orclrob said:

It is collusion, by definition. IT may not seem "sinister" (which I read as negative in this case) but that is probably because you are looking at it form the inside. If I were the player who got pushed out of the final four because of one or both of those I would definitely have a negative experience and honestly, probably feel pretty frustrated to possibly hostile about it. I wasn't there, it didn't effect me, but I can see myself possibly feeling that way.

Penfold said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't think in this case anyone did anything wrong. But then pre-point system reform I have also taken the optional 1-point tie with other undefeated's to make sure I made semis. (In other words, it would be pretty hypocritical for me to object in this case.) Either way though, it's clearly obvious that there is/will continue to be "collusion" so long as there's an advantage to doing so.

So, collusion is ok as long as it's spontaneous and happens at the time of the round, or is all collusion ok, even if it's planned out days, weeks, or months ahead of the event? Or is it, you can't police collusion, so we'll accept it as part of competetive play environment? I saw it at the Magic Pre-release sealed event. One guy threw the final round and they split the prize support, which was fairly common when I played Sealed weekly 10 years ago. Is collusion ok in CCG and LCG events because of the nature of the events and AGOT has adopted it as such?

kpmccoy21 said:

Very tough call. I don't like it, but it isn't possible to police it IMHO. If I want to tie someone, I can tie them...it is just making me sit at a table after the flop with 0 power for an hour thinking of my first move, and my opponent not calling me out on it. Also, as happened above at least once, if someone obviously is going to win if it doesn't go to time, I don't have a problem (in my meta or not) giving them the game. Hasn't happened to me yet, but I would take the loss in that situation if I felt it was necessary - so hard to differeenciate between that and true collusion.

So, therefore, I guess it is frowned upon by (some of) the players, but if that isn't enough to stop it, then...oh, well.

Hard to compare to MTG, where serious $$ (or in the least product worth serious $$) is on the line many times.

Knowing you're going to lose and conceding because you know the game is going to run out of time is one thing. Knowing you're going to win and conceding the game because it will advance your friend further in the tournament when they didn't earn it is another.

If I attended an event and lost out on going into further rounds because people were blatantly cheating (that's what this is, plain and simple - stop being so apologetic for it), I would be completely livid. I don't see how people can not care about it and show up to future events with the same people. I just feel like the argument that it can't be stopped is extremely weak. How many other unethical activities can be stopped? None of them can, but that doesn't mean we should accept them and turn a blind eye.

No one tolerates this sort of thing in any other sorts of competition, why are people so resigned to accepting it in this one? As a society we don't tolerate cheating. A card game may not be a sport but it's a competition and in this case it's one with a reward, no matter how insignificant that is. Basically this post means that the tournament result has to be taken with a grain of salt and a giant asterisk.

I can't stand people losing on purpose to further another. You see it in melee games a lot.

In joust, for a regional championship, it shouldn't be allowed. I know you can't police it, but its obviously an issue if people don't feel bad about doing it.

And yes, just to clarify, I am referring to the second scenario, one which the player who is about to win concedes, not giving someone a standard win when they are up 14-1 in power when time runs out.

Stasis said:

~Well obviously if I felt that I had cheated or that I had done something wrong I would not have included the comments in my tournament report.

The purpose of adding those comments, was to show what a great community AGOT has and is. It this case, it happens that I knew the individual, but I saw it happen last year at GENCON with people from different locations as well. A player that does not have a chance making it to the final table concedes to one who does.

I do not play other competitive card games. I really consider myself more of a casual player. I got into the game, as many did, because of my enjoyment of the books. I began playing in the tournament scene last year, because there is only one other person local to me that plays and the regional tournaments and GENCON are a way to meet people with similar interests. I stayed and continued to play over the year because of the community.

I say the above paragraph to provide some background on my newness and possible Naïveté when it comes to competitive play. The comment "blatantly cheating" concerned me enough to spend a few minutes googling "collusion and competitive card games". I see that there is quite alot of discussion on this topic.

After reading through some of the links, I do not feel that what occurred was cheating. (at least by rules of Magic. There did not seem to be much in regards to A Game of Thrones). Did Collusion occur? Yes. Did it occur legally (at least by what I understand Magic tournament rules to be) Yes..

Obviously since I am the one involved, people will have to take that comment with a grain of salt :-). Below are the links I read through to help me sleep better tonight :-).

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=2828
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18912_Yawgmoths_Whimsy_315_Bribery_Collusion_and_Betting.html

Best of luck to those competing in tournaments in the upcoming days.

It really bugs me when someone accuses another of cheating when NO RULES ARE BROKEN! It may violate your personal rules or competitive drive if one person concedes to another, but there is no rule against it, so it isn't cheating. You may find it distasteful and ugly. Fine. But accusing someone of cheating is completely irresponsible.

Thanks for the links, Rob. Definitely made for some interesting insights on the topic from Magic.

Dobbler said:

While I agree completely with your post, would it somehow be better to accuse them of being unethical, dishonest, or unscrupulous?

kpmccoy21 said:

No, it wouldn't, because then you'd need to argue successfully that his actions WERE unethical, dishonest, or unscrupulous. We're dealing in subjectives, not absolutes.

The question for me still remains, why do some players find a metamate handing the victory to a friend acceptable in joust, but abhorrent in melee? That doesn't make sense to me at all.

I really don't see what the big deal is here. If the games were not close and the OBVIOUSLY winning player conceded to get his friend into the final 4 then, yeah, that would have been cheating. But the fact that they took the time to look at the board and upcoming cards and discuss the probable outcome of the next and winning round means I would have had no problem with this.

If this were two strangers and not meta-mates that this situation had occurred between would anyone really have a problem with this happening?

Ultimately there is no real point to a timed win/loss. The loss still gets you no points and your strength of schedule is still crap due to the modified win that your opponent got. This was one of the dumbest things that FFG has added to the tournament rules over the last year. Well, that is unless you happen to play someone in the timed rounds that you might actually have to play in the top 4 and you are afraid of that person and just want to screw them out of a chance at making top 4. But, if you are that much of a ****** then I really wouldn't want to play you again anyway.

widowmaker93 said:

eh... it got rid of intentional draws, and raised joust tournament point levels to be more equivalent with melee tournament points for the overall champ... good enough for me.

I generally tend to dislike anything outside of just playing the game.

"Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them." 2011 Tourney Rules

I'd be interested in hearing how people interpret "abusing" the rules vs. "breaking" the rules. Are they the same? Different? If so, how?

My personal take is that conceding to help a friend make the cut is a perfect example of "playing within the rules", but still "abusing" them. I also think this can be classified as not behaving in a "considerate manner", or being considerate of other players.

That said, I'm not going to get mad at anyone for not seeing things the way I do over such a subjective issue. It's up to FFG to further clarify the sportsmanship rules if they feel it's needed, or for the TO to decide how to interpret what we have.

I am not a competitive player, but I am interested in seeing what is going on in competitive play.

As for collusion, what I perceive to be the central issue is this: What does it do? It skews the results. The player's performance over the course of the whole tournament compared to other players' performances is misrepresented in some fashion.

Now, I realize this is hard to quantify in a game where some things are out of the player's hand anyhow (luck of the draw misrepresenting the deck's efficiency given the small sample size (i.e. a handful of games).

On a purely social level, I don't find it unacceptable for a player to increase his metamate's chances in the way Rob has presented it. I would likely do the same for a mate if I had no chance to move forward but he or she did. So from a single game point of view, it is actually sportsman-like.

But it is worth keeping in mind how it affects other players' results when looking at the whole tourney. So I also agree that it is at least questionable, if not unsportsman-like.

I subscribe to Deathjester's notion that it is FFG's or the TO's prerogative to clarify this further as they see fit, though I doubt they will as it is hard to monitor. Until such a time, players will need to make decisions based on their own ethics.

OK I've got a few things to say concerning the cheating accusation.

1.) Those of you who are accusing Rob of cheating don't know what they are talking about. I've gamed against him for over 30 years now and he has never done anything to ever warrant me not being able to trust him completely. If he was cheating would he have posted everything with the honesty that he did?

2.) I believe in the old adage of "Tell me the rules of the game and I'll tell you how to play the game". This "colusion" is part of the game. There is no rule against it one way or another. I have used it and turned it down in my last 2 years at Gencon. It might have cost me a spot in the top but I don't know and it doesn't matter, because...

3.) It's up to me to build a deck that wins. If I lose a game or don't make it to the final round it's because ultimately my deck was not good enough. Nobody's fault but my own. Sitting on the sidelines crying they cheated is really a load of bull. Build a better deck and take control of your own fate. If you can't then make more friends. Either way it's your responsibility to build a winning deck. If you don't and then somebody gets help from a friend that isn't going to make it then it still comes back to you to take control and responsibility for your play.

Thanks,

Tony

OK I've got a few things to say concerning the cheating accusation.

1.) Those of you who are accusing Rob of cheating don't know what they are talking about. I've gamed against him for over 30 years now and he has never done anything to ever warrant me not being able to trust him completely. If he was cheating would he have posted everything with the honesty that he did?

2.) I believe in the old adage of "Tell me the rules of the game and I'll tell you how to play the game". This "colusion" is part of the game. There is no rule against it one way or another. I have used it and turned it down in my last 2 years at Gencon. It might have cost me a spot in the top but I don't know and it doesn't matter, because...

3.) It's up to me to build a deck that wins. If I lose a game or don't make it to the final round it's because ultimately my deck was not good enough. Nobody's fault but my own. Sitting on the sidelines crying they cheated is really a load of bull. Build a better deck and take control of your own fate. If you can't then make more friends. Either way it's your responsibility to build a winning deck. If you don't and then somebody gets help from a friend that isn't going to make it then it still comes back to you to take control and responsibility for your play.

Thanks,

Tony

@widowmaker: I'm talking purely about the game where he was absolutely going to lose and his friend let him win the game, even showing him the card that was going to win it for him and that he decided not to play. I'm not talking about the game that was conceded to him because he was ahead and time was about to run out. I have no issue with that, that's just good sportsmanship.

@orclrob: Telling us that someone conceded a win to you when you didn't deserve it doesn't tell me how great the AGOT LCG community is. It tells me how bad the tournament scene is. I started playing a couple of months ago and have already purchased every set except QoD and KotS which were just released. My interest in attending events is seriously compromised after reading people in here saying this sort of thing happens in all the events and that it's considered perfectly acceptable.

The argument that you're a casual player and as such that is some sort of justification isn't kosher. Tournaments are competitive. There are rewards at events, even if some people consider them trivial, they are still motivating factors. Just placing first in an of itself is a major reward to a competitive person. People spend excessive amounts of time and a good amount of money building and purchasing decks. They spend lots of time testing them out against what they expect to see in the meta game. They then spend time and money traveling to the event. They are there to test their mettle against the field and see how they stack up. Regardless of whether you care where you place or not - other people most certainly do. This type of behavior skews the results and has an extremely negative impact on other players in the field.

If you are a casual player who is mostly concerned with having fun and the social aspects over winning, why are you concerned enough with getting top 4 by allowing a friend throw a game for you? That doesn't seem consistent with what a casual player would do, but more so what a player who is competitive and wants to place highly would do.

Honestly, my distaste isn't so much aimed at orclrob, but at the person who threw the game for him. It would be silly for me to place the blame on orclrob not declining the win rather than the person who decided to concede when he had the game won. I feel both are wrong but much more strongly so of the latter.

@blackbart: Your argument is extremely flawed. It's up to me to build a winning deck. If my deck and playing skills are good enough I will prevail over a field of people colluding? Are you serious? Think about what you said. Let me show you how wrong you are.

Anyone familiar with chess player from the 60's and 70's named Bobby Fischer? He was an extremely good player who was fanatical about preparing and studying. Problem is that he was entering tournaments that had 4-6 Russians in it and they were colluding against him. They would keep track of his record in the tournament and different things like tie-breaks. They would throw games to each other in such a manner that it prevented him from being able to proceed in the tournament. So one of the best chess players in the world who spends all his free time studying the game isn't going deep into tournaments, not because of the strength of his preparation (deck) or of his playing skill. [bobby Fischer eventually was able to get a one versus one match against Spassky and won the world championship - hence it was never a matter of his deck or skill.]

Why does anyone deserve an edge in a tournament solely because they showed up with friends? Why do people who show up solo deserve to be screwed over? Explain this to me.

Stasis said:

Stasis, what blackbart was saying is this...."win all of your games and it doesn't matter". If you go 5-0 in swiss, SoS and all that jazz are irrelevant.

To all,

I have learned many valuable lessons through the publishing of this tournament report and the comments that have been made and received. I honestly did not know what type of hornet's nest I was stepping into when I provided as factual report as I possibly could.

It's regional season and I do not wish for this tourney report to detract from the joy of the game and the fun and competition that will be had over the next several weeks.

I'm not sure any additional points can be made that would enhance the discussion. (although I'm sure that there are plenty that can be made to degrade it ). As such, I would like to suggest to the community that we consider this thread closed.

Best of Luck to the players in the upcoming tournaments and I look forward to reading the next tournament report that is published

respectfully

orclrob

Someone has to be so much better than the rest of the field (and get good match ups, and get good draws in every game) that they can win every game they play, so that collusion doesn't hurt them? Not only do they have to be so superior to the field but they also have to be lucky enough not to get matched against colluders that will stall and force time on them. Come on...

~D.C. regionals was 15 people, yes?

If tournaments are that size I could bring say, 5 friends, and we could pull off some epic shenanigans. They will stall and force time against anyone not me and they'll throw their games against me.

Once I get enough wins and the field is ripe enough for it, they can start throwing games to one of our other friends to inflate their record. Hopefully the top 4 will have me and another friend in it. If they get matched against me they'll lose on purpose. If they get matched against someone else they'll stall for 50 minutes.

If I'm lucky I won't have to ever win more than a game or two on my own merits. /~

If my point isn't blatantly clear now, I don't think it will ever be. It's a serious problem and if you don't see it you're in denial.

Kennon said:

Kennon said:

Mainly because of the format (duh). You can bring a meta-mate's subpar deck and a subpar player even and just target someone (or a few different people) over and over again. There really isn't anything the person can do to not lose if even one person is out for them unless the have their own friends at the table.

However, to screw someone over in Joust, your opponent both has to either get lucky enough to be matched up with someone, or good enough to play them (or the friend) in the later rounds to give them a game. It really isn't a strategy that works, especially in a larger tourney. In Melee you can point at four different strong players, and most likely get matched up with one or more during the swiss.

Has their been game in Joust in Worlds and other big tourneys that have been changed due to handing over games? Yes. Was it premediated that I have ever seen? No. Has it is Melee? Sounds like yes.

Maybe splitting hairs, but premediated screwing someone over is quite a bit worse than deciding when you are already down (or don't want to keep playing) that you are handing one game over.

Rob, while I understand and respect your reasoning to try and end this thread - I think it opened a pretty good and honest converstation. If you feel personally attacked (which I understand), that sucks - but it is an important issue that hopefully we are all learning from a little. I know I am - it is a black and white issue that is in greys to me. I agree that I have seen it from people that don't even know each other. I want to thank you for both putting up the TR, and for letting people beat on your situation a little

This whole issue of premeditation is a moot point. No one is going to decide to throw games until they see the win/loss record of the field and who it will help or harm. It doesn't make sense to go into a tourney with that predetermined. It makes sense to do it on the spot after you have more information with which to make your decision.

Not only that, but if people regularly attend the same tournaments together and they do this even once, it becomes an implied agreement for future rounds and tournaments. You "owe" them now and you need to do it for them in the future.

If someone is ahead in Power when time is called, then it is perfectly fine to give them a full win. BUT, if it is a tie or the person who is going to win concedes, then there is an issue. At this point, you are screwing over the players who just happened to not play "nice" people.

Stasis said:

I have been playing in major tournaments since 2004. I have won two world championships and never played a metamate in either of those tourneys. You are making an amazing amount of generalized tournament judgements based on one tournament and one tournament report. Keep an eye on other regional reports. There will be 20-30 people at LCG days this weekend. 20-35 people at Kublacon over Memorial day weekend. And I seriously doubt you hear any report of someone winning a joust tournament and "screwing" someone else out because of friendships. In all my years of playing this game I've never seen a championship won or lost over friendships. So please don't be so hasty to make judgements based on one tourney report.