points. In a draw, however, no one lost, but since no won, 1 of the 3 potential points is surrendered and the remaining two are split.

When an intentional draw is taken, points are no longer being rewarded to the players for displaying that level of skill and resilience. It's completely circumvented and the rule is instead used to propel both players further into the tournament. I, PERSONALLY, don't see anything wrong with this, BUT my opinion doesn't matter. The only thing that matters are what the rules say. If the rules say that abusing the rules is unsportsmanlike, and that unsportsmanlike conduct allows for the TO to take disciplinary matters (i.e. remove those players from the tournament), then it appears that players can be punished for taking intentional draws.

This is of course assuming that intentional draws fall under the category of unacceptable abuse. This can only be known by knowing what the intent/purpose of draws are. I'm hoping Nate, as head game designer and TO at Worlds, can provide us this knowledge. If and when I get an answer from him, I will share it here.

Scouting:

Haven't thought about this as much. I enjoy watching the game and have never done so in a tournament to get an "edge." It does seem appropriate to ask both players if it's alright with them. I think once you are eliminated or the cuts have been made, then you should be free to spectate. Maybe I'll ask Nate for his view on this matter as well.

The problem that I still see with that stance though, is that I don't see scoring a goal in soccer or achieving 15 power in AGoT as abusing the rules. They are required goals for victory in a game by game basis and as such, heavily encouraged if not outright required of the players involved. For those of us that see the existence of unsportsmanlike conduct, I think in this situation it likely boils down to actions that while not technically illegal, are outside the context of play in each specific match.

I mean really, are those that see nothing but what is specifically illegal in the game as unsportsmanlike ok with me communicating exclusively via text message to people in my meta if we happen to sit at the same table at Melee Worlds? While not specifically disallowed, I would rule that it's against the spirit of the game. But hey, if it comes to it, maybe I'll do it just to play Devil's Advocate.

Awesome post Kennon. Totally agreed.

Two players sit down in the final round of Swiss. They are playing for the cut.

One says to the other: "Hey - if we take a draw here, we're both in - if we play it out, one of us misses the cut".

The second says: "Hmmmm - let's take a draw then" They shake on it and report a draw.

How can anyone argue that isn't collusion ? It just doesn't get more black and white than that.

Kennon said:

What is the difference if you text it or not? Last year I was at a table at worlds melee with 3 others from the same meta and they proceeded to guarantee my last place finish very verbally in front of me. Texting or no texting it would have been the same result. I was playing 3 vs 1 from the start.

That's still above board communication. Three players from different metas could have just as easily agreed to clear your board and rush for power at your expense. To me the difference is hidden knowledge. Just like whispering to another player at the table, I've created a new level of hidden knowledge (what we said) that makes it impossible to verify if other hidden knowledge (cards in my hand) has been revealed.

FATMOUSE,

First 1982 World Cup

"In 82', there was no intent to deprive anyone the right or opportunity to advance in the tournament. Rather the intent was to ensure that both teams playing would advance in the tournament"

The intent to deprive another team of the opportunity to compete with chance to advance was inseparable from the manufactured result.

The reality is that the "Intent" of both teams to ensure both advanced based on gaming the system necessarily deprives another team of a honest chance to compete: Algeria. Algeria was deprived of the any ability to advance due to the collusion of Austria and West Germany. What you seem to fail to understand is that an agreement designed with "intent to ensure both teams advance" necessarily deprives another team, Algeria in this case, of the ability to compete to advance. The two aspects are not independent and not isolated from each other. Germany and Austria agree on the result to make both teams advance had a direct effect on Algeria and it straight up DID deprive Algeria of the ability to honestly compete for a spot in the next round.

It wasn't against the LITERAL rules of the tournament but these acts clearly went against SPIRIT of the rules of the tournament.

Intentional Draws *do* fit the technical and legal definition of collusion as defined by US Legal precedents.

To differentiate between a close example:

When the final two Poker players in a tournament make a "bathroom deal" to split the Final Purse and only play "for the bracelet". The difference there is that no third player is being affected by the agreement between the top two players. In an intentional draw, there are third parties being affected by the (semi) secret agreement to not play out the game as per the Spirit of the Rules. This distinction would matter in a US court of law.

Second, Holy Metaphors Batman?!?!?

"In soccer, players "abuse" being able to kick the ball towards the other team's net in order to score a goal. There is blatant abuse of this every soccer game, but no one considers this unsportsmanlike"

This literally makes no sense. In soccer, players are not "abusing the rules" kicking the ball to score a goal.

Most soccer analysts, fans and commentators would NEVER use the word "abuse" the way you are. It simply makes no sense to call kicking the ball towards the net "abusing the rules". That isn't abusing the rules. That is playing the game according to the rules. Abusing the rules would be something like continually using hand-balls when the Ref wasn't looking.

I can't emphasize enough how you are using the word "abuse" incorrectly here. Working as hard as possible within the rules of the game is not "abusing the rules".

I guess you are thinking of the word "abuse" in a figurative or metaphorical manner like when someone declares a card combo "broken".

There is no such thing as "acceptable abuse vs. unacceptable abuse". It makes no sense linguistically. There is simply abuse and not-abuse.

Try applying this to other events and you see how absurd it sounds:

"Is there such thing as acceptable vs. unacceptable child abuse?"

"What is the difference between acceptable drug abuse and unacceptable drug abuse?"

See how wrong this acceptable vs. unacceptable distinction for abuse sounds when applied outside games?

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

"Players are expected to behave in a mature and
considerate manner, and to play within the rules and
not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling
a game for time, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate
behavior, treating an opponent with a lack
of courtesy or respect, etc. The TO, at his or her sole
discretion, may remove players from the tournament
for unsportsmanlike conduct."

What I find the most important here is that Unsportsmanlike Conduct specifically includes "intentionally stalling a game for time".

Just like intentionally stalling a game for time to me, ID and intentional stalling are both against the spirit of the game for exactly the same reason:

They intentionally manipulate Tournament Rule loopholes to obtain a result that is obtained OUTSIDE of what is possible within the confines of normal Game Rules.

The rules to play the game itself (Game Rules) and then the specific Tournament Rules that determine the structure of competitive play are two different rule sets designed for different purposes. To fail to distinguish the different purposes of the various rule sets can be misleading and is what is creating problems here.

I think the best thing would be for FFG to come right out on the issue of Intentional Draws and either declare them perfectly acceptable or declare them against the spirit of the game

FATMOUSE said:

Uh, they actually intended to prevent Algeria from advancing because if one of them didn't Algeria was in (since Algeria had played before them). So absolutely their intent was to keep someone out.

Kennon said:

Actually it was to be hidden knowledge until I overheard by mistake. It was not above board communication until I brought it out.

How do you feel if 2 players in the same meta are at a 4 player table and player 2 from the meta is in last and player 1 is in first and guaranteed to win on his turn. He has 2 choices take the easy uncontested power challenge against his meta mate or attack the third place player for a contested challenge to take his power and put his meta mate in third and then do the uncontested challenge of another type for the win vs his meta mate. Is that sportsman like? When actually defining sportsmanship you enter a very slippery slope of forcing once persons morals on another.

Sportsmanship is more about ethics IMO than morals. We aren't talking about sins (for those that believe in them) we are talking about abuse.

If it was supposed to be hidden knowledge then I would have a major problem with it. If it were open I would have a minor problem with it. The fact that they were meta mates and happening before the game is what I feel makes it emotionally more charged. If it had been any two or three players making the deal in game upon seeing you play or even your house card (say a bara or stark rush deck which could close the game out in two turns) I would actually be fine with it... especially because there is just a good as chance that one of them would stab one of the others in the back when they had weakened their own position in an attempt to keep you contained. That is melee.

I would certainly consider what happened to you unsportsmanlike behavior and would have ridiculed them all mercilessly for such a decision, not only if I were you, but if I were watching, or found out later. Heck if it had been my meta mates in the game with me, I either would have stabbed them all in the back Littlefinger style for it, or mocked them incessantly like Tyrion even if it meant me facing their wrath in game or out.

Of course if I were you I would have isolated one of them and said I know what you guys are planning and recognize I can't win against the three of you, but I can occupy the other two and give you the win, if you won't attack me except when it is the only logical choice. Try to turn one of them. Throw that golden apple.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away ...

This will sound rather strange, since it's tournament experience from a completely different CCG. But maybe it will add something to the discussion here.

My friends and I were playing at a tournament, and the format was to use a set of fixed decks. Basically, it would be like playing the core set decks for AGOT LCG. Every player would be given one of the 4 random decks. (At the time, this other CCG had about 8 fixed decks, I think).

My friends and I have those same decks, and we've been playing them against each other over the past month. So we kinda know what each deck's strengths and weaknesses were.

We also knew who among the other players would be players we would need to beat if we wanted one of us to get to the top.

So ...

When the decks were being handed out, we watched carefully to see which deck was being given out to each other AND to our rivals. It was pretty easy each deck box was very plainly marked. It's almost like having the AGOT LCG House Card stamped all over the deck box.

The situation: Two or more of my friends eventually make it to the semi- (or was it quarter-) finals. One of our rivals is also at that stage. It's very possible that one of my friends will face down one of our rivals at the final match.

The question: Do you consider it "tournament-ethical" if my friends and I had decided before the tournament began that whoever was holding onto the deck that can best beat our rival's deck will be "pushed" to the final match?

edit: I should mention that the tournament format for this old CCG was one-vs-one (joust style). It was possible to do a multiplayer (melee style), but the tournament environment at the time was still using joust. About a year or so later, they switched to melee for variety sake.

dormouse said:

Yes ethics is a much better descriptor. My point stands that both were unsportsmanlike but considered ok by people but other unsportsmanlike behavior is not. Where do you draw the line? How do draw the line. For my part I was ok with both. I tried table talk to sway but it was for not. I am not saying this created a negative play experience but it is unsportsmanlike and not against the rules. There was also collusion to ensure I finished last in the one instance even in the open or not it is little different than intentional draws (which my stance is still I do not care one way or the other).

[the following comment is made with 1 tournament worth of AGoT experience]

re: Intentional Draws

What if no standings were released until the end of the round-robin. If you don't know where you stand, then winning each match seems like something that you would want to do; if you are able to gather the information and calculate your (and your opponent's) standings before a match AND you can convince them to take a mutually beneficial draw, then you probably deserve to make the cut-off anyways .

Its pretty easy to calculate in a field of 20 players or so. Given the number of rounds and your record - you cna be pretty sure whther or not you are playing for the cut.

omg why won't this thread die?! Not even qyburn could keep it alive this long!

Staton said:

Haha, what's funny is that if Nate gets back to me (still hasn't ) it could create at least another 20 posts.

Other than replying to this and posting what Nate has to say (if anything), I am no longer be contributing to this thread, lol.

We had a discussion at dinner with some friends last night (non- AGOT friends and discussion) on an ethical question that makes me wonder. For those that are ok with taking an intentional draw, would you be perfectly accepting if you were the player that would make the top 8 if a game was legitimately played out, but were cut because two other players took an intentional draw?

For anyone that cares, the situation we were actually discussing involved a friend that is getting ready to move to St. Louis for work. The company is paying his moving costs including things like early termination of satellite TV contracts and the like. They would also certainly pay for a moving company. He owns a couple local business with his brother-in-law that are not moving related. Would it be unethical to call around to moving companies to get an estimate of prices, then submit a bill to the company that he is employed by for an equivalent price in order to funnel those funds back to himself. The connection being; if he's considering this, but is worried that superiors might possibly care if they find out isn't there likely an issue? If you were in the reverse position and would disapprove of something happening, there is probably grounds for it being unethical.

And, no, no I don't plan on letting the thread die, despite my understanding that I'll sway no one to my side.

Kennon said:

Just to clarify, I don't think I would ever take an intentional draw, but I don't see a problem with intentional draws being taken in general. It may be "lame" but it's a legal tournament action. To answer your question, I may be upset that I didn't make the cut, but I wouldn't be upset because other players took a draw and I consequently did not make it. Now, if these two players took a draw just to keep me out of the cut because they don't like my hair or something along those lines, then I'd say there is a problem. I've only seen intentional draws taken in this game to ensure making cut, and not to keep another player out of it.

I'm a bit confused about the situation you are describing. What does his and his brother-in-law's business have to do with the moving company? Would stuff be moved from the secondary company too, and are you asking if that is ethical? Are you saying his current employer is giving him up to X dollars to move, so he should shop around and keep the difference?

And now why I just wrote was probably a waste of time as people will now be interested in this:

From Nate:

"A draw is a legitimate result that in some situations it is in a player's best interest to play for. Because of the way tournament results are weighted (a win is 3 points, a draw is 1 point, and a loss is 0 points), players who agree on a draw are (between the 2 of them) sacrificing an entire point of tournament equity. If the rest of their tournament was played well (i.e. two 4-0 players meeting up in round 5), they are operating from a position of strength where they can afford to sacrifice this point. (If there are other 4-0 players in the field, they may be sacrificing seeding in the final cut.) In other situations, (two 3-1 players in the final round, or two players taking a draw before the final round), the players are actually making a sub-optimal decision by sacrificing that point. In either case, though, a draw is a legal result.

In tournaments, non-eliminated players should always be respectful of their opponents, those who they are playing against and those involved in other games. If a player wants to watch a game, he should ask both players involved in the game if they mind. Observers should not, under any condition, distract, interrupt, or influence a game. This includes pointing out passives or misplays it is the responsibility of the players involved in the game to pay attention to their own cards and the cards of their opponents. If a situation occurs where players catch a misplay after the fact, and cannot between the two of them agree on how to resolve the situation, then the TO should be called to rule on how to proceed with the situation.

Discussing of games between rounds with friends and meta-mates is discouraged, although admittedly it is something where players are on an "honor system," as judges and TOs can't be everywhere. If it becomes too big an issue at your events, the most practical solution is to run events where players can play different decks from round to round, so that each game is a potentially fresh encounter for each player."

Remember, don't shoot the messenger, lol.

I would like to point out that there is such a thing as socially acceptable abuse:

In some areas, and here until recently: abusing pets, children and wives was considered acceptable. This wasn't a case where the abuse was not considered abuse, more of the fact that like one would abuse the keyboard or game controller... it was acceptable. (I should point out that I personaly do not find such abuse acceptable... )

In public education bullying is generally considered acceptable, the victim fighting back on the other hand unacceptable.

Could always solve the draw thing by giving folks that end in a draw negative points... hence you are better of losing than ending in a draw. But that might create a new problem of people intentionally losing.

Just so this isn't glossed over from my post above i'm reposting Nate's reply:

"A draw is a legitimate result that in some situations it is in a player's best interest to play for. Because of the way tournament results are weighted (a win is 3 points, a draw is 1 point, and a loss is 0 points), players who agree on a draw are (between the 2 of them) sacrificing an entire point of tournament equity. If the rest of their tournament was played well (i.e. two 4-0 players meeting up in round 5), they are operating from a position of strength where they can afford to sacrifice this point. (If there are other 4-0 players in the field, they may be sacrificing seeding in the final cut.) In other situations, (two 3-1 players in the final round, or two players taking a draw before the final round), the players are actually making a sub-optimal decision by sacrificing that point. In either case, though, a draw is a legal result.

In tournaments, non-eliminated players should always be respectful of their opponents, those who they are playing against and those involved in other games. If a player wants to watch a game, he should ask both players involved in the game if they mind. Observers should not, under any condition, distract, interrupt, or influence a game. This includes pointing out passives or misplays it is the responsibility of the players involved in the game to pay attention to their own cards and the cards of their opponents. If a situation occurs where players catch a misplay after the fact, and cannot between the two of them agree on how to resolve the situation, then the TO should be called to rule on how to proceed with the situation.

Discussing of games between rounds with friends and meta-mates is discouraged, although admittedly it is something where players are on an "honor system," as judges and TOs can't be everywhere. If it becomes too big an issue at your events, the most practical solution is to run events where players can play different decks from round to round, so that each game is a potentially fresh encounter for each player."

From Nate:

------------------------------------------------

Wow, I actually really like this idea. Though I think it'd be difficult to ensure that people weren't essentially just building sideboard decks to ensure optimal match ups, I think one could work out a system where neither person knew what the other ways playing until both revealed the house card at the same time. If there were a tournament like this, I would definitely consider taking multiple decks...one for prelims, one for out rounds (assuming I broke), and a "fun" deck to play if I knew I was either too far behind or too far ahead for a loss to matter. (It'd be nice to mix things up rather than play 5-8 games in a row with the same deck.)

Maybe once I'm in NYC, we can experiment with a local tourney that follows this format?

Twn2dn said:

I'd definitely give it a shot. It is a very cool idea and does seem like fun.

Well, no one would have a problem with intentional draws if they gave zero points, so I don't think negative points would be necessary. If a draw were worth zero points in the last round but 1 point in every other round, I'd have no problem with people taking intentional draws in any round. I don't have a problem with people taking intentional draws with the current tournament structure either - I just think that structure would have more integrity if it were changed in some way to disincentivize intentional draws.

I think this whole topic is just one of those issues that people will never agree on because they refuse to start the discussion with the same base assumptions.

Also, allowing people to change decks might be a fun variant for a casual tournament, but it seems to me like it would open up multiple new cans of worms in a competitive setting.