The new tournament rules

By Ratatoskr, in 1. AGoT General Discussion

Posted at

Da Wolf Pack said:

After reading Ktom's nicely put post, I think collusion rules are best summed up by the famous Supreme Court definition of porn. "I know it when I see it" Maybe not very satisfying, but a fairly decent working model. Heck, if the Olympic Games can figure out when the best teams in the world are doing it and toss them from the Olympics, I'm sure it can work with Thrones. (~and of course we have a lot more at stake-cardboard with our name on it)

-Goshdarnstud

~don't forget the even bigger prize of your mugshot included in the card art for everyone to see

Posted at

Da Wolf Pack said:

After reading Ktom's nicely put post, I think collusion rules are best summed up by the famous Supreme Court definition of porn. "I know it when I see it" Maybe not very satisfying, but a fairly decent working model. Heck, if the Olympic Games can figure out when the best teams in the world are doing it and toss them from the Olympics, I'm sure it can work with Thrones. (~and of course we have a lot more at stake-cardboard with our name on it)

-Goshdarnstud

I agree. Other games have been dealing with collusion issues for a long time and use judgement to enforce. Poker, for example, which has a lot more at stake than card credit. I don't see it happening in aGoT for awhile, though.

Posted at

ktom said:

(It's worth noting, by the way, that this same reasoning can be applied to the FFG preference for "no concession at time limit." You are expected to play toward the best possible outcome for yourself. Taking something lower doesn't fit that philosophy. Hence, playing it out to time limit, then taking an outcome other than the ones the rules determine,might be very sporting to the guy you're playing, but is not necessarily sporting to the rest of the field - especially now that there is a point difference between a full and modified loss - affecting strength of schedule for everyone who has played either one of you. However, I would say that not playing it out when it's obvious your opponent will score 8 power this challenge phase, or scooping in the 3rd round because the game is so one sided is not "collusion" or "concession" in my book.)

Yeah, I see that and have a problem with it.

So conceding 3rd turn ISN'T collusion or concession.

Conceding turn 7 with three minutes left IS collusion or concession.

Ah…I see.

So…turn 5 is good? No? Yes? Only if you don't have a character on the board? Turn 6 you can have one character but no locations? Turn 8 if you play fast is for sure? No concessions with 10 minutes or left in the round?

Guess I don't like rules without a consistent 'yes' or 'no' attached (the pornography SCOTUS ruling is pretty widely riduclued by the way). Anything where the TO has a large range of options on how to rule isn't a good thing. Or where players have a benefit to lying to the TO ('yeah, he won in the time limit for sure, all the way to 15 power…I didn't try to lose or anything!'). Even if nothing is ever ruled collusion people will then complain that nothing was ruled that way.

I am glad I am not Ktom, he has a ton of pressure on this thing. ~Unless they have an advisory board, where rulings by your peers in a straight majority, unless in the case of external matters where a 2/3rds majority is needed on a bi-weekly basis etc. etc.

BTW +1 to Erwo's note. For sure.

Posted at

OrangeDragon said:

Da Wolf Pack said:

After reading Ktom's nicely put post, I think collusion rules are best summed up by the famous Supreme Court definition of porn. "I know it when I see it" Maybe not very satisfying, but a fairly decent working model. Heck, if the Olympic Games can figure out when the best teams in the world are doing it and toss them from the Olympics, I'm sure it can work with Thrones. (~and of course we have a lot more at stake-cardboard with our name on it)

-Goshdarnstud

I agree. Other games have been dealing with collusion issues for a long time and use judgement to enforce. Poker, for example, which has a lot more at stake than card credit. I don't see it happening in aGoT for awhile, though.

Well, it happened last year, so not sure why you don't think it wouldn't (or won't) happen again?

In poker the person helping someone else loses money doing it. You are right that the stakes of winning are not as high, but neither are the stakes for losing (which are usually more important).

So far in the olympics, it has be 1v1 collusion (team vs. team) for seeding reasons. It is the first time the Olympics have ever done this - and they DIDN'T when Japan's women's soccer team persuaded South Africa's team to take a 0-0 draw. I think they also threw those 3-4 teams out under a general 'code of conduct' stipulation. They opened a pretty wide door here that I am not sure they wanted to (what if, as usual, Argintina flops a ton during the basketball game today and wins by 1 - should they be disqualified there? If not, where is that line again?). That all being said, the Olympics have a pretty firm grip on their product and can do whatever they wanted to…something competative aGoT does not have.

Posted at

rings said:

OrangeDragon said:

Da Wolf Pack said:

After reading Ktom's nicely put post, I think collusion rules are best summed up by the famous Supreme Court definition of porn. "I know it when I see it" Maybe not very satisfying, but a fairly decent working model. Heck, if the Olympic Games can figure out when the best teams in the world are doing it and toss them from the Olympics, I'm sure it can work with Thrones. (~and of course we have a lot more at stake-cardboard with our name on it)

-Goshdarnstud

I agree. Other games have been dealing with collusion issues for a long time and use judgement to enforce. Poker, for example, which has a lot more at stake than card credit. I don't see it happening in aGoT for awhile, though.

Well, it happened last year, so not sure why you don't think it wouldn't (or won't) happen again?

In poker the person helping someone else loses money doing it. You are right that the stakes of winning are not as high, but neither are the stakes for losing (which are usually more important).

So far in the olympics, it has be 1v1 collusion (team vs. team) for seeding reasons. It is the first time the Olympics have ever done this - and they DIDN'T when Japan's women's soccer team persuaded South Africa's team to take a 0-0 draw. I think they also threw those 3-4 teams out under a general 'code of conduct' stipulation. They opened a pretty wide door here that I am not sure they wanted to (what if, as usual, Argintina flops a ton during the basketball game today and wins by 1 - should they be disqualified there? If not, where is that line again?). That all being said, the Olympics have a pretty firm grip on their product and can do whatever they wanted to…something competative aGoT does not have.

Even more, Spain's basketball team played an incredible game against Brazil's in which both teams wanted to lose to avoid USA in the semifinals. The game was more of a so-so boring one until Spain played an amazing fourth quarter in which lost 13-31 I think, with some players trying to get offensive fouls to lose ball control. I wanted them to be disqualified for this attitude but the Olympic Games Committee didn't move a finger. And I'm Spanish and since then I am supporting each rival the team faces, hope USA punish them hard in the finals ;)

Posted at

rings said:

OrangeDragon said:

… I don't see it happening in aGoT for awhile, though.

Rings said:

Well, it happened last year, so not sure why you don't think it wouldn't (or won't) happen again?

Ah… I meant I don't see judges ruling on collusion for awhile. me = unclear

rings said:

In poker the person helping someone else loses money doing it. You are right that the stakes of winning are not as high, but neither are the stakes for losing (which are usually more important).

They still do it - I am speaking of tournaments. The advantage to the "team" is perceived to be high.