[Article] Eternal Europe: Mistakes, Mind Tricks and Morals

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

The whole discussion about what happened between Mike Flores and Zack Hall at the invitational reminded me I've long wanted to write an article on Jedi mind tricks. Considering this one isn't specifically about Legacy, I thought I'd link it here, too. Check it out:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/23878_Eternal_Europe_Mistakes_Mind_Tricks_And_Morals.html

[MaximumCDawg]

Good article, though it's clear that there is a divide on the topic.  As I read your article, you basically approve of any sort of tactic intended to mislead your opponent as long as there are no strict falsehoods or clear violations of the rules, and you approve of it because you do not see where you can draw a line between mere bluffing and more advanced forms of misleading conduct.

I don't think you need to be precise about where the line is in order to condemn some of the more egregious examples of intentionally misleading the opponent.  I have no trouble saying that, when you ask someone to show you the kill, and so they hand you the deck to comply, you've done something more morally suspect than when you simply allow them to make a mistake by forgetting that Pithing Needle can hit lands.  Sure, both may involve hoping that your opponent makes a mistake.  But, do you really contend these are both on the same level on a moral scale?  Really?

I feel like there are a bunch of qualitative differences between the two situations.  For example, as mentioned in the comments to your article, both "tricks" happen against the backdrop of expected tournament lingo and behavior.  Forgetting to crack a fetch in response to Pithing Needle, just like forgetting to tick up your Vial before drawing, are common mistakes that people see all the time in eternal formats.  In other words, when you try to trick someone into making these mistakes, you're trying to get them to forget (momentarily) something they knew and do something they know to avoid.  In the Pithing Needle scenario, therefore, you're trying to trick someone else into deviating from the normal course of play.

In the "show me the combo" situation, it's exactly the reverse.  Asking someone to show the win condition before you concede, or give you the information they'd gain if you played it out, is a common shortcut.  People know and expect this.  By asking your opponent to show you the combo, you are inviting them to do exactly what the normal course of play would require.  When the opponent complies and you then suddenly ascribe an unexpected meaning to your request, it is you - not the opponent - that has deviated.

I have no trouble finding this second type of "mind trick" to be morally wrong.  When you try to trick your opponent into deviating from the norm, it's your mind against theirs.  There is no hidden information.  It's an attempt to derail someone else.  When you invite your opponent NOT to deviate, and then deviate yourself, it's not a mind trick.  You are not getting them to do something, you're doing it all yourself.  It's exploitation of the social norms.

There are other ways to draw a difference between the two cases, too.  All of them, I think, are more qualitative than strict black and white lines.  For example, even in the above example you have to first determine what is as is not a social norm so you can tell whether you're exploiting one or not.  But, and this is something libertarian, arguing-on-the-internet types have huge problems with, the fact that a rule has grey areas doesnt mean there is no rule at all.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

Actually, I'd go further than that. The fact that you can't draw a clear line where scummy behavior starts is one reason for me seeing things as I do. The other is that scummy will be defined differently by different people. Clearly there is a difference between the Pithing Needle play and what happened with Flores.

The big problem I have with the whole Flores situation is that it is Mike who is jumping to conclusions - as you said you first have to define that there is a social rule, what it is and you also have to be sure that the other person isn't just using words in their traditional English meaning. If you tell me "show me the combo," I will understand that you ask me to actually kill you, not that you want to see my deck. The simple fact that a large part of the community understands the statement the same way means that assuming it implies a concession is just wrong.
As you said yourself

By asking your opponent to show you the combo, you are inviting them to do exactly what the normal course of play would require.

That is not what Mike did. The normal course of play would require him to enter his mainphase.

I would totally agree that intentionally leading the other person to believe you have conceded would be a problem (intentional miscommunication) but at the same time I would be fine with you trying to get them so excited to have the win on the table that they forget they're still in their upkeep. The problem? From outside the player's head the two things look awfully similar.
As such I totally agree that a situation similar to what happened between Flores and Zack created intentionally is much shadier than the Pithing Needle play but I don't think calling either cheating is justified (again as long as you aren't intentionally creating the impression you're scooping the game - say by putting your hand down on the table or making a movement that is the start of scooping up).

I think the game has very clear rules that describe what can and cannot be done during a match. Doing anything that isn't against them should be considered fine. If you can get your opponent to jump to unjustified conclusions about the game state or distract their attention from the game so that they make a mistake without breaking the rules, the play is totally acceptable to me. Playing on your opponent's preconceived notions is as valid a way to do that as trying to make them overlook something they theoretically know. Again, as you said, trying to make them deviate from the norm is a situation of your mind against theirs - in short a battle of wits. Also note that there is absolutely no hidden information in the Pithing Needle play, either (everything is on the table) and you're using their preconceived notion - Needle answers hate - to get them to miss what's going on.

[MaximumCDawg]

Yeah, I don't think I actually disagree with you, since we're on the same page that neither behavior is cheating, but one is "shadier" than the other.  That's the only point I was trying to get across.

The next question is whether we want to tolerate this or that level of "shady" in the game.  Thats why I've got alot of sympathy for the debate on the topic.  Just because someone is not cheating doesn't imply you want to encourage that sort of behavior.  For me, it falls into the same category as small-print boilerplate on the back of your lease or cell phone contract or flopping in sports; it's legal, but there is absolutely a benefit to discussing whether we want to encourage or discourage that sort of behavior.

[bluemage55]

In poker, we have a term called angle shooting to describe such practices.

Even though poker is a game with a strong emphasis on bluffing, angle shooting is considered unethical (though barely legal, usually).  That's because angle shooting deliberately misleads the opponent about the game state or the rules, rather than within the game itself.  Game skill plays no part in this, it's effectively simply cheating as much as is allowed by taking advantage of loopholes in the rules and etiquette of the game.  You can't ban it, because controlling it will usually require excessively authoritarian rules, but it's still extremely shady.

Just as with poker, we should do our best to discourage angle shooting in Magic.  There's nothing about it which is positive for the game.

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

@dawg: The discussion itself is definitely valuable because if nothing else it should educate people on the subject. As for what is too shady to want around, I think the easiest way to draw a line as to what represents unacceptable behavior is that a) the play you're making doesn't violate the rules and b) should be possible to see through simply by either asking a clarifying question, thinking about the game state or just continuing to play the game without scooping.

@bluemage55:
I just read the link. From what I understood there, angle shooting along those lines is already forbidden in Magic. To actually do something similar to how angle-shooting is explained in the link, Zack would have needed to knowingly try to make Mike believe he conceded (the perfect parallel to the "induce other players to fold by making it look like you fold" thing). As said before, I believe that play is already forbidden because the Magic rules consider it cheating as an intentional misrepresentation of the game state and relevant tournament information (you are not allowed to lie to your opponent about public information or the game state). I agree that this should be banned (otherwise you could theoretically go "just show me the Tendrils" and then call the judge because your opponent broke the gamestate by searching his deck without playing a spell that allowed him to do so).

By your definition the Profane Command play from the article should be discouraged - it intends to make your opponent believe Chameleon Colossus has fear when it hasn't and as such aims at having your opponent misunderstand the gamestate - and I disagree. That kind of mind game just adds more spice to the game and is easily countered by paying attention or asking a question.
Misrepresenting the rules in certain ways also is definitely fine in Magic - I have played Pithing Needle on a Metalworker that paid for my Energy Flux against MUD before, obviously with the idea of making it look like he now couldn't use it any more. That play was totally legal and isn't even a particularly shady mindgame imo. I'm happy to have it be legal in the game and encourage people to try using it on me. Sadly my opponent didn't fall for it and once we reached his upkeep asked if that actually worked - at which point I told him that, no, the Pithing Needle wasn't doing anything against his Metalworker tapping for mana.

[ELD]

I find it interesting that people believe their own take on what is scummy is what's relevant.  What matters is how your opponents perceive it.  It's like language.  I can think that "knive" means a "a utensil consisting of a small, shallow bowl with a handle," but everyone else will inform me I'm crossed up with "spoon."  This will result in failure of the language being used to achieve it's desired goal.  For games, if the goal is to have fun, the same kind of misunderstanding strays from this goal.  I can think that a particular mind game is "next level play," but if my opponents think it's "cheating," then there will be no fun.  The fact that I believe it is just a part of the game does nothing for the people that I've enraged by my play.  It's entirely irrelevant. 

What matters in these regards is what the social norm is.  These vary geographically, and within any given area as well.  Understanding this is part of being in a community.  Of course, those who are willing to shatter social norms often find great success.  For victory, they often pay with ostracization.   See this article for some more food for thought on breaking social norms for the win!

[Mon, Goblin Chief]

I think considering the community discussing the situation, the best each of us can do is to make it clear how we feel about the issue. Speculating about the other guys feelings is pretty much impossible because it totally depends who's sitting on the other side of the table. Clearly there are different social norms and they differ based on player preferences and background, region, age, among probably a ton of other things.
Given that all of these social norms are that subjective and I really don't think you should have to have a ten minute talk with your opponent before each round to figure out what they personally think, making the official approach "the rules are the rules" also the social convention seems like a good idea. Not that you can force anybody to adopt that idea, but it would be nice if people accepted that competitiveness means players will try to win and that what is dishonorable is a totally subjective question where they can't force their own answer on their opponents.

Thanks by the way for linking that article, it was really interesting. I think it's ridiculous that Basketball - a million dollar sport if you manage to go pro - is ruled by that kind of weird convention. I'd really like to see them trying to get that to work in something like soccer over here. You either make a play against the official rules or people will (and should, considering the stakes and given that they're paid a lot of money to win) do it. Personally, I'd probably consider what happened to that girl team at the hands of the home teams referee cheating. He basically made a play allowed by the rules illegal because he didn't like it, which is not how sports and games that have a rule book are supposed to work.

The spaceship tournament was quite funny to read about, too. Clearly people weren't interested in competition and playing to win but in repeating the same old patterns they were used to - which is fine in that case I guess, given that the tournament wasn't really a competitive sports event but more of an afternoon of fun. I wonder how many of the participants actually convinced themselves they were good strategists that did their best to win, though, in spite of there being proof that they were using strategies that were clearly not the best available.

[ELD]

I think it's ridiculous that Basketball - a million dollar sport if you manage to go pro - is ruled by that kind of weird convention.

I believe you missed my point.  Everything is ruled by these kinds of conventions.  War, to come up with the most extremely high stakes human action, is even played according to a social understanding.  Those who don't fight back "correctly" are called terrorists.  We straight up vilify those who are willing to break what is socially acceptable in order to win.  What is socially acceptable isn't based off what one person thinks, which is why me saying what would be acceptable to me isn't as relevant as saying what my opponents over the years would have found acceptable.