[Discussion] Giving Away Wins for Cards Cheating or Not?

[Prism]

bribery is forbidden by dci floor rules, and drawing intentionally is not. end of story.

it doesn't matter what the players think of the issue (just when will people realise this?!), regardless of whether it's 100% monitorable or not, or anything else for that matter.

for the same reason, i think it's quite rude to expect your opponents in a tournament to think the same as you about i.d.ing, or conceding.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I'm regularly IDing with people I know during tournament play. Simply put, yes I'm there to play, but I don't want to play people I've tested with more matches than can ever be played in tournament. Playing matches you already know becomes pretty boring. IMO mentioning simple IDing in the same context as bribery is totally wrong.

To understand how I come to some of the below statements, I think I'd state first that I believe in some kind of a code of honor. Call me outdated if you want, it's just part of the way I think.

IDing because both of you will make t8 than, is something I can personally accept. To me, offering a draw is like saying "well, both of us could be winning this match, why don't we make sure we both do". As mentioned before, to be able to draw into the t8, you have to be in a position where you have already shown you're able to "fight competently".

IDing simply because you were matched against a teammember at any time during the tournament is a similar thing. I don't want to take friends chances for winning away and we are not taking chances away from others, as we actually are increasing their chances to finish higher than one of us because the one who'd have won the match is giving up valuable points that might cost him if he looses later on.

IDing because of a prize split. I also decided to split with an opponent and afterwards decided to also ID because we'd get 2nd and 1st place if we do. This isn't really immoral to me for the same reason IDing into t8 isn't. We had already prooven we were excellent players and one of us would most probably have won the tournament (otherwise we couldn't have been drawing safely).

Conceding to put someone into t8 without any agreement for compensation is, IMO, simply giving out a favor you are in a position to give and therefor as far from immoral as not playing the match gets.

Paying so that you get a win after a match you lost is simply immoral (as well as illegal) and therefor should be punished.

/edit:

My thoughts on leaving a match up to a dice roll/coin flip...... If a tournament's rules clearly state that it is forbidden then those are the rules you should go by. You accept these rules and the punishments for breaking them when you enter that tournament.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts about deciding a match at random, too. If a situation arises where a draw favors none but a win does, I'll decide on the state of the game if I concede (because i'd have lost with one or two more turns) or not. I hope my opponents do the same, some do some don't (and just let it be a draw if I'm sure I'd win).

[Tautochrone]

A top 8 berth can be a prize. Try this for example. What if the only prizes are for the top 8. Two players are paired up in the final round with a top 8 berth on the line. Only one will make it in. Deck A and Deck B (which beats deck A). Deck B, however, has no chance in the top 8. Deck A has a very good chance. Deck B concedes, accepting 1/2 of whatever Deck A earns in the top 8. Stuff like this happens all the time.

One of the situations that actually happened at a tournament, that was one of the original topics of this post, was that 2 players were playing a final round (before T8) match and ran out of time. When the judge told them they were out of time and they were going to get draws (which is what should have happened because they chose to play the match out) they rolled dice to see which one of them would get the win. In this situation they should've both received draws (keeping them out of T8) but because they chose to roll it out the winner of a die roll pushed another guy out of T8 who, by the rules (because those two should've gotten draws), should have been in T8.

I don't know why everyone shifted over to this IDing issue, there's nothing wrong with IDing into T8. This thread is about bribery costing others T8 spots and other various forms of knocking people, who deserve T8 spots, out...obviously other than winning a match legally, IDing, blah blah blah....I'm talking about the shady things.

[defector]

I play in clean tourney's to win, and often I don't.  I have tundras as well, I never thought about trading them for a spot at the t8, bribery on either end is an affront to my honour.  You can beat me, I'm OK with that, you can't bribe me.  If I saw people doing this sort of thing, I'd get them banned.  We're not thugs, we're white collar sportsman We should have a code that reflects the quality of the game rather than the pettiness of our ambitions.  I dislike ID, but  I do it for members of my team, I won't do it for strangers, so I guess my code isn't perfect.  On some of this you have to be more a realist than a romantic, on other parts I encourage romanticism.  If the ID helps the team, swallow and comply, if it just helps you, maybe your a team of one.  Salve your conscience with the floor rules.  On the other hand, trading two tundras for a spot in the T8 seems like playing a 40 card deck to me.  Don't let me see you do it.   For those that think winning is everything and bribery is acceptable, lets not forget about the places in the world where I could beat and rob you before you got to the tournament and then bribe the police to keep me out of trouble for what I did.  These theories have terrible extension, it is better to aim for the potentially unattainable ideal of fair play or love of the game, and leave the resulting reality up to the best our our judges and tournament organizers enforcement.
defector

[Drathro]

I want to make it clear before I start that I am not attempting to accuse anyone of collusion, and to that end I will change the names, but not the words, of parties involved.  I simply want to know why a given situation is not considered collusion.  If you must go and find out who I am talking about, I won't stop you, but please don't drag this discussion down by replying with things like, "Hey, he's talking about Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp!"

Suppose we have players A, B, C, and D, all fairly respected T1 players.

To understand my point of view, lets start with a quote I agree with from A: (emphasis added)

Obviously, players are allowed to concede, and players are allowed to split their prizes, but both together is cheating.

Player B had this to say: (emphasis added, irrelevant text snipped, find the originals if you believe I am misrepresenting what was said)

Here is why I scooped to A [snip...]

In the swiss, C and A were in the X-0-2 bracket and they played. A had slightly better tiebreakers so C scooped to him.

Then in Round 7 D scooped to him despite them going to time.

C and D had already invested in A and if A got more prizes he could pay them back more easily. Additionally, we had talked about this earlier that we would split prizes ahead of time in certain limited circumstances.

[snip...]
I scooped because two long hard rounds of 5/3 were ahead that I could enjoy with much less stress and he could win more products to pay off the scoopage that C and D gave him to get him there.

It is important to note that this is all from B's perspective, so B may be misrepresenting what A, C, and D intended from their actions.  However, it could seem like we have:

Implied collusion between A and C.
Implied collusion between A and D.
Implied, possibly admitted collusion between A and B.

The implied collusion could be nothing more than poor choice of words on the part of B.  A could, in all legality, share some of his winnings, out of sheer gratitude, with C and D after the event, as long as there was no understanding that that would occur when C and D scooped.  On the other hand, if A had an obligation to "pay off" the scoops, that is collusion.

The "admitted collusion" may not be collusion either, possibly if the team's pre-determined prize split was a set prize split, regardless of the outcome of the tournament (is that still concession + prize split=cheating?).  However, B definitely mentions a split under "limited circumstances."  The inference that could be drawn here is that "limited circumstances" is a euphemism for "If I help you advance, then I get a cut; if you help me advance, then you get a cut."

I don't know.  I just got upset reading about how it seemed like people were advancing based on the potential of pay back for concessions.

Unfortunately, full-on intentional collusion happens far more frequently than I like.  Trust me, I get far more upset about blatant collusion than I am about these borderline situations.

[Kowal]

Don't resurrect mad old threads.  Locked.