Thats why I said we needed more information.

Facts:

1- ¿10? People went with the same deck (a good one) that it's broken when another one is in the same table via hellholt engineer (BTW….genious!!!). This + only 54 players in melee makes it difficult to not have a few of this in your tables in at least 2 rounds.

2- It's the same group (sorry for generalizing) of last year so there had to be more suspicion on them and more heat from other players against them. It's a shame that it is like this, but thats reality.

3- Ganging up on 1 player it's not collusion and table collusion is not collusion (not even placing), since I've seen all of those in gencon and nobody was even warned.

4- They received some warning during the day. Of this I'm not sure since I'm not there. Excuse me if I'm wrong.

5- There is not another organized meta that could stop them.

6- Most of the people discussing this here, me include, weren't there so we can't argue of intentions in every table….we just watch 1 game!! I've had worst matchups myself playing with friends and didn't tell them they were colluded beforehand // (Crom, TITO, JLA….you totally have to collude to beat me!!! xD)

Conclusion:

The last table was painful to watch since matthiew (maekar) didn't have much to say or do, but that was hardly a 1 game collusion. The real reason of the DQ's is the sum of points 1,2, and 4. Because using this strategy (that I'm still iffy of calling collusion, it is but i don't know how wrong it is, cause of the blurry rule def) they could put 3 of the guys in the final table and make a NPE experience for the 4th guy.

This is the only explanation, for me, for DQing Rick along with Dennis and Erick. For D and E you could argue that they were competing in a bad way, and the rules are open enough for FFG to rule that way, but that wouldn't have made Rick get the DQ. This was clearly a Meta DQ, so it has to be for the strategy pre-planned in their place.

Its like when an awesome director gets passed over for an academy award his whole career, then gets one for the sh*tty movie he puts out late in life that probably didnt deserve it. Hes not getting the Oscar for that movie, but for his body of work ;P

~So, are you saying Erick it's like Oliver Stone….a really good director with a really bad reputation?

First, let me say I haven't been able to watch the videos yet. (Or rather I guess I could watch the videos so long as I don't mind not hearing the videos, but I'd kind of like sound.)

I'm a fairly new player (4 months in), and I was hoping to go to either Worlds or Gencon next year, but honestly, this whole situation is a bit off putting. I love melee and especially the deal making aspect of it. However, I have no desire to deal with this kind of crap, inside or outside of the game.

As an aside on the whole "they haven't defended themselves so obviously they're guilty" aspect:

1) They're at a convention they have probably traveled a fair distance to get to. They probably have better things to do than get online. Especially the day of the Joust championships.

2) Would anyone believe them just because they said "we didn't do it?"

All that aside, is there any possible way to close up the "If you do something we don't like we'll DQ you for it" wording but still prevent metas from cheating?

Maybe,Define the rules of collusion to include a non mirroring clause within the same meta. If more than 10 have exactly the same deck they are probably colluding (or the same combo).

You are not going to get friends to attack friends, i wouldn't count that as colluding. Doing the math toghether to make a decision…stalling the game…could be santioned (¿misspelled?). In joust it's ilegal to stall to much, why not make it ilegal in melee?

widowmaker93 said:

The line of "personal attacks" against the DC meta (and Erick specifically) concern me greatly for several reasons. First, I would point out that the burden in this case is not on the disqualified players to prove their innocence, but on FFG to prove their guilt. At least, that is the tradition of western democracies, and FFG is headquartered in such a place. But since this isn't a democratic process, and TO's can disqualify someone for any reason without justification, the analogy of a democracy is probably a bit far fetched…the truth is it's more like a benevolent dictatorship. (I'm not saying that's bad, but just pointing out the obvious so everyone is on the same page.) All that said, it's somewhat unrealistic to assume that all players involved have access to a computer while traveling AND the time to post online. If the melee went until 3am, I think it more than understandable that players spend the "free time" they have resting rather than defending themselves from online personal attacks.

Second, these are people, and grouping all people together as a mass of "other" is what leads to bias, hatred and unfounded contempt. Several players have noted that even if Dennis and Erick in theory colluded, Rick was also disqualified. But more to the point, I know most of the DC players, and those I know are very generous, friendly people. I have traveled to their events, slept on their couches, consumed their food (free of charge) and swapped stories into the evening. A couple of them are young dads, and as an expecting father, I've received advice. The reason I play AGOT is for the people, and after more than few years of knowing these guys, I can say that I haven't been disappointed.

Third, my personal opinion is that these specific personal attacks are unfounded. That these players would inevitably cheat because they have the same decks, there's precedent for collusion, etc. confuses me. After following the past three years closely, I would argue that if one reviews past precedent, the DC meta will do everything within the legal limits of the game to optimize the team's odds at winning. They are a close-knit meta, and approach competition as a community, a team. When collusion wasn't restricted by the rules, they openly colluded. Since collusion is now prohibited, they work together before the tournament to help each other with deckbuilding. Though they take this process to the extreme, I think it extremely problematic to condemn them for helping each other improve their decks. If you draw any conclusion from the past, why wouldn't it be that the DC meta "games" the system…in cases where there are "vulnerabilities" in the rules, the meta identifies those vulnerabilities and uses them to their advantage. To me, that is a sign of a good strategist, not a morally questionable person. It saddens me that some people on these forums would assume the worst in people they don't know.

Shadowcatx said:

While I don't necessarily agree with Dan in every aspect, I do agree that there is no reason to turn this into a negative thread. We are just discussing lig adults here.

I ask the people who are going to post (either side) to not insult people while doing it.

To point the discussion to the right place….yeah i prefer narrowing it down.

Debate points:

1.- Is Pre-tourney strategy collusion? FFG appears to thinks yes.

2.- Do we need a collusion rule definition? What would be the points of the collusion rule that need to be clarified?

Shadowcatx said:

Shadowcatx said:

i never said "they didn't defend themselves so they are guilty." Yes it has been only a couple days, they were at a tourney out of town and probably had better things to do than come on here and defend their innonence. I will point out that DCDennis said it himself that they should have been disqualified for their actions. What more do you need to hear?! I also did say the lack of emotion/surprise on their part gives me the feeling of it being premeditated. That is my OPINION. The fact that they got DQ'd is all I need to know. Their history of repeated offenses in this area doesn't give Erick(and by extension his meta) a good reputation. Am I a ****** pointing it out? Sorry. They have brought this upon themselves.

This was not a personal attack in any way. Unless the truth is considered attacking someone now? A personal attack would have been me saying that it appears that AGoT has a cancer and it needs to be removed in order for the game to survive. That would have been much more harsh and a little extreme.

widowmaker93 said:

Widowmaker: I don't know who you are, but I feel compelled to respond to your post above because it's a pretty clear attack on me. For those who don't know, I am the friend the above post is referring to.

Your 2010 reference is to a game in which you, Jonathan Benton and I were all at a table. You have interpreted my choosing to play a targ burn/Rhaenys's Hill deck as evidence that I was "head-hunting" good players so that Erick would have a better chance to win the overall title (fyi, I won two of my games with that deck). There are two problems with your line of reasoning. First, anyone who knows us would understand that Erick could never convince me to play a certain deck. In most cases, Erick wanting me to play a deck is all the motivation I need to not play that deck. Second, I went out of my way during that game to avoid targeting Jonathan's characters with burn, in order to avoid any suspicion that I was doing what you now accuse me of. Do you really think Jonathan would have won the game if I had been focusing my burn on him the entire time? Of course not. Do you not recall my wiping the fourth player's characters off the board with burn? I'm sorry, but your memory of the game is simply nowhere close to what actually happened. Erick chided me afterwards for being "worse than useless" because he knows very well that I would never do anything that even looked like "head-hunting" for him.

Your 2011 reference is obviously to the melee final during which Erick helped me win. You apparently find helping a friend during a melee game to be morally objectionable (a perfectly reasonable position), despite admitting to doing the same thing in the previous paragraph. We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I guess.

It's clear you are not fond of Erick. That's fine. He can be a real jackass (and proudly so). But your attacks on him here are completely inappropriate. If you have a problem with him or me, I'm happy to have a conversation with you about it. But please, no more baseless accusations or personal attacks.

Corey

baragwin said:

i remember that game vividly. You couldn't target Benton's main characters because they were A) too high str, or B) full of Direwolf attachments and untargetable by your Feast. You had no clue who I was but Staton you knew I'm sure so you didn't have many options for the limited burn you were packing. Whatever.

I wasn't attacking anyone. Simply stating the facts that nobody has bothered to clear up over the past 2+ years. Sad it's gone on this long really, but I digress.

In the end it's just a game so who cares?

Twn2dn said:

Regardless of the reasons, I can definitely get behind this sentiment

Twn2dn said:

If you and a bunch of meta-mates travel to a tournament how do you approach the Melee? Do you make a bunch of different decks and just have at it, crushing friends and enemies alike? To me this at least preserves the appearance of propriety. Speaking on behalf of friends, we wouldn't build the same decks (boring) and we're just as likely to turn on each other as someone else. I still need to extract revenge for losing Epic Spell Wars recently.

Alternatively, do you try to game the system a little to squeeze out some extra love for your friends? Is that wrong? Maybe. Are you poking the bear? Yeah, you're poking the bear. And its not always sleeping.

Its not like its needed to have friends to win a melee tournament. Matthieu was one of only 2(?) Europeans in attendance and he still made the final table.

This was absolutely the right call.

Multiple identical decks designed to abuse Hellholdt Engineer when on the same table can't be anything BUT predetermined collusion. Anyone who thinks differently is quite frankly kidding themselves.

playgroundpsychotic said:

Not sure what I would do exactly the same as what you mention, but I can tell you…

(a) I was part of a melee finals game in DC awhile back (late last year?) where two players from PA helped each other. Basically, one PA player had the choice of canceling two effects with Sunspear Tourney Grounds, mine or his friend's, with whoever's he didn't cancel winning the game. During the game, his apology went something like "I'm sorry, but I have to ride several hours home in the car with my friend. If I don't give her the win, I'm going to hear about it for hours." That was before the collusion rules were announced. I assume that the collusion rules haven't changed what this friend would do… no doubt the PA player would still give a friend the win, except that now he just wouldn't apologize because he wouldn't want to be officially on the hook as colluding. For the record, I don't have any hard feelings about losing that game. It was a fun game with four different houses represented (me Targ, the winner Bara, her teammate running Martell, and the fourth playing Stark), and it seems logical that friends help each other. The big problem is that there are no in-game disincentives to avoid collusion. Vaguely worded rules that can apparently be interpreted multiple ways haven't change incentives, they have merely created new NPE moments.

(b) DC is not the only meta where players run similar/same decks at tourneys. I've played in a variety of tournament settings against many players, and though it's not an absolute rule, metas tend to build the same deck similarly. I've helped out new NYC players build Targ burn decks similar to my own, and I've even seen it happen that two stark players from the same meta play identical Siege decks. Obviously, the DC players take this to a new level, but fundamentally it's all the same. If there's nothing wrong with helping a friend build a deck similar to your own, then why is it a problem if you help 8 friends build similar decks?

Let me ask you this: Would people be complaining right now if all the players who brought the same deck lost all their games rather than won? I doubt they would.

Regarding your note about Matthieu not needing friends to make it to the final table, my understanding is that some/all of the 3 disqualified finalists won preliminary rounds in which they didn't have friends at the table. Just because you have a lot of metamates in a tournament doesn't mean you will play at the same tables as your firends. And if you do, is that really grounds for penalizing those players?

The big reason these decks compliment each other, in my mind, is that they are control decks… three Targ burn decks would also compliment each other, as would three Lanni Kneel decks running Flogged and Chained, or three GJ decks that run Valar and lots of saves. In these cases, each of the decks would feel 'broken' because of the added synergy of players running complimentary card effects/plots. And if three players work together to burn the opponents' characters, kneel the opponents' board or valar away every character on the board that couldn't be saved, that should be entirely within the rules. With this new ruling, I'd say now that any two players who work to kill a character of mine are colluding… at least, that's how I interpret the precedent set on November 9.

I can't believe that as friends they wouldn't have actively sought to destroy each other at every opportunity, this sort of thinking is alien to me.

Twn2dn said:

That's not how I would interpret it at all. My interpretation is, if you and a bunch of friends show up to a tournament maybe you should just not worry about helping each other. Its a competitive game. If I want to help my friends I would play a co-operative game. At minimum, give the appearance of propriety. Whilst the ruling might've been excessive, I don't think the DC meta gave the appearance of propriety either. I don't entirely disagree with collusion in GoT (its thematically correct at least) but the tourney rules do rule it out. Even if you believe the rules are written too broadly, its still very easy to obey them and costs you nothing to do so.

Twn2dn said:

@Playground: I think we mostly agree. At least, I think you and I would act similarly when put in the same situation. That said, my memory of the collusion rules at GenCon this year is that FFG allowed people to negotiate for first/second place, once the game had begun, so long as it was clear you were negotiating to help yourself in some way…not just throwing the game. (Can anyone else at GenCon confirm this? My memory has been known to be shaky at times.) So while it may make some people angry that this is what DCDennis was doing, my guess is at 3am in the morning after 8+ hours of gaming and FFG past precedence on his side, he and Erick thought they were acting in accordance with rules. Assuming my memory is wrong, or the rules interpretation changed mid-year without notice and seemingly on the fly, I still don't understand why Rick was considered colluding.

I definitely agree that I wouldn't help a friend simply because it's a friend. In fact, my metamates will tell you that I frequently go after them in melee, especially if I feel they are the threat. I used GoHH on the first and second round against a metamate in a melee tourney last year. That said, I lost the same tourney's finals round to two friends playing at the same table. One friend realized he couldn't win, and so handed the game to the other before I could win. This isn't strange. I strongly suspect that there are a lot of people out there who would, all things being equal, help their friend over a random stranger. Rules that expressly forbid this type of behavior do little to change the dynamics of the game…they just make people afraid to negotiate (an intrinsic part of melee) with someone they know, or encourage silence when friends swap favors.

A final note: I've been posting a lot on this thread…possibly too much. It doesn't matter to me whether a DC player wins melee or not. Erick and Corey have designed plenty of World Champion cards, and Erick I think still has another world champ card that hasn't come out yet (as does Corey).

The reason I care so passionately about this ruling is that I fear it will have a big negative effect on the community and the direction of the game. Already, it has confused a lot of people, made people angry (on both sides), and resulted in a lot of name calling. The lack of clarity around these rules further undermines the legitimacy of the melee competitive format, and by extension the "Overall Champion." No insult to Derek…he's a great guy, but it seems strange to me that someone who didn't play at the finals table got third in melee when someone who played in both finals received nothing. That happened to Greg last year when Corey won overall champion, and it was equally weird, as discussed at length on 2 Champs 1 Chump. This year FFG resolved to fix the problem, but when it came time to live up to promises, judges stumbled over their own rules.

Most importantly, this ruling concerns me because it makes the game feel arbitrary and creates negative play experiences that are avoidable. I realize it's just a game, but I spend on average 20+ hours a week buying products, building decks, reading forums and discussing strategy on this "game." I spend thousands of dollars a year traveling to tournaments, and advocate on behalf of the company by growing my local meta and encouraging local players to buy products. When I created the Thrones Times newsletter, that was even more time and money. I've invested a lot into building communities over the past 7 years in Vancouver, WA; Washington, DC; and New York City. In short, because I spend so much of my personal resources related to FFG-sponsored competitions, rulings that dramatically and negatively impact competitive play have a very personal impact on my life. This is personal, and I have a strong urge to quit melee competitive play altogether.

I haven't read all the posts and I have not re watched the video. However, I have one question. Is there anyone who saw it live and disagrees with the decision? Watching it live I was sad for Dennis, as I was rooting for him, but not at all surprised by the decision. I was multi-tasking at the time, but I just couldn't believe how long that last challenge was taking. The machinations team DC was going through to ensure that the outsider got boned as hard as possible was incomprehensible. I remember hearing someone say "so you have no icons left" something like 5 times in a row to him. It was like some sort of cruel torture. Had they just swiftly screwed him, as is the nature of melee, it would not have come across as so egregious. Perhaps it was the the exhaustion everyone was feeling, but there wasn't a single person in the live streaming chat that thought it was a poor decision.

I was watching it live on and off while doing other stuff but throughout the entire game I definitely got the general sense that the DC guys were definitely planning on making Maekar last place and for the rest of the game they were trying to figure out who would get 1st 2nd and 3rd.

Hellholdt Engineers and mirrored decks is pretty good evidence to me that they planned to shut out all non-DC players. I also got the sense that everyone watching live in the chat felt the decision was 100% justified me included.

By its very nature collusion is subjective. FFG will never be able to give a rock solid definition for what constitutes collusion because it doesn't exist objectively. They may be able to provide a few guidelines and what may constitute as evidence of collusion but that's probably the best anyone can ask for. Unfortunately in the meantime it will have to be up to the discretion of judges at the events.

Although collusion may not be defined in it's entirety it's one of those things that I believe most people will, to quote Justice Potter Stewarts in Jacobellis v. Ohio regarding obscenity, "know it when they see it."

KhalBrogo said:

The following things convince me that there was truly out-of-game collusion:

When two of the involved players were at the table, their first plots were always Building Orders (for The Scourge) and Summoning Season (for their Hellholt Engineers). If they hadn't discussed it ahead of time, you'd expect to occasionally see two Summoning Season or two Building Orders as first plot.

At the final table, you get one Secrets and Spiders for three consecutive turns. While that plot is an excellent choice against the winner's deck, you'd expect to see two or three at once if no one is colluding.

Finally, the TOs suspected collusion from the very beginning of the tournament, and the involved players were all warned more than once before the final round.

There are a TON of players who will not play competitive Melee because of this sort of bad behavior. The tournament rules were changed precisely to prevent this sort of thing (and from what I understand, from some of the same players). In my opinion, the call was spot on, and hopefully some of the players who have sworn off Melee will come back.

However, I do agree that FFG should really make a statement about this - I think a public airing of their evidence and their reasoning would do the AGoT community a whole lot of good.

Regardless of the collusion, I would love to pick Erick's brain to know at to what extent it was planned….

Did he (ot they) considered the low attendance (54p)?? Cause we wouldn't be talking about this if there had been 80+ people in the melee (droping the probability of matching with a metamate).

Did he assumed there wouldn't be much location mass control???

etc….

About the game itself….what is so wrong about blocking completely one player??? In the rules i mean. It sure leaves a bad taste for anyone watching and can be considered like bad blood, but i've seen worst…..