Conceding, The Spirit of the Game, and A Proposal

[iamfishman]

(Note: I posted this over on MTGThesource as it happened at a Legacy event, but I think the conversation that could be had here would also be beneficial -Ray)

Conceding, The Spirit of the Game, and A Proposal

    The Background:
    Round 3: I am paired against Adam Barnello. I very much respect Adam and have only good things to say about him as both a player and as a person. We play 3 games. Game 3 goes to turns. He is beating me down and I barely starve off defeat with enough chump blocks to draw the game and the match. I say, "I guess we draw." Adam replies, "Do we?" This seemed like an odd question to me. I end turn five and the judge goes to report the result to the scorekeeper.

    Round 4: I am paired against James Rynkiewicz. No need for introductions, he is one of the best Legacy players around. Just like Adam, I have always respected James and enjoyed our matches. Even with a deck he has never played before he takes a game 1 away from me when it seemed was impossible for me to lose. In game 2, I get a great hand and take the game. In game 3, a similar situation to my round 3 match occurred. I ripped consecutive blockers to chump a reanimated angel and draw the match. During the match, James asked me if I had the intention to draw if the game got to that point and it looked like it would be in his favor. The answer seemed obvious to me. Draw > Loss. Say what you want about it not being so, but with top 16 prizes you never know what weird things would happen. Afterwards, James expressed his frustration to me that he obviously would have won the match and that conceding to him was the right thing to do. It was, as he explained it to me, what, and I'm paraphrasing here, is expected amongst those who are tight with one another in the Community(not sure if this should be interpreted as those on MTGThesource, those who are well known, or some other criteria for who is "in" the Community). What made the issue infinitely more frustrating to him was his feeling that I wasted time, which to me seemed to be the opposite of how I played. Our opposing views are obviously both a little biased, and since this isn't the main point of the post, let's keep the conversation in this thread about what I propose below.

    The Reflection:
    After these matches, I talked to Adam, Alix Hatfield, and a few others about the rounds. I have since come to understand that amongst a contingent of players it is considered appropriate that I scoop in those situations with the understanding that if the situation is reversed that those players would do the same. From a game-theory perspective it makes sense because assuming an equal distribution of people being in the losing situation, the net result is an average of 1.5 points per round as opposed to 1 point per round for the "team" of each pair of players who are in on this Community specific agreement on the appropriateness of conceding. It also explained why Adam and James were so surprised/frustrated with my refusal to concede. I see that now.

    Unfortunately, it still bothers me from a few angles. And I would like to discuss those now:
    1.) Deciding who would win the match if it were carried out longer is sometimes a tough thing to do. Granted, in both of my matches it was pretty obvious. In both case I would likely be dead the next turn. But, what about less obvious cases? What if the outcome was a few turns away? What is the threshold on that? Would 0 cards in each players hand and each at 20 life but player A having a 1/1 on an otherwise empty board constitute a concession? How about a situation where one player has an advantage but the extra turns favor the other player such as player A with a small army of Merfolk, versus a Landstill player with 8 Wraths, 4 Vedalkin Shackles, 2 Moat, etc.? Also, where is the line drawn with regard to "I will win eventually?" Fifteen different players would give fifteen very different answers to that question. And from a technical standpoint, unless all players can agree on common answers to all these questions, the understanding of when to concede is not without bias.

    2.) What guarantees are there that a player will reciprocate, should the opportunity arise? I would say with 100% certainty that I would expect a player like Adam Barnello to return this favor but what about someone, like (insert name of person I have never met before here), whom may not have embraced the "Gentleman's Agreement" of concession. Unfortunately this is a system that requires trust and integrity to work.

    3.) Is this something everyone buys into? I can't feasibly see the answer to this being a yes, since 100% buy in to anything is typically impossible. I got the impression that it was exclusively a kind of "Community" agreement amongst people known for playing Eternal(namely Legacy) a lot. The problem is this creates a very elitist system which only serves to convey the same kind of "cool kid table" syndrome that has hurt Vintage. How unfair is it be to be on the outside looking in at all the community kids who are averaging 1.5 points per match to your 1 point per match simply based on a popularity contest?

    4.) Although this system feels more fair, since it is how the game would play out if not for the tournament imposed time limit, keep in mind that the rational for not permitting rolling a dice to determine a match winner sounds very akin to letting "who you know" determine if you concede or get a concession.
    Quoting from the infraction guide, the definition of "Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner" is "Players use or offer to use an outside the game method to determine the winner of a game or a match". Also, in the philosophy section of this infraction it is written that "Using a random method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament." (I know the Gentleman's Agreement is not technically random, but by all accords, neither is the example given of arm wrestling to determine a winner.) Finally, the very next line states "Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported in this way..."
    Now, you may contradict me by quoting the phrase from Rule 104.3a of the comp rules that says, "A player may concede the game at any time." That is fine. My point in saying all that I said above is not to try to argue whether or not the Gentleman's Agreement is technically breaking the rules, but rather to continue to explain why it feels like it is not in the spirit of the game.
    Let me parallel it with an example that comes up a lot. It is the last round of a swiss, cut to top 8 event. Player A is x-1-1. Player B is x-2 with awful tiebreakers. Player C and Player D are both x-2 with the best tie breakers. Player A will make top 8 with a win or draw. Player B can't make top 8 no matter what happens. The winner of Player C and Player D will make it in IF player B dream crushes Player A. Player A says to player B, "Cmon, there is no prize for top 16, and you can't make top 8. Don't be that guy to ruin it for me. Scoop me in. You know I would do the same if I was in your shoes." Player B concedes.
    Do you see what is wrong with this? Going with the Gentleman's Agreement Player B decided the 8th player to round out the top 8. It wasn't like he was denying anyone from being in the top 8 by not scooping. There would be 8 people one way or the other. But not only did he essentially control the outcome of his match and the ability to choose who would make top 8, but he did so in a way that had nothing to do with the results of matches of Magic. Rather, it was his feelings toward Player A (or maybe player B or C) that primarily influenced the decision. Obviously, being friends with Player B is more important than Magic skill in this very common situation.
    This gets even worse if there was some other Gentleman's Rule of throwing some packs the way of Player B later on in the evening for the scoop in. This is not something that is obviously discussed ahead of time since that is clearly collusion, but some Player B's may scoop Player A in just on the hope that they might get a little "kindness" later.
    Although not the same scenario, the concession of games to avoid draws is similarly linked more to social factors than anything else. When a draw would be the result within the time limit allotment as set forth by the tournament rules, not based on a subjective matter of who "was supposed to win eventually", players gain no advantage from having lots of friends or being part of the "in" crowd.

    The Conclusion:
    (And let me say right now that I am in no way against a sense of Community to help grow Legacy. I am just concerned with a possible negative that could come from it.)

    Although I have laid out some reasons why I fundamentally disagree with the Gentleman's Agreement that, up until this weekend I was aware of, probably linked to being a member of the "community" which I wasn't aware I was part of, I haven't given a solution. And as the saying goes, "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Fortunately, I do have a suggestion. It is, however, going to be seen as a radical idea since it proposes a change to fundamental part of the common tournament structure.
    To fully understand it, you must know how a single elimination event is run. Let's say you have 11 people for a single elimination event. Because this is not a power of 2(which would be ideal), we must assign byes in the event. One option is:
    Round 1:
    11 people in event.
    5 matches are played. One person has a bye.

    Round 2:
    6 people in event.
    3 matches are played.

    Round 3:
    3 people in event.
    1 match is played. One person has the bye.

    Round 4:
    2 people in event.
    1 match is played.

    There are two flaws with this system. First, because everyone has the same record (no loses) byes can't be given out to the lowest point player. It is possible that one player will get more than one bye. Second, it is considered unfair to have such "late tournament byes." Byes in round 1 are considered more tolerable than a player getting a bye into the finals. A better alternative(and the one that DCI reporter uses) is:

    Round 1:
    11 people in event.
    3 matches are played. Five people have a bye.

    Round 2:
    8 people in event.
    4 matches are played.

    Round 3:
    4 people in event.
    2 matches are played.

    Round 4:
    2 people in event.
    1 match is played.

    In this method, enough byes are given in order to end round 1 with a power of 2 number of players. In this way, no byes will be given past round 1.

    My proposal is to change the cut part of a swiss style tournament from "top 8" to "certain record or better" to make the single elim playoffs. From there, the first round of the post-swiss rounds includes whatever number of matches/byes is required to cut to the next power of 2. Rather than assign byes randomly, those who get the byes are those who have the highest standing after swiss. For example, with 11 players at 7-1-1 or better at an SCG Legacy event, the top 5 seeds would have a bye and 6 plays 11, 7 plays 10, and 8 plays 9 to take the three remaining spots in the top 8.
    This system does a number of things well. First, it removes any uncertainty of whether you will make the single-elim rounds of an event. No longer will you be disappointed as you take 9th based on breakers. Second, it gives no reason for a lot of the last swiss round shenanigans that do take place currently: watching the results of other matches before making a decision to draw or not, tricking your opponent into drawing with you when you know they can't make top 8, etc. True, it doesn't eliminate the temptation to collude for a match win, but it does at least prevent the scooping someone in, and by consequence, scooping someone out of top 8 scenario described above. It puts the opportunity of every player to make it beyond the swiss rounds in their own hands. Finally, it gives an incentive for players to finish as high up in the standings as possible. You may decide to play that last round if it means a guaranteed bye in the first round of the top 11.
    I already see that one flaw in my proposal is the extra round(although more like a half round if those first couple of matches to get to a power of 2 go quickly) that it creates in the single-elim portion of an event. While not the best solution, starting the event 30 minutes earlier may help alleviate this issue. Remember, like Field of Dreams, if you start it earlier, "they will (still) come."

    I am very curious about your thoughts on all the things I have mentioned above. Please feel free to reply, but I ask that you please do so in a constructive manner.

    Thanks,
    Ray Robillard

[Demonic Attorney]

I have a problem with one person getting upset when their unwritten, unspoken expectations aren't satisfied, especially in situations where they stand to gain through somebody else's acceptance of those personal standards.  When you signed up for the tournament, you agreed to play by the DCI Floor Rules and the Magic Comprehensive Rules, not Adam Barnello or James Rynkiewicz's notions about what is "fair."  Making decisions in the heat of the moment, on an ad hoc basis, about conceding is just too difficult, for the reasons you mentioned.  

How obvious does "obviously going to win" need to be for someone to be obligated to concede under these vague rules of sportsmanship?  How tight does "tight with one another in the Community" need to be?  And, as to that latter point, someone could criticize Adam and James' concept of sportsmanship as pretty...unsportsmanlike.  It puts newcomers to the format or to the community at a disadvantage.  I'll scoop to Joblin Velder on Turn 5 of turns because we're buddies and have longstanding connections to the community.  But to hell with Johnny Magic, he can take his draw and have better luck in the next round.

I usually resolve this dilemma, when it comes up, by making any unspoken expectations explicit going into game 3, if it looks like that kind of issue might come up.  At one of the last Feinstein tournaments, John Longo and I were playing a Vault/Key mirror, and we were both on the bubble for Top 8.  I asked him if he was alright with scooping to me if I assembled Vault/Key or otherwise had the game in the bag at the end of turns, if I was willing to do the same for him.  We agreed and, sure enough, John assembled Vault/Key with no win condition in sight on turn 4 of extra turns, and I scooped, per our agreement.  No arguing.  No uncertainty.  No disparate standards for sportsmanship.  I made him a clear, explicit offer, and he accepted.  We played the game with eyes wide open about what might happen, and we had no problems.

As for the proposal, I'm always a little hesitant about deviating from the DCI/Magic Rules, because it starts us on a slippery slope to just making up ad hoc rules and I think that would cause problems in terms of standardizing player expectations for tournaments (i.e. Assume Ray and Pandemonium use this system; Scholars' and Myriad Games don't.  People might get confused.)

[A_Outcast]

In my opinion, if its clear that my opponent is going to win g3, and its very obvious (they have assembled key/vault or have a blightsteel out and i didnt draw my out on t5), then I am more then willing to scoop.  Not because of some "gentleman's agreement" or whatever notion, but because of the saying "do unto others as you wish others to do unto you"

just my .02$

[honestabe]

the only time I will scoop after going to time is when

A) My opponent has clearly beaten me, and there is no topdeck that does it for me, and

B) Drawing knocks me out of contention for anything.

However, if I feel like if the game went on there is a chance I could win, or I will be able to put the 1 matchpoint to good use, you won't see me scooping.

[Joblin Velder]

I agree with everything DA said. I also like that he has now promised to scoop on turn 5 to me.

PROMISED.

[Yare]

This is a pretty easy one, imo. The rules say the game is a draw at the end of the extra 5 turns. That's it, the end, you can take your draw without feeling bad. The rules could say something else, but they don't. For example, the player with the most life could win. The judge could examine the game state and determine who was most likely to win and award a win in that fashion. Players could be allowed to roll a die to determine the winner (they're not).

Trying to apply something extra to this is just a run-of-the-mill incorrect concept that flies in the face of the oft-cited Sirlin's Playing to Win. If your opponent is upset that he "would have" won, he should have played more quickly, played a deck that wins more quickly, or encouraged you to play more quickly if you were playing too slowly. These opponents are playing by made up rules and you're not required to honor those rules. Not too long ago I was in a game 2, having won game 1, and my opponent assembled vault/key on turn 2 of extra turns. However, he could not kill me in the turns he had left. I did not concede the game (my opponent didn't even suggest it), and I won the match. Assembling Vault/Key doesn't entitle one to a win. Instead, it entitles one to take the rest of the turns and get the win, given that one can win in time. He couldn't, so he didn't win the game and get the match draw. That is part of the risk of playing Vault/Key. Similarly, your opponents accepted that risk by not winning quickly enough, though of course this relationship is a little more tenuous in a non-infinite turns area.

That all being said, there are situations where I will concede, but only because I stand to gain literally nothing by accepting the draw. If I am paired up and am already out of contention for the prizes and I don't dislike my opponent, I'll probably concede. If my tiebreakers are horrendous and it's the last round and my opponent has a chance of getting in, I'll concede. Finally, if you think you can swing some sort of long-term advantage by conceding in these matches, hoping that you'll receive reciprocation in the future, then you should do that. There is no obligation here, however. Really, this is just a strategic choice like any other in this game, and I think you have to decide how you want to handle it. There is certainly no "morally correct" or "honorable" answer to this question, however. Do what you want; you came to win, not uphold made up agreements.

[Commandant]

Chris summed up what I wanted to post on The Source but didn't because I knew I would be flamed.

Quite frankly fuck em; bunch of Care Bears.

[Pokey]

the only time I will scoop after going to time is when

A) My opponent has clearly beaten me, and there is no topdeck that does it for me, and

B) Drawing knocks me out of contention for anything.

However, if I feel like if the game went on there is a chance I could win, or I will be able to put the 1 matchpoint to good use, you won't see me scooping.

I feel the same way.  Also, if a situation came up where it was the last round of swiss, and I was already a lock for top 8 (X-0, X-0-1) going into the round, I would scoop if my opponent was someone I knew.  It might not be "fair", but I'm sure that many others would do the same, especially if it was someone you carpooled with.  Imagine the conversation on the ride home if you just played and beat them.  "Gee, thanks for dream crushing me bro...".  "Sure, no problem!"

I think there is kind of an unspoken "agreement" that many players go by.  I would always scoop to someone given the right situation, and would like others to do the same for me, but I don't expect it or get upset if they don't.  It's just another part of tournaments, much like intentionally drawing to get into top 8.  I don't hear people complaining about that one.

[Diakonov]

If you have nothing to gain by drawing, then I would concede.  Otherwise, it's fair competitive edge.  Round 4 in a massive tournament is far too early for me to rationalize conceding.

EDIT: I like your proposal, although, it probably should be avoided for 65+ tournament attendance, since the tournament length is stressed enough as it is.

[LotusHead]

I believe that the decision to ID or concede should be an individual decision every time, and if someone just won't concede (and is willing to accept a draw result) then there is nothing at all wrong with that.  Making the offer for your opponent to conceed is a totally fair play (and I actually won 2 out the the 3 tournies where I took first and the prize), but it would be then their decision.  And if they say "No", then well, you can beg/plead/try a little more, but if they say no, then you can't fault them.  It's like say, a football team conceeding in those last few rounds of the season to let another team make the playoffs. 

That being said, if DCI changes how, fundamentally, tourny rounds play out, I would change my stance on this.

But I have conceeded (instead of draw 3rd game) to let opponent get in for possible future benefits that were never ever discussed, but still realized eventually.  (like being on speaking terms with enemy team, not being dreamcrushed in future tournies). 

[LordHomerCat]

I feel like asking for a concession is totally alright (and within the rules).  I've done this on more than one occasion.  And I've been turned down too, which is also ok.  It sucks for me, sure, but its not like it's not my own fault.

I also will concede to teammates and good friends.  As turns approach, if I'm playing a teammate, I will often discuss our current records and the likely records needed to make top 8, and what the various results (win/draw) will do for each of us.  I would never explicitly offer something to scoop or vice versa.  But I will often talk with a teammate and do a prize split if we are in a tough spot (prize split is always done before game 1/3, never when the game is almost over or at the end of turns).  Then, I take that into account as time approaches, and I'll probably scoop or ask for the scoop if we get to that point.  I don't see anything wrong with scooping to a teammate to increase their chances of success in the event, and to maximize the success of your team (thats what they are for).

However, I won't scoop most of the time to people I don't know.  Unless they are teammates or good friends, I take the draw if it can possibly help me.  I know there are many others who will take the draw/win no matter what, even if it doesn't help them, and I don't fault that position.  I will basically never scoop someone I don't know into the top 8 unless I don't want to be playing anymore, and for someone who I know but am not good friends with, it depends a lot on the other consequences (who am I knocking out by scooping? can I help a teammate by playing?).  I guess these guys are mostly just doing the same thing, except that rather than a small team they are looking at their "community" at large and considering that as the group whose EV they are maximizing.  I wouldn't scoop to someone just because they have a TMD account, but I would scoop to someone on Meandeck without a second thought.

[Rico Suave]

As posted on TheSource:

Play the game as dictated by the official rules, or don't play at all. Players should not and cannot adjust the rules of the game or the system in which the game is played to suit their own expectations without degrading the game itself.

[Norm4eva]

As posted on TheSource:

Play the game as dictated by the official rules, or don't play at all. Players should not and cannot adjust the rules of the game or the system in which the game is played to suit their own expectations without degrading the game itself.

+1

If there's one thing I tend to despise about the nature of competitive play it's the underlying politics of it all - understanding brackets, laboring over tiebreakers, collusion in the name of product or advancing someone who isn't willing to actually play the game, etc etc.  For my part, I'm bad at it; I'm just too naive to be a plotter, I wouldn't understand how to motivate someone to scoop to me beyond basic 4-year old begging and pleading.  Heh, shit man, I can't even play games like Axis and Allies or Risk when everyone at the table is making deals and shit, it's all bullshit anyway, it's not like you get to share the world with anyone, with most games there is generally just the one winner. 

So, even less so, do I understand it in a 1v1 situation like most competitive Magic games take place in.  I've always been in the "Fuck you, Kill me" camp; screw your "soft lock" or your giant flyer or your whatever-it-is that's coming to end me and you don't think my deck has an answer so the logical thing to do must be to end the game.  I hate the Agent Smith argument.  The game ends when a player's life total is zero or less, time + 5 rounds is called, or a player can't draw another card from their library.  Fuck you, kill me.

[ELD]

No changes are needed to the rules.  Like any social interactions, some people have an easier time with them than others.  No need for guarantees, no need to determine with mathematical certainty who would win.  It's just interacting with people, which is distinct from interacting with a set of game rules.  One just needs to try and be aware of other people and use their best judgement.  If one isn't good at it, then practice at being in that social situation is the cure. 

It's a social game, so there are social interactions not spelled out in the rules.  There exists etiquette that only applies to certain people.  When it comes to draws and speed of play, many players work with an unspoken social contract that involves scooping based on gamestate.  This replaces the need to push and needle opponents to play faster.  The idea is the game is more pleasant if opponents are not all over each other, calling judges, and ensuring that draws don't happen. 

I'm in a completely different place now with Magic, as I'm primarily going to trade and have fun, as opposed to playing to win.  Back when I was prize hunting, I would do everything within the rules to get my opponent to play at a pace that I deemed acceptable if they looked like they were playing for a draw.  That doesn't mean it would be pleasant for either player.  If I knew my opponent would scoop if they were not playing for a W at the end of turns, then the match would be much more social.  Just depends on how people want to interact with each other.  If I knew someone would be a stickler for getting the draw out of a no win situation, it would not be fun for either of us. 

The extra time solution goes against some fundamental principles.  It asks TO's to do more work uncompensated.  It forces some players to sit and wait when they want to be playing.  I don't see much of an upside at all. 

[Delha]

It's a social game, so there are social interactions not spelled out in the rules.  There exists etiquette that only applies to certain people.  When it comes to draws and speed of play, many players work with an unspoken social contract that involves scooping based on gamestate.  This replaces the need to push and needle opponents to play faster.  The idea is the game is more pleasant if opponents are not all over each other, calling judges, and ensuring that draws don't happen.

Very well said. I thought this was a great post in general, and especially appreciated the part quoted above.