Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias Fricot said:

The unsportsmanship conduct rule was always going to be up to the individual TO's discretion to call and because its a hard concept to nail it down was always going to be controversial.

After watching the majority of the game,i was thinking wow those Martell players have alot of things out and arnt really knocking bells out of each other like here at our melee games and while i couldnt put my finger on it exactly when the DQ's were announced it didnt really surprise me. Im not sure on FFG/Damon/Ktom's policy on commenting on decisions made, i know some companies would never bother to comment on the reasons etc, Im hoping theres at least some explanation or something from ffg about it.

No disrespect to the players involved, i hope while they might not agree with the decision they respect the TO's judgment and call and not propell it into a huge Drama-lama!

(Dennis seems to already have accepted it and put him behind him, i hope everybody else involved/not involved does so also.)

It's pretty apparent that, especially at the end, Dennis flat out says on camera something to the effect that he's trying to make Eric (sp?) get 2nd in consideration to the man that helped him get to the final table. It seemed that he was trying to set up a favorable ranking for the next day. Now, that's not the reason stated for the DQ on camera…

MeatLoafX said:

Even if Dennis was cheating, that doesn't mean all three were, and in any case Dennis' remark wasn't the stated reason for disqualifications.

I think it is absolutely necessary for FFG to not only comment, but fully explain all controversial rulings in order to clarify what is and what isn't illegal. Nobody can or should take a competition seriously if the rules can't be clearly defined. Melee already has its questions regarding how valid it is as a competitive format, and I now more than ever side with those who say it is a poor format.

I do agree though that it's good the players were respectful of the TO. Kudos to Dennis for rising above on this particular episode.

Forum hiccup…deleting double post.

Twn2dn said:

IF what Dennis was doing was against the rules, Eric was just as culpable. However, it doesn't explain the DQ of Rick and, as I said before, it wasn't the reason stated.

Penfold said:

just when you think I can't possibly do anything stupider, I go and do something like this……….and totally redeem myself!!!!

Hey Dan, so to change the conversation to a more useful one….what would you consider should be counted as collusion?

Is it just talking between games and scouting? cause you can just talk after the game begins and do the same

Is it having 25% of the field being your friends with the same deck that feed of each other, getting at least 2 rounds having one or 2 friends in your table constitute collusion or strategy?

Is it talking inside the game of positioning?

Is it ganging up on 1 player?

I think those are things that have to be outlined in the collusion rules.

On another note…..How fun would have been if one of the 3 friends had fake a deal to win XD

Dennis - try to shake this off. I look forward to seeing your joust results.

I agree with FFG on this. It reinforces my belief that in big tournaments Melee is something to be avoided. One player could have handled it with more class when it happened too instead of cursing at FFG. I do applaud DCDennis for his stance on this and wish him luck in the joust today.

Francisco G. said:

Ultimately, I think we need to take a step back and think about the purpose of the game rules and design. If its to make the game fun, then what can be done to make things more fun. Certainly vague rules with muiltiple interpretations are not the answer, and maybe collusion should be addressed through card design rather than rules.

Francisco G. said:

Francisco G. said:

for what it's worth I, saw exactly one meta mate throughout my 4 tables and won 3 of them and took 2nd in the other. So the deck's power stands on its own, it just happeneds to be broken when paired.

@Dennis, Oh, i know the deck has to be good too. And thats why i was asking about numbers before, cause it's hard to put a finger on the problem without all the facts. I didn't see anything wrong in the way you guys played that one game, besides the obvious frustration on maekar, but the official reason doesn't cut it for me, so i'm trying to figure out if there was something else that they didn't like throughout the tourney and they just used the final to set an example.

Question, did the DQ mean 0 points or just all 3 got 4th and maekar 1st??

So the deck's power stands on its own, it just happeneds to be broken when paired.

I assume that had to be part of the consideration in having such a large group of players with the same deck. Chances are, you and your mates had a good chance to be paired up at least once along the way. Having someone with a similar deck deems like almost a guarantee 1-2 finish for them.

@Meat Loaf…… but thats the same as having a deck thats broken against maesters and encountering a lot of them in joust….not cheating. The problem is that all the players used the same deck and probably had an strategy beforehand and maybe that constitutes colusion….it's just too blurry.

I think this was pointed out by Dan, Brett, Kennon, and others when the rule was released….the blurryness of the line between strategy and colusion in melee. The only thing well defined in this rule is the scouting (sort of).

Having been in the short stick of this type of melee matches, i know how frustrating and powerless maekar must have felt during this game, but that doesn't mean they cheated.

The only other thing that could merit the DQ was how long it took to make each choice by the 3 guys… I do remember that slowing the game too much was kind of ilegal…and painful for the guy that has to receive 4:40 of martel xD

All in all, depending on interpretation, either side has a point until FFG clarifies the colusion rule.

I'm sure FFG will come out with some official statement or at least some updates on the rules so that things are somewhat less vague, but as far as the official reason on camera, yadda yadda:

It was almost 3am. Every judge there was working their asses off to create a phenomenal environment since early that morning. Whether or not they used the specific wording that was necessary to placate everyone likely wasn't on their minds. It was a tough ruling and a huge change in the game, so I feel like nitpicking the exact wording doesn't change anything. The ruling was made for reasons the judges found necessary. It's stated explicitly in the tournament rules that they may disqualify anyone at their sole discretion, so I feel that breaking apart the specific wording at a huge moment at 3am in the morning just isn't worth it -- it doesn't change the ruling.

The Red Woman said:

Thanks for this…good reminder about timing too. Maybe holding a competitive event until 3am, when judges' judgements were potentially getting strained (if you can't articulate why you DQ'd someone, then can you accurately track rules for four players and make sophisticated rulings?) was the problem. FFG may need to think of a different approach to scheduling. Wonder how popular those warm up tourneys are. Possibly consider cutting them, given the trade off might help protect the integrity of the actual world event (the reason people travel there in the first place)? Better to do a few things right than many things poorly.

The Red Woman said:

The Red Woman said:

this. I coulda been dq'd for being bald. The reason is irrelevant since the TO has complete discretion. The decision was made, lets all move on and hope some good can come out of this. Like perhaps we will now all get rock solid, non-subjective melee rules moving forward. You should all be thanking me!

The Red Woman said:

The Red Woman said:

The Red Woman said:

this. I coulda been dq'd for being bald. The reason is irrelevant since the TO has complete discretion. The decision was made, lets all move on and hope some good can come out of this. Like perhaps we will now all get rock solid, non-subjective melee rules moving forward. You should all be thanking me!

~You were the bold one? I hated that guy in the video feed, totaly a good reason to DQ you.

dcdennis said:

Rock solid, non-subjective Melee Rules sounds awesome, I'd drink to your honor for that.

WWDrakey said:

Rock solid, non-subjective Melee Rules sounds awesome, I'd drink to your honor for that.

Maybe they can come up with the Easter bunny while they're at it!

So if competing for 2 for points toward overall champ is what is destroying the melee game, then maybe just drop the overall champ title? Then everyone is playing to win melee.

Does anyone know what decks are being played at worlds for joust? Do we have any reports on the swiss?

No lists yet that I know of, 81 participants though.