Sorry about the part that makes no sense. My Ipad is weird and didn't read what I was typing for about a minute. But I stand by everything else that I said, and will not change my mind. I would rather loose a game than have a free win, because I would rather do the right thing. And the reason scoopingis so unethical to me is that you didn't even try to win. It is like a bye, but can be arranged by having a large number of people willing to scoop to you.
Is intentionally scooping moral?
- Thread starter cabd
- Start date
- Status
I love to play pokemon because of the one on one play. Each pokemon player controls his own destiny, if he wins he can be assured of the top cut, he is in control. If he loses now he has lost control of that destiny, and now is under the control of other forces that affect where he will eventually wind up in the standings, he (the player who lost) did that. Lose and you lose control, win and you keep control. What ever other people do such as scooping has nothing to do with you. If you lost that's what keeps you out of the top cut not some who scoops to their friend, enemy or stranger.
chuzzoe
chuzzoe
Otaku
Active Member
Before I begin, I feel a need to clarify again. Something I thought was obvious but either was not or is now being intentionally ignored in an attempt at misdirection.
When it is a "best of" series of games, and time is a vital component, I have no ethical qualms with a player scooping. I may not always agree it is the actual best play, but in some situations it will be. Some of the comments seem to imply those objecting to scooping for other reasons includes scooping for this reason.
If we get an official statement from TPC or the like that the ability to manipulate the tournament structure ("playing the system") through scooping is an intentional part of the game, something they wouldn't get rid of even if they good, then my objection to it is gone. In my particular case, my objection over it being unethical stems from the perception of players exploiting "loopholes" in the rules. Note that this isn't always the case: if this game required something I considered immoral in and of itself, the powers-that-be declaring it to be legal and "moral" aren't going to change my mind, though would change my level of game participation.
Moving on...
Explain, please. The rest of your post didn't, at least in a manner I could comprehend.
That is your opinion. Feel free to support it. Supported it earlier in the thread? How does it match up to what I've said?
News flash for everyone: odds are you've done something immoral in your life. I believe one should make it their goal to do what is right, but that same belief also goes with the belief that every person also has done at least one "wrong" thing in his or her life. Don't get hung up "Oh no! I did something immoral! Are they going to stone me or burn me at the stake?" Contrary to some poster's claims, this isn't a witch hunt. At the very least, what can I do? If you equate "flaming" on a message board (which I am trying not to do) with being burned alive at a stake... that's a you problem.
Missing the point much? The entire reason for that hypothetical scenario was that this isn't a situation where Player A gives Player B a gift, but where Player A is potentially taking from Player C to give to Player B. Yeah, potentially. The easiest solution is to play things out, instead of putting your thumb on the scale to make the situation fair "in your own eyes". If Player A actually loses to Player B, that's fine. If Player A has to leave that is fine. If Player A scoops to Player B because Player B is a friend or because they are "playing the system", that is not fine. It is legal, but it goes against the reason for having a tournament.
Tournaments are meant to be fun, but if fun was the only goal we wouldn't have tournaments: they are costly and time consuming. We'd just play the game like in Pokemon League, with special "universal" bonus League meets in place of tournaments. As the TCG has luck built into it, a tournament obviously cannot completely eliminate the luck from the event, but it hopes to minimize the luck and allow players a fun, enjoyable method to determine at least close to the best player/deck at the tournament.
That is why I consider the well meaning gesture of scooping to a friend to be immoral. Feeling good about something doesn't make it "right" anymore than feeling bad about something makes it wrong. Sometimes doing the right thing feels good, sometimes it feels lousy; sometimes doing the right thing is legal, sometimes it is illegal!
As my later comments about how the groups that provide aide have to be careful indicated, when you want to do something good you need to think about it; much like how certain situations an action that is normally "bad" can be good, so too can certain situations make an action that is normally good be bad. Helping someone else at the expense of someone else, unless all involved are willing, isn't good.
If you're a clerk in a store, you can't help yourself to the cash in the register and give it to someone needy. You can't say "well I work for this store and that was just the money I would have earned anyway - it is my right to bestow it upon someone else!" The business is a business, and even if the owner would have also been charitable, it wasn't your place to decide, plus you may be messing up important bookkeeping that can lead to someone else being accused of theft (or similar hassles). All that before wondering if the person will use the money to help or harm themselves.
You're looking at the wrong thread then, for I see it in many posts. You don't attempt to reason with people if you don't want to change their opinions, and quite a few have given the impression they are firm in the position.
"Let us me the strawman!" eh P_A? :thumb: Many on this thread have been insulting and brash on either side. We've also had slanderous accusations from both sides with no factual grounding. P_A has already claimed there are such people on the "pro-play-it-out" side (yes, this is me applying the same spin tactics as P_A, altering the label to make it sound more positive :lol, but on the anti-play-it-out side you've had posters claim that the only ones who support playing it out are those who are losers looking for excuses, or were directly impacted by bubbling out, which is not true.
Why shouldn't those of us who have a factually supported opinion attempt to enlighten others in the hope of eventually bringing change about to correct a situation we feel is "wrong"?
Second, you're putting the cart before the horse. I know I am not calling for an "unenforceable" rules change to be made, but first seeing if we have a situation that calls for then studying the game to see if an effective, enforceable rules change can be made.
The logic demonstrated by your statement is frightening! "Well, those with authority don't seem to care, so we should just ignore it too!" TPCi may simply be too busy to address it at this time, they may be unaware of the problem, or maybe they are working on a solution as we debate! In any case, TPCi not commenting on it in now way makes it wrong to discuss!
Specific circumstances are specific circumstances: address them as such. Some on both sides are trying to address it as such. That's why I prefaced this post with further clarifying comments. I thought it was pretty clear that I was only concerned with two sets of circumstances where I felt scooping was unethical: "playing the system" and because one player can't stand the "thought" of beating another even in fair competition.
As we have seen with other issues, even if something is permitted because it making a rule to prohibit it cannot be enforced, it is important to make sure the one's factually based and supported opinions are known and properly explained. Doing neither creates its own problems. If X is a lesser form of Y, but X is so minor that it simply can't be caught and creating a rule against it would require there be no penalty (due to the inability to actually catch someone committing X), it is important that is known.
If it is not discussed, X will become an acceptable practice, and we will face the danger of Y becoming an acceptable practice as well. Is it guaranteed? No, but that doesn't mean one should risk it anyway. It must be discussed so that newer players realize that it is only allowed because a rule against it cannot be enforced, and be discouraged from practicing it themselves. Plus if some change were to later allow rules against X to be enforced, it comes as no surprise when such rules are implemented.
Consider this: are you so rigid in your beliefs that rather than confront an issue you would just ignore it? That you would slander others through exaggeration and insult others in the same stroke? P_A, if you think this is a witch hunt, and stating my opinions here, backing them to the best of my abilities, and expecting others in the discussion to do the same is "running roughshod" over them, you insult those who have lived far rougher lives than yourself.
Oh, and you did it again, you threw up a strawman. "Don't pay attention to what they say folks! Pay attention to what I say! They say they are concerned with people scooping for specific reasons, but they don't mean it! They totally mean scooping for any reason! If playing the game out meant you would die, they'd make you play it out and die!"
Earlier you talked about walking in another man's shoes. Another newsflash for you: sometimes being outside of a situation leads to a clearer picture. Even if it doesn't, you don't just say "whoops, well I've done that so I can't say it is wrong" or "whoops, I've never done that so I can't say it is wrong". You love to post your own opinions... but you don't factually support them. You don't reason it out. If I've done something wrong, it is still my duty to stand against it when others try to do it or claim it is "right" or even "neutral". If I've never done something that is wrong, I still get to call it wrong if I can explain why. By your reasoning, no one who has ever told a lie can consider lying immoral. By your reasoning, if I am not guilty of murder I can't condemn genocide, and possibly murder!
When it is a "best of" series of games, and time is a vital component, I have no ethical qualms with a player scooping. I may not always agree it is the actual best play, but in some situations it will be. Some of the comments seem to imply those objecting to scooping for other reasons includes scooping for this reason.
If we get an official statement from TPC or the like that the ability to manipulate the tournament structure ("playing the system") through scooping is an intentional part of the game, something they wouldn't get rid of even if they good, then my objection to it is gone. In my particular case, my objection over it being unethical stems from the perception of players exploiting "loopholes" in the rules. Note that this isn't always the case: if this game required something I considered immoral in and of itself, the powers-that-be declaring it to be legal and "moral" aren't going to change my mind, though would change my level of game participation.
Moving on...
Explain, please. The rest of your post didn't, at least in a manner I could comprehend.
That is your opinion. Feel free to support it. Supported it earlier in the thread? How does it match up to what I've said?
News flash for everyone: odds are you've done something immoral in your life. I believe one should make it their goal to do what is right, but that same belief also goes with the belief that every person also has done at least one "wrong" thing in his or her life. Don't get hung up "Oh no! I did something immoral! Are they going to stone me or burn me at the stake?" Contrary to some poster's claims, this isn't a witch hunt. At the very least, what can I do? If you equate "flaming" on a message board (which I am trying not to do) with being burned alive at a stake... that's a you problem.
Missing the point much? The entire reason for that hypothetical scenario was that this isn't a situation where Player A gives Player B a gift, but where Player A is potentially taking from Player C to give to Player B. Yeah, potentially. The easiest solution is to play things out, instead of putting your thumb on the scale to make the situation fair "in your own eyes". If Player A actually loses to Player B, that's fine. If Player A has to leave that is fine. If Player A scoops to Player B because Player B is a friend or because they are "playing the system", that is not fine. It is legal, but it goes against the reason for having a tournament.
Tournaments are meant to be fun, but if fun was the only goal we wouldn't have tournaments: they are costly and time consuming. We'd just play the game like in Pokemon League, with special "universal" bonus League meets in place of tournaments. As the TCG has luck built into it, a tournament obviously cannot completely eliminate the luck from the event, but it hopes to minimize the luck and allow players a fun, enjoyable method to determine at least close to the best player/deck at the tournament.
That is why I consider the well meaning gesture of scooping to a friend to be immoral. Feeling good about something doesn't make it "right" anymore than feeling bad about something makes it wrong. Sometimes doing the right thing feels good, sometimes it feels lousy; sometimes doing the right thing is legal, sometimes it is illegal!
As my later comments about how the groups that provide aide have to be careful indicated, when you want to do something good you need to think about it; much like how certain situations an action that is normally "bad" can be good, so too can certain situations make an action that is normally good be bad. Helping someone else at the expense of someone else, unless all involved are willing, isn't good.
If you're a clerk in a store, you can't help yourself to the cash in the register and give it to someone needy. You can't say "well I work for this store and that was just the money I would have earned anyway - it is my right to bestow it upon someone else!" The business is a business, and even if the owner would have also been charitable, it wasn't your place to decide, plus you may be messing up important bookkeeping that can lead to someone else being accused of theft (or similar hassles). All that before wondering if the person will use the money to help or harm themselves.
You're looking at the wrong thread then, for I see it in many posts. You don't attempt to reason with people if you don't want to change their opinions, and quite a few have given the impression they are firm in the position.
"Let us me the strawman!" eh P_A? :thumb: Many on this thread have been insulting and brash on either side. We've also had slanderous accusations from both sides with no factual grounding. P_A has already claimed there are such people on the "pro-play-it-out" side (yes, this is me applying the same spin tactics as P_A, altering the label to make it sound more positive :lol
, but on the anti-play-it-out side you've had posters claim that the only ones who support playing it out are those who are losers looking for excuses, or were directly impacted by bubbling out, which is not true.Why shouldn't those of us who have a factually supported opinion attempt to enlighten others in the hope of eventually bringing change about to correct a situation we feel is "wrong"?
Second, you're putting the cart before the horse. I know I am not calling for an "unenforceable" rules change to be made, but first seeing if we have a situation that calls for then studying the game to see if an effective, enforceable rules change can be made.
The logic demonstrated by your statement is frightening! "Well, those with authority don't seem to care, so we should just ignore it too!" TPCi may simply be too busy to address it at this time, they may be unaware of the problem, or maybe they are working on a solution as we debate! In any case, TPCi not commenting on it in now way makes it wrong to discuss!
Specific circumstances are specific circumstances: address them as such. Some on both sides are trying to address it as such. That's why I prefaced this post with further clarifying comments. I thought it was pretty clear that I was only concerned with two sets of circumstances where I felt scooping was unethical: "playing the system" and because one player can't stand the "thought" of beating another even in fair competition.
As we have seen with other issues, even if something is permitted because it making a rule to prohibit it cannot be enforced, it is important to make sure the one's factually based and supported opinions are known and properly explained. Doing neither creates its own problems. If X is a lesser form of Y, but X is so minor that it simply can't be caught and creating a rule against it would require there be no penalty (due to the inability to actually catch someone committing X), it is important that is known.
If it is not discussed, X will become an acceptable practice, and we will face the danger of Y becoming an acceptable practice as well. Is it guaranteed? No, but that doesn't mean one should risk it anyway. It must be discussed so that newer players realize that it is only allowed because a rule against it cannot be enforced, and be discouraged from practicing it themselves. Plus if some change were to later allow rules against X to be enforced, it comes as no surprise when such rules are implemented.
Consider this: are you so rigid in your beliefs that rather than confront an issue you would just ignore it? That you would slander others through exaggeration and insult others in the same stroke? P_A, if you think this is a witch hunt, and stating my opinions here, backing them to the best of my abilities, and expecting others in the discussion to do the same is "running roughshod" over them, you insult those who have lived far rougher lives than yourself.
Oh, and you did it again, you threw up a strawman. "Don't pay attention to what they say folks! Pay attention to what I say! They say they are concerned with people scooping for specific reasons, but they don't mean it! They totally mean scooping for any reason! If playing the game out meant you would die, they'd make you play it out and die!"
Earlier you talked about walking in another man's shoes. Another newsflash for you: sometimes being outside of a situation leads to a clearer picture. Even if it doesn't, you don't just say "whoops, well I've done that so I can't say it is wrong" or "whoops, I've never done that so I can't say it is wrong". You love to post your own opinions... but you don't factually support them. You don't reason it out. If I've done something wrong, it is still my duty to stand against it when others try to do it or claim it is "right" or even "neutral". If I've never done something that is wrong, I still get to call it wrong if I can explain why. By your reasoning, no one who has ever told a lie can consider lying immoral. By your reasoning, if I am not guilty of murder I can't condemn genocide, and possibly murder!
P_A
Active Member
Thank you Otaku for taking the time to write an obviously well thought out and reasonable reply to my post. I want to let you know that I have read it, and have the intention to reply, but while I'm at work I only have so much time during breaks to do so. As such I can't do your post any justice until I get home, but I certainly will. I have to admit that over the course of this thread, I've noticed a number of people on both sides using heated words, and as such I too succumbed to the snare. Your reasonable post brought me back from that, and hopefully I will reply in the same manner.
In the meantime, I do agree that I didn't fully explain why I felt the idea is inherantly flawed, but part of my explanation was that TPCi haven't felt the need to address the issue, and any attempt on their part to bring in an unenforcable law for pokemon such as 'thou shalt not scoop for friends' or 'thou shalt not scoop PERIOD!' would be foolish - therefore inherantly flawed. Sure, it's kinda like the divine law of 'Love your God with your whole heart soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself' (which is a wonderful law by the way, but just not enforcable by humankind - so since God isn't our judge in pokemon, we'll just have to do the best we can with what we have for now).
More comments later.
In the meantime, I do agree that I didn't fully explain why I felt the idea is inherantly flawed, but part of my explanation was that TPCi haven't felt the need to address the issue, and any attempt on their part to bring in an unenforcable law for pokemon such as 'thou shalt not scoop for friends' or 'thou shalt not scoop PERIOD!' would be foolish - therefore inherantly flawed. Sure, it's kinda like the divine law of 'Love your God with your whole heart soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself' (which is a wonderful law by the way, but just not enforcable by humankind - so since God isn't our judge in pokemon, we'll just have to do the best we can with what we have for now).
More comments later.
Otaku
Active Member
P_A: You read my post, but said it was reasonable and a well thought out reply to my own. Clearly you're delusional.
In all seriousness, I do believe I was overly harsh in my response, and before you say more (even if you utterly shred my arguments in your own), I thank you for taking a moment to make a polite response now before our comments are separated by two pages and everyone wonders what happened.
I will ready myself for a reasoned response that addresses my own concerns, as well as try not to allow the concern some posts on this thread had raised in me to spur me into an overly alarmed state. I suppose that should go in general: I hope that many of the posts that concern me are a result of people just not thinking before typing, and not their actual worldviews and thoughts on what makes something "right" or "wrong".
Edit: Upon further review of the post in question, I was too harsh/snarky in some areas, for which I apologize. I also realize the post is full of typos and I unintentionally dropped a few sentences. I am loathe to edit it now though given it might seem deceptive, even with your positive response to the post. As such let me clarify a point down here.
In my X/Y example, Y was supposed to be an illegal action. This is why X being a lesser form of Y but being legal was a big deal. I avoided some actual hot topics on the board that might fall into this, hence the "X/Y" thing. I also accidentally cut out a sentence while revising where I explained the other risk of never making sure it is common knowledge (via discussion) that X is tolerated only because rules against it cannot be enforced: even if rules against it could never be enforced, you risk creating a foundation for making Y legal. In the extreme examples I am thinking of I doubt a movement around such a notion would actually succeed in changing the rules, but creating a scenario for players to be confused in such a manner to begin with is not conducive to the game, and why explanations for rules and rulings are so important.
I do thank you for being thick-skinned: again in review I feel I could have said the same thing, even while being direct and concise... without being snarky.
In all seriousness, I do believe I was overly harsh in my response, and before you say more (even if you utterly shred my arguments in your own), I thank you for taking a moment to make a polite response now before our comments are separated by two pages and everyone wonders what happened.
I will ready myself for a reasoned response that addresses my own concerns, as well as try not to allow the concern some posts on this thread had raised in me to spur me into an overly alarmed state. I suppose that should go in general: I hope that many of the posts that concern me are a result of people just not thinking before typing, and not their actual worldviews and thoughts on what makes something "right" or "wrong".
Edit: Upon further review of the post in question, I was too harsh/snarky in some areas, for which I apologize. I also realize the post is full of typos and I unintentionally dropped a few sentences. I am loathe to edit it now though given it might seem deceptive, even with your positive response to the post. As such let me clarify a point down here.
In my X/Y example, Y was supposed to be an illegal action. This is why X being a lesser form of Y but being legal was a big deal. I avoided some actual hot topics on the board that might fall into this, hence the "X/Y" thing. I also accidentally cut out a sentence while revising where I explained the other risk of never making sure it is common knowledge (via discussion) that X is tolerated only because rules against it cannot be enforced: even if rules against it could never be enforced, you risk creating a foundation for making Y legal. In the extreme examples I am thinking of I doubt a movement around such a notion would actually succeed in changing the rules, but creating a scenario for players to be confused in such a manner to begin with is not conducive to the game, and why explanations for rules and rulings are so important.
I do thank you for being thick-skinned: again in review I feel I could have said the same thing, even while being direct and concise... without being snarky.
Last edited:
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
Before I begin, I feel a need to clarify again. Something I thought was obvious but either was not or is now being intentionally ignored in an attempt at misdirection.
When it is a "best of" series of games, and time is a vital component, I have no ethical qualms with a player scooping. I may not always agree it is the actual best play, but in some situations it will be. Some of the comments seem to imply those objecting to scooping for other reasons includes scooping for this reason.
If we get an official statement from TPC or the like that the ability to manipulate the tournament structure ("playing the system") through scooping is an intentional part of the game, something they wouldn't get rid of even if they good, then my objection to it is gone. In my particular case, my objection over it being unethical stems from the perception of players exploiting "loopholes" in the rules. Note that this isn't always the case: if this game required something I considered immoral in and of itself, the powers-that-be declaring it to be legal and "moral" aren't going to change my mind, though would change my level of game participation.
Moving on...
The only problem with this is that most people aren't talking about top cut, and if they are they are talking about top cut they're probably talking about scooping the series and not the match.
An action being moral or immoral (in this scenario) is completely subjective and bringing up that others are immoral in their lives is neither a good argument nor applicable to anything here. The reason people have used the term "witch hunt" is because some posters on here are speaking about how they're cheating for doing it, which is an unfair and unbalanced accusation. It's called an exaggeration, and it's used to attract attention to a point.
This statement is absolutely correct, feelings are a flawed way to measuring what's right or wrong, but they're fantastic tools to determining such things. You cannot make a good evaluation without considering how the all parties feelings, and more importantly why.
I don't know about the others agreeing with me, but I don't really care if I change anyone's opinions, but I will defend the position since I sympathize with it.
"Let us me the strawman!" eh P_A? :thumb: Many on this thread have been insulting and brash on either side. We've also had slanderous accusations from both sides with no factual grounding. P_A has already claimed there are such people on the "pro-play-it-out" side (yes, this is me applying the same spin tactics as P_A, altering the label to make it sound more positive :lol
It is true that accusations and insults have emerged from both sides, but that's pretty inevitable when you start attacking a person's play style in the way that has been done here. People have called others cheaters for a simple action that they don't even fully understand.
On a separate note I personally do believe most people are looking for excuses through this, and others agree for a reason. Bubbling is an inevitable part of a tournament, and when there are enough people someone will bubble. It's no one's fault, and there is no malicious intent, and as it appears from my perspective people are trying to blame someone or something in a situation of luck. The person who bubbled will feel upset, and bubbling will not change this, as whoever misses cut with no scooping present will feel cheated as well.
*sigh* Way to miss the point yourself...again. The purpose of his statement (from my own interpretation) was for you to consider reviewing your own position and consider that your previous statements may have been wrong. I'm not P_A so I wouldn't know.
How do you factually support anything in this situation anyway? It's nothing but opinions. You think it's wrong, and I think it's fine.
Additionally being sympathetic to a position makes it easier to understand why they think what they do, and can yield greater clarity to a situation. That doesn't invalidate the other side's complaints, and it doesn't invalidate an opinion if they aren't sympathetic to the other side, but be aware that they do might understand what you're saying, and disagree because they've found information that can invalidate it.
Otaku
Active Member
To All: I have a lot of quotes in this thread, including myself from more than one post. Please be forgiving if I mislabeled a few quotes (though do point them out). Not trying to deceive anyone, and I am pretty sure if I have anything wrong it will be one of my own quotes, being labeled as earlier/later than it actually was.
P_A: TheRolesWePlay decided to weigh in again before you responded to our own earlier part of the debate, so please understand that anything I repeat of what you said, and how I analyze it in more detail is because of the need to properly respond to TheRolesWePlay.
TheRolesWePlay: Reviewing the thread I was reminded that your responded to your earlier post that dissected one of my own and responded to it. I remembered why as I stumbled across it looking for something else. The very first thing you posted began with a false statement, so I just didn't care about the rest. I read it, quickly, but just figured it was a waste of time to respond in detail.
The falsehood I speak of is
I was responding to posts in this very thread where players stated that they would rather fold than defeat a certain family member or friend. Some added the restriction that it had to be a matter of needlessly knocking that person out of the tournament, but I don't believe all did. So I have good reason to believe these people exist.
Ignoring that, the rest of your statement still doesn't hold up. Pokemon doesn't pander to a specific kind of "fun", but it tries to please people who want a competitive format with tournaments, and a different kind of fun with league, and well... it isn't that Pokemon couldn't appeal to such people, it is that they pursue different kinds of "fun" for different players.
Basically you seem to ignore matters of substance and attack where you believe my statements are at their weakest. Wonderful if you are on a debate team, but not so much when discussing something and trying to find an actual answer (even if that answer is simple "we disagree completely".) Not my posts have been perfectly polite, but I do try to focus on the points.
Perhaps if I have time I'll go back to that post, but since I didn't catch this one until later, plus you're inserting yourself when it probably would have been wiser to wait for P_A to post his own follow up, I will address it.
I believe we have once again spectacularly failed to communicate. The communication problem is that far too many "anti-play-it-out" folks are focusing on the situations (like top cut, someone being ill, etc.) when they argue against the pro-play-it-out folks. If that is what you meant, I just thought you should know I completely read your statements contrary to it.
Completely subjective? I must disagree. I have explained my reasons repeatedly, reasons you seem to gloss over. Actually address them and prove them unreasonable, and you silence me. Actually address them, and if I am satisfied we both have articulated our points and it is clear we fundamentally disagree, we need not waste time discussing it further.
This discussion isn't "My favorite color is white." This discussion isn't "My favorite color is white because I am cheerful." This discussion would be the equivalent of people working out in the hot summer sun and even though official policy is we may wear black because it doesn't easily show dirt or stains, some believe it is hot enough we should wear white because it will keep us cooler and with the black we might risk heatstroke.
Now as for my comments about humanity in general, here is where we begin to see some spin on your part. I brought up that I am of the belief (and I confess it is a belief, not a concrete fact) that everyone has done something wrong, something immoral in their lives... including myself. Wording it so that I only accuse others is a subtle attempt at slander, but an effective one, which is why I am calling you on it. If it was unintentional, you help further demonstrate why I brought it up.
Why did I bring it up? Study the paragraph: I noticed several posts where people defensive and even offended that someone though they could do a single immoral thing! Ever! I tied this into how people are also acting like stating this is tantamount to physically harming them. It isn't. If I am right and this is ultimately an immoral action (even when done with good intentions) then those who have done it... have something to thing about? Got flamed a little? Flamed in the internet sense, not the "form of capital punishment" sense.
To further explain why I brought it up, I am remembering my own past. Although it was only at Pokemon League for a few sessions, I once weaved my deck (Pokemon-Trainer-Energy) and encouraged others to do so. Did I want to improve my draws? Yes. I wanted to improve my opponent's draws as well, because I wanted a good game and had been frustrated by winning and losing due to "Pokemon/Trainer/Energy droughts". I wasted time defending the practice when called upon it. Why? I refused to allow that it was wrong, because then I was cheating! Eventually I had to listen to reason, but I wasted time because I just got defensive and couldn't bear to admit I could be doing something wrong.
So I wanted to remind people "don't get hung up that something you've been doing might be wrong: find out if it is wrong first, then worry about the fact you have been doing it".
Feelings are a small component of determining right from wrong, and I find mostly of use in determining proper execution. I guess I should have added to what I said: Just because something you do makes someone else feel good, doesn't make it right and just because something you do makes someone else feel bad doesn't make it wrong.
So should I consider how my actions would make others feel? Yes, but how important that will be with respect to ethics and morality will vary significantly. First you'd need to examine all applicable basic principles, then consider outcomes, of which feelings is a small part. Then again you do state that "why" is more important, so perhaps we don't disagree so much as word the same thing very differently.
It is interesting to note that so many posters regularly discount the feelings of anyone but the person scooping and the person opposing the "scooper". Despite participating in the same tournament, even being directly affected by the action they don't matter according to many anti-play-it-out types.
I went back and got the quote I was responding to since it wasn't one of yours. If you merely felt like commenting, very well. Still... how can you defend a comment without trying to change someone's mind... or prevent it from changing. I would argue that preventing a mind from changing when it might change is akin to changing it in this context. Of course, that is if you are trying to reason with people. If you just fancy posting to post indeed, what I stated would not hold up. Fortunately I was referencing that very specific comment, where it was asserted that only pro-play-it-out people were only ones being adamant and trying to change minds.
...
Perhaps I should have questioned why that is a bad thing?
Like I said, both sides are at fault. If you don't fully understand, ask for clarification! You know how bad it is when you are accused of being a cheater? It is way worse when you make a fool of yourself arguing you aren't before realizing you actually have been cheating! Those against scooping in certain circumstances should have been more tactful (I say as I am struggling not to be snarky right now :lol and those who are in favor of it in any circumstance have been overly defensive, also elevating the situation.
Great, now answer my counterarguments. Just because someone has to "bubble out" doesn't doesn't invalidate the concern. Remember, tournaments exist to have fun but while trying to narrow it down to the best player/deck at the tournament. As always, something of a disclaimer for actual luck. If I can't bear to defeat my friend and scoop to him, or am trying to get improve my odds of a favorable next round because we are about to go into the top cut, I intentionally alter the outcome, or at least attempt to (it varies depending on the exact situation, I believe).
Funny thing is while from your perspective it appears to be an excuse, my perspective is that it is an excuse... for the anti-play-it-out crowd, not the pro-play-it-out crowd. When I look, most posts that aren't just sounding off against the forms of scooping in question belonged to people who claimed not to be concerned with their own bubbling out, especially the posts with more substance to them. I was not even the only currently inactive player!
Like I said, I am not going to dedicate the amount of time I need to in order to sort through all the posts and crunch the numbers: I am spending too much time on this thread as is. Even without doing that, I know that I am concerned about this even though I may have never bubbled out, and may never bubble out. Maybe I have, but I seem to recall in most tournaments I've been to either I cleanly made top cut (quite, quite rare XD) or I was substantially below it. Since I haven't been able to make any form of organized play in three years (sadly) I know it hasn't affected me for at least that long!
P_A: TheRolesWePlay decided to weigh in again before you responded to our own earlier part of the debate, so please understand that anything I repeat of what you said, and how I analyze it in more detail is because of the need to properly respond to TheRolesWePlay.
TheRolesWePlay: Reviewing the thread I was reminded that your responded to your earlier post that dissected one of my own and responded to it. I remembered why as I stumbled across it looking for something else. The very first thing you posted began with a false statement, so I just didn't care about the rest. I read it, quickly, but just figured it was a waste of time to respond in detail.
The falsehood I speak of is
I was responding to posts in this very thread where players stated that they would rather fold than defeat a certain family member or friend. Some added the restriction that it had to be a matter of needlessly knocking that person out of the tournament, but I don't believe all did. So I have good reason to believe these people exist.
Ignoring that, the rest of your statement still doesn't hold up. Pokemon doesn't pander to a specific kind of "fun", but it tries to please people who want a competitive format with tournaments, and a different kind of fun with league, and well... it isn't that Pokemon couldn't appeal to such people, it is that they pursue different kinds of "fun" for different players.
Basically you seem to ignore matters of substance and attack where you believe my statements are at their weakest. Wonderful if you are on a debate team, but not so much when discussing something and trying to find an actual answer (even if that answer is simple "we disagree completely".) Not my posts have been perfectly polite, but I do try to focus on the points.
Perhaps if I have time I'll go back to that post, but since I didn't catch this one until later, plus you're inserting yourself when it probably would have been wiser to wait for P_A to post his own follow up, I will address it.
I believe we have once again spectacularly failed to communicate. The communication problem is that far too many "anti-play-it-out" folks are focusing on the situations (like top cut, someone being ill, etc.) when they argue against the pro-play-it-out folks. If that is what you meant, I just thought you should know I completely read your statements contrary to it.
Completely subjective? I must disagree. I have explained my reasons repeatedly, reasons you seem to gloss over. Actually address them and prove them unreasonable, and you silence me. Actually address them, and if I am satisfied we both have articulated our points and it is clear we fundamentally disagree, we need not waste time discussing it further.
This discussion isn't "My favorite color is white." This discussion isn't "My favorite color is white because I am cheerful." This discussion would be the equivalent of people working out in the hot summer sun and even though official policy is we may wear black because it doesn't easily show dirt or stains, some believe it is hot enough we should wear white because it will keep us cooler and with the black we might risk heatstroke.
Now as for my comments about humanity in general, here is where we begin to see some spin on your part. I brought up that I am of the belief (and I confess it is a belief, not a concrete fact) that everyone has done something wrong, something immoral in their lives... including myself. Wording it so that I only accuse others is a subtle attempt at slander, but an effective one, which is why I am calling you on it. If it was unintentional, you help further demonstrate why I brought it up.
Why did I bring it up? Study the paragraph: I noticed several posts where people defensive and even offended that someone though they could do a single immoral thing! Ever! I tied this into how people are also acting like stating this is tantamount to physically harming them. It isn't. If I am right and this is ultimately an immoral action (even when done with good intentions) then those who have done it... have something to thing about? Got flamed a little? Flamed in the internet sense, not the "form of capital punishment" sense.
To further explain why I brought it up, I am remembering my own past. Although it was only at Pokemon League for a few sessions, I once weaved my deck (Pokemon-Trainer-Energy) and encouraged others to do so. Did I want to improve my draws? Yes. I wanted to improve my opponent's draws as well, because I wanted a good game and had been frustrated by winning and losing due to "Pokemon/Trainer/Energy droughts". I wasted time defending the practice when called upon it. Why? I refused to allow that it was wrong, because then I was cheating! Eventually I had to listen to reason, but I wasted time because I just got defensive and couldn't bear to admit I could be doing something wrong.
So I wanted to remind people "don't get hung up that something you've been doing might be wrong: find out if it is wrong first, then worry about the fact you have been doing it".
Feelings are a small component of determining right from wrong, and I find mostly of use in determining proper execution. I guess I should have added to what I said: Just because something you do makes someone else feel good, doesn't make it right and just because something you do makes someone else feel bad doesn't make it wrong.
So should I consider how my actions would make others feel? Yes, but how important that will be with respect to ethics and morality will vary significantly. First you'd need to examine all applicable basic principles, then consider outcomes, of which feelings is a small part. Then again you do state that "why" is more important, so perhaps we don't disagree so much as word the same thing very differently.
It is interesting to note that so many posters regularly discount the feelings of anyone but the person scooping and the person opposing the "scooper". Despite participating in the same tournament, even being directly affected by the action they don't matter according to many anti-play-it-out types.
I went back and got the quote I was responding to since it wasn't one of yours. If you merely felt like commenting, very well. Still... how can you defend a comment without trying to change someone's mind... or prevent it from changing. I would argue that preventing a mind from changing when it might change is akin to changing it in this context. Of course, that is if you are trying to reason with people. If you just fancy posting to post indeed, what I stated would not hold up. Fortunately I was referencing that very specific comment, where it was asserted that only pro-play-it-out people were only ones being adamant and trying to change minds.
...
Perhaps I should have questioned why that is a bad thing?
"Let us me the strawman!" eh P_A? :thumb: Many on this thread have been insulting and brash on either side. We've also had slanderous accusations from both sides with no factual grounding. P_A has already claimed there are such people on the "pro-play-it-out" side (yes, this is me applying the same spin tactics as P_A, altering the label to make it sound more positive :lol
Like I said, both sides are at fault. If you don't fully understand, ask for clarification! You know how bad it is when you are accused of being a cheater? It is way worse when you make a fool of yourself arguing you aren't before realizing you actually have been cheating! Those against scooping in certain circumstances should have been more tactful (I say as I am struggling not to be snarky right now :lol
and those who are in favor of it in any circumstance have been overly defensive, also elevating the situation.Great, now answer my counterarguments. Just because someone has to "bubble out" doesn't doesn't invalidate the concern. Remember, tournaments exist to have fun but while trying to narrow it down to the best player/deck at the tournament. As always, something of a disclaimer for actual luck. If I can't bear to defeat my friend and scoop to him, or am trying to get improve my odds of a favorable next round because we are about to go into the top cut, I intentionally alter the outcome, or at least attempt to (it varies depending on the exact situation, I believe).
Funny thing is while from your perspective it appears to be an excuse, my perspective is that it is an excuse... for the anti-play-it-out crowd, not the pro-play-it-out crowd. When I look, most posts that aren't just sounding off against the forms of scooping in question belonged to people who claimed not to be concerned with their own bubbling out, especially the posts with more substance to them. I was not even the only currently inactive player!
Like I said, I am not going to dedicate the amount of time I need to in order to sort through all the posts and crunch the numbers: I am spending too much time on this thread as is.
Even without doing that, I know that I am concerned about this even though I may have never bubbled out, and may never bubble out. Maybe I have, but I seem to recall in most tournaments I've been to either I cleanly made top cut (quite, quite rare XD) or I was substantially below it. Since I haven't been able to make any form of organized play in three years (sadly) I know it hasn't affected me for at least that long!I'd also like to raise another point. Suppose somebody went into a big tournament (for example Nationals) with a theme deck and every single round somebody scooped to him, including in the top cut rounds. Would you respect him at all for winning a huge tournament? If not, what's the difference between this and other forms of scooping? Where is the limit drawn?
P_A
Active Member
Before I begin, I'd like to thank TheRolesWePlay, since he/she has posted in detail quite a bit of the info that I would touch upon. My "thanks" are done for the day, so this will have to suffice. I've added some replies in red for only a portion of my reply. More will be added as I can (and if I don't run out of space for posting).
more replies later.
more replies later.
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
I'm going to go ahead and make this one short, but I might revisit this later on. I will admit that there is some confusion on both sides of these posts. (My lack of seeing all of the construction analogy's references being one of them.
In any case I don't believe there's any hard evidence to the matter as it mostly boils down to a he said she said argument. I'm not even persuaded that half as many people bubble because of intentional scooping than people let on. It's a rare occurrence that lacks much impact outside of the last few rounds (maybe even limited to the last two depending on the size) The fact of the matter is that people don't generally face friends outside of small events, and as you've attested tournaments are about fun, and if both players do well and end up facing each other in the last 1 or 2 matches they might fold out of kindness or have a match, the later being more common, and if they do poorly they might fold since playing a friend family member isn't fun to them. I could go on but I don't think I need to.
I may not have been supplying information but I don't think there's much ground for it to prove much outside for the fact that it exists, and even then since such thing aren't documented. I view a lot of this as pent up irritation and paranoia. I could be drastically wrong, but then again so could you.
@P_A
Why thank you too.
P_A
Active Member
Ok, I may not always have an approriate comment, and believe it or not, with some subjects I actually have lost sleep over (just not this issue though), but for this particular issue, I'm just adding here to an earlier comment as my time online allows.
Yes, for sure it's not that I can't sympathize with the other opinion. I just can't see how trying to force someone to 'play it out' will ever work. My analogy to slavery just seems to be fitting. However, like I said, I'm not stopping anyone from that opinion. Just be aware that in this day and age it's not a very ideal solution. It's best just to move on. And with that .....
Again, good use of exaggeration, but again ultimately flawed. I don't reason that scooping is moral because it happens for one reason or another, nor do I minimize the morality due to a possible 'honorable' or 'dishonorable' use of scooping. Here's the crux of the matter: I only say that there shouldn't be any restrictions upon scooping FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, since not only will it cause more problems than it solves, but it will be truly unenforcable. PERIOD. Why concern yourselves overly to try to address the truly unaddressable?
P_A: You read my post, but said it was reasonable and a well thought out reply to my own. Clearly you're delusional.
.... I will ready myself for a reasoned response that addresses my own concerns I've tried my best, but I have no idea if my posts will be enough for you. If howeverthere continues to be some gap between us, I'm sure it's due to my poor communication skills , as well as try not to allow the concern some posts on this thread had raised in me to spur me into an overly alarmed state. I suppose that should go in general: I hope that many of the posts that concern me are a result of people just not thinking before typing, and not their actual worldviews and thoughts on what makes something "right" or "wrong".
Edit: Upon further review of the post in question, I was too harsh/snarky in some areas, for which I apologize. No need, bud. I also realize the post is full of typos and I unintentionally dropped a few sentences. I am loathe to edit it now though given it might seem deceptive, even with your positive response to the post. As such let me clarify a point down here.
In my X/Y example, Y was supposed to be an illegal action. This is why X being a lesser form of Y but being legal was a big deal. I avoided some actual hot topics on the board that might fall into this, hence the "X/Y" thing. I also accidentally cut out a sentence while revising where I explained the other risk of never making sure it is common knowledge (via discussion) that X is tolerated only because rules against it cannot be enforced: even if rules against it could never be enforced, you risk creating a foundation for making Y legal. In the extreme examples I am thinking of I doubt a movement around such a notion would actually succeed in changing the rules, but creating a scenario for players to be confused in such a manner to begin with is not conducive to the game, and why explanations for rules and rulings are so important. I think I'm understanding this correctly, but perhaps you can confirm it for me. ... I think you're trying to say that allowing scooping will eventually lead to persons thinking that something else of a somewhat worse character would be allowed. That may very well be the case, but without knowing the specifics you attempt to discuss, I'm sure I'm not a good judge.
I do thank you for being thick-skinned: again in review I feel I could have said the same thing, even while being direct and concise... without being snarky.
Yes, for sure it's not that I can't sympathize with the other opinion. I just can't see how trying to force someone to 'play it out' will ever work. My analogy to slavery just seems to be fitting. However, like I said, I'm not stopping anyone from that opinion. Just be aware that in this day and age it's not a very ideal solution. It's best just to move on. And with that .....
Otaku
Active Member
As a quick preface, let me remind those reading this thread that I am worried scooping in certain situations where it unduly influences the standings is inappropriate. I have not called for a rule against it, since at least for now I see no way to enforce such a rule. I have not called for banning all forms of scooping. I have just tried to explain why I think, in certain situations, it is the wrong action and I have asked people not to do it.
P_A: You wonder where my zeal for the subject comes from? Well, of course any discussion of ethics for me means referencing my faith. No, you won't find the Pokemon TCG discussed in any Bible I've seen, but you will find basic principles of morality. If there is no problems there... well that didn't really matter, did it? You see, we had players entering tournaments for an express purpose and then not delivering. Breach of contract, you might say.
With regards to this thread, when I first saw it I saw a few appeals to relativism, and some rather insulting dismissals of the topic. The basic point was made. Do you not believe you should keep your word when you make an agreement? What is the tournament but an agreement between players?
Still, even then I'd said my peace in a single post, and I suspected things would churn on with people basically spamming the topic along with he said/she said, insults, and hurt feelings.
Then something curious happened. Well, someone responded to my post, or rather what they thought my post contained. I allowed some if it could be misunderstanding, but some of it was so out of whack it made me suspicious. That of course would be your post, P_A. You then then posted a polite response thanking me... and that should have been the tip of: what did you thank me for?
I wasted several hours trying to type out a response to this post. I made the mistake of avoiding direct quotes since it would be a little awkward given your approach and I thought it would save time. I was completely wrong.
I am out of time now, so let me address what I can.
I questioned whether or not it was really ethical to scoop in some situations. After some responses implying I was trying to get a rule again all scooping, I posted clarifications.
Clarifications that have repeatedly been ignored. That is where most of my zeal comes from. I repeatedly see words put into my mouth, which is annoying enough, but even more so when that is used as means of a counterargument. So first I worry that some fairly basic moral principles are being ignored (honoring your word) and now I have you and TheRolesWePlay hammering at me with misstatements... which by now are hard to believe are misstatements and not lies.
Much of your own grievance comes from the fact you have some bizarre notions. On one hand, you seem to expect a perfectly polite debate. "Perfectly" in a literal sense, something you should not expect from Christians (if you and are I referring to the same Bible). We Christians are forgiven, not perfect, and I certainly know I sin more than I would like.
What is sad is that with this ideal vision you then elevate an insult with harassment. Do you really think using inflammatory language is going to defuse the situation? Is that not what trying to describe this thread as a witch hunt does, inflame the situation more? You realize the idea behind putting yourself in the other person's place is to then take that perspective and use it to adjust your delivery to lessen the inflammatory nature of it, not increase it?
I honestly cannot see how your own actions are any different than what you accuse me of. I can see the difference between my own actions and what you accuse me of, but not the difference between what you have accused me of and what you yourself have done. I will keep pondering it, but after going through it multiple times, it is strengthening my convictions, not eroding them. You should not hold out hope of a change of heart... or rather mind.
You mentioned how you are short of time and I have to ask myself, how carefully are you reading these things? I mean, just the first of your most recent responses, which I didn't even finish carefully responding to because of how thorough I was trying to be, before I reached six times where you put words into my mouth, specifically exaggerating my stance by claiming I was all for banning any form of scooping. This is on top of bizarre jumps in logic such as how suddenly the ability to scoop in a Pokemon tournament you are voluntarily choosing to play of your own free will is suddenly equivalent to slavery?
Given some of your responses, I wonder if you assume me to be a confused child? Well perhaps I am, but just so you know my actual age is 30. Pull no punches thinking I am a 12-year-old. I had you pegged as at most a twenty-something-college student, but given how long you claim to have been married, I guess I was wrong.
I will also enlighten you as to what "X" and "Y" were in a previous post. Y was stacking, X was declumping. That was the controversy I was trying to avoid.
tl;dr: My zeal comes from what was a issue of minor concern getting rammed down my throat by another fanatic.
P_A: You wonder where my zeal for the subject comes from? Well, of course any discussion of ethics for me means referencing my faith. No, you won't find the Pokemon TCG discussed in any Bible I've seen, but you will find basic principles of morality. If there is no problems there... well that didn't really matter, did it? You see, we had players entering tournaments for an express purpose and then not delivering. Breach of contract, you might say.
With regards to this thread, when I first saw it I saw a few appeals to relativism, and some rather insulting dismissals of the topic. The basic point was made. Do you not believe you should keep your word when you make an agreement? What is the tournament but an agreement between players?
Still, even then I'd said my peace in a single post, and I suspected things would churn on with people basically spamming the topic along with he said/she said, insults, and hurt feelings.
Then something curious happened. Well, someone responded to my post, or rather what they thought my post contained. I allowed some if it could be misunderstanding, but some of it was so out of whack it made me suspicious. That of course would be your post, P_A. You then then posted a polite response thanking me... and that should have been the tip of: what did you thank me for?
I wasted several hours trying to type out a response to this post. I made the mistake of avoiding direct quotes since it would be a little awkward given your approach and I thought it would save time. I was completely wrong.
I am out of time now, so let me address what I can.
I questioned whether or not it was really ethical to scoop in some situations. After some responses implying I was trying to get a rule again all scooping, I posted clarifications.
Clarifications that have repeatedly been ignored. That is where most of my zeal comes from. I repeatedly see words put into my mouth, which is annoying enough, but even more so when that is used as means of a counterargument. So first I worry that some fairly basic moral principles are being ignored (honoring your word) and now I have you and TheRolesWePlay hammering at me with misstatements... which by now are hard to believe are misstatements and not lies.
Much of your own grievance comes from the fact you have some bizarre notions. On one hand, you seem to expect a perfectly polite debate. "Perfectly" in a literal sense, something you should not expect from Christians (if you and are I referring to the same Bible). We Christians are forgiven, not perfect, and I certainly know I sin more than I would like.
What is sad is that with this ideal vision you then elevate an insult with harassment. Do you really think using inflammatory language is going to defuse the situation? Is that not what trying to describe this thread as a witch hunt does, inflame the situation more? You realize the idea behind putting yourself in the other person's place is to then take that perspective and use it to adjust your delivery to lessen the inflammatory nature of it, not increase it?
I honestly cannot see how your own actions are any different than what you accuse me of. I can see the difference between my own actions and what you accuse me of, but not the difference between what you have accused me of and what you yourself have done. I will keep pondering it, but after going through it multiple times, it is strengthening my convictions, not eroding them. You should not hold out hope of a change of heart... or rather mind.
You mentioned how you are short of time and I have to ask myself, how carefully are you reading these things? I mean, just the first of your most recent responses, which I didn't even finish carefully responding to because of how thorough I was trying to be, before I reached six times where you put words into my mouth, specifically exaggerating my stance by claiming I was all for banning any form of scooping. This is on top of bizarre jumps in logic such as how suddenly the ability to scoop in a Pokemon tournament you are voluntarily choosing to play of your own free will is suddenly equivalent to slavery?
Given some of your responses, I wonder if you assume me to be a confused child? Well perhaps I am, but just so you know my actual age is 30. Pull no punches thinking I am a 12-year-old. I had you pegged as at most a twenty-something-college student, but given how long you claim to have been married, I guess I was wrong.
I will also enlighten you as to what "X" and "Y" were in a previous post. Y was stacking, X was declumping. That was the controversy I was trying to avoid.
tl;dr: My zeal comes from what was a issue of minor concern getting rammed down my throat by another fanatic.
Last edited:
P_A
Active Member
To be clear here, my first post was not directed entirely to you personally. If anything, I was trying to be very general but apparently it didn't turn out that way in your eyes - and perhaps others, I don't know. Sorry if you thought I was putting words into your mouth. or possibly enflaming the situation further. And no, I had no preconceived ideas about your age. I've seen you've been around for a while. I didn't think I was talking down to you, nor insulting you or harrassing you. My style of conversational writing is different from others, but by no means do I mean any harm by it. If I hurt your feelings, be assured I didn't mean to do so. However long story short, it looks like neither one of us feel compelled to change our opinion regarding this issue, and to be honest, I really can't see it as being worthy of continued discussion, so for my part, it's time to move on.
You have the right to have your opinion. Don't let anyone ever tell you differently.
You have the right to have your opinion. Don't let anyone ever tell you differently.
[/QUOTE] What are tournaments for? Are we attempting to find at least close to the most skilled player? Serious question: I know some of you seem to have the floor rules memorized, so I'll let you inform me. I know they are also supposed to be fun, but it is a specific type of fun, that of playing in a tournament. If the restrictions a tournament places on you aren't fun, you don't play in that tournament, so if you don't want to beat your friends?
Please don't play in the same tournament as them.
You still have a right to, I am just making a request.
tl;dr: The purpose of a tournament is to have fun by doing your best to win the tournament following both the letter and the spirit of the rules. When you scoop to help someone else, your hurting someone else; playing it out just seems to be a more fair way to decide it. Relativism makes this whole affair meaningless. If you believe in "luck" at all, you should know its a 24/7 kind of thing for all of your life, not just a TCG.[/QUOTE] by Otaku
My comments are below
Most people have different reasons for entering pokemon tournaments. Winning is not necessarily their main motive, for the competitive player it is, but for about half of the players that I deal with they have other reasons. Most of the players that come to tournaments know each other through league play from different parts of the valley in which we live. The part of the game that they like is getting together and seeing their pokemon friends that they only see at tournaments, it is the social aspect they like. Very few of these type of players that I notice ever scoop/concede a game.
From my experience it is the competitive players who I have noticed that have a tendency to do this, of which I have no problem with since it is within the rules. Some are trying for the rating invite and go after the points etc, and some won't go beyond the state level or are going to Nats or worlds anyway so they may decide to do what is within the rules for them to do. I just do not see this as a zero sum game where one gains and one loses because all who enter these tournaments do so for various reasons. They are all not going in the same direction not seeking the same goal. These are just my observations on the tournaments I have been involved with.
chuzzoe
Please don't play in the same tournament as them.
You still have a right to, I am just making a request.
tl;dr: The purpose of a tournament is to have fun by doing your best to win the tournament following both the letter and the spirit of the rules. When you scoop to help someone else, your hurting someone else; playing it out just seems to be a more fair way to decide it. Relativism makes this whole affair meaningless. If you believe in "luck" at all, you should know its a 24/7 kind of thing for all of your life, not just a TCG.[/QUOTE] by Otaku
My comments are below
Most people have different reasons for entering pokemon tournaments. Winning is not necessarily their main motive, for the competitive player it is, but for about half of the players that I deal with they have other reasons. Most of the players that come to tournaments know each other through league play from different parts of the valley in which we live. The part of the game that they like is getting together and seeing their pokemon friends that they only see at tournaments, it is the social aspect they like. Very few of these type of players that I notice ever scoop/concede a game.
From my experience it is the competitive players who I have noticed that have a tendency to do this, of which I have no problem with since it is within the rules. Some are trying for the rating invite and go after the points etc, and some won't go beyond the state level or are going to Nats or worlds anyway so they may decide to do what is within the rules for them to do. I just do not see this as a zero sum game where one gains and one loses because all who enter these tournaments do so for various reasons. They are all not going in the same direction not seeking the same goal. These are just my observations on the tournaments I have been involved with.
chuzzoe
Last edited:
Most sports teams, at any level (pro, college, HS), don't allow "scooping." Why? Spectators, mostly.
Can we apply those same disallowances to non-spectator events like Pokemon? Not unless there's reasoning that's big enough to fill the spectator void.
IMO, morality cannot fill that void because it's too subjective. When we start taking certain moral issues out of the churchs and families, and force them upon the masses, we see revolts.
Obviously, there are some universally agreed moral issues (ie., murder) that find their way into the legal system. But there are other moral issues (ie., abortion) that cause problems when legalized, or made illegal. IMO, scooping resides in the latter of these types of morality.
Maybe someday, some devine entity will set us all straight about every moral issue. For some people, I guess they think that day has already arrived, and are living amidst sinners. Debates with those types of people can be endless.
Can we apply those same disallowances to non-spectator events like Pokemon? Not unless there's reasoning that's big enough to fill the spectator void.
IMO, morality cannot fill that void because it's too subjective. When we start taking certain moral issues out of the churchs and families, and force them upon the masses, we see revolts.
Obviously, there are some universally agreed moral issues (ie., murder) that find their way into the legal system. But there are other moral issues (ie., abortion) that cause problems when legalized, or made illegal. IMO, scooping resides in the latter of these types of morality.
Maybe someday, some devine entity will set us all straight about every moral issue. For some people, I guess they think that day has already arrived, and are living amidst sinners. Debates with those types of people can be endless.
I see nobody has responded to this. Does that mean there is no difference? :wink:
Kenshin's Garde
Active Member
Yes. How could you NOT respect a theme deck winning a huge tournament?! THAT'S PURE AWESOMENESS WITH AWESOMESAUCE ALL OVER IT.
But for real, its rare to see someone scoop in this sort of scenario, where the scooper has little to no gain from scooping so early. Again, this argument can be revised if they're a friend, family member, if they're the swaggiest person in the world, etc.
Again, though, if this ACTUALLY happened, I probably would respect them. Maybe not for their play skills, but they obviously had SOMETHING going their way to do that.
Otaku
Active Member
I feel the need to post again, but not in response to P_A. I believe we have each made our points, though perhaps something I need to say now will continue the cycle.
Chuzzoe quoted (well, tried to quote - you might want to fix those quote tags ).
Chuzzoe brings up that people have different reasons for entering tournaments. This should not be ignored, but neither should what I kept trying to point out:
What are tournaments for? Just because someone enters a tournament for "their own reasons", doesn't change the point of having tournaments. You may not be going to the tournament because you want to win the tournament, but again even if it is not perfect, the goal of the tournament is for that day, to try and filter out the best player/deck there. So if you don't want to play to win, you're putting your desires above others.
If you really don't care about winning tournaments, I'd suggest considering petitioning TPC for a change in what the big events are. I am not a skilled player anymore, if I ever was. It might be fun to have "Pokemon League Mega-Meets!" instead of the tournaments then. The money set aside for Prizes at tournaments could instead be put towards some exclusive promos or similar prizes for the Mega-Meets. Skilled players can still make use of the event for most of the reasons they would attend a tournament (and a real tournament might be a 'side-event'). Everyone else could just enjoy normal Pokemon League fun, magnified by the size and scope of participation and Prize support.
If that sounds kind of silly... well it is. I just wanted to explain that we have tournaments for more reasons than just "having fun". I didn't get this concept myself when I was new to organized play, and I really annoyed one of the Master Trainers (yeah, this was under WotC days) when I made a point that I'd just attend Draft Limited events to snag the best cards. I never actually did that, but it was due to a lack of opportunity.
Anyway, whichever WotC staffer it was, he was annoy that I wasn't seriously competing, because that was the point of the tournament! Modern Pre-Releases are set-up to be friendly to new players and be only minimally competitive (at least compared to other official tournaments), but draft events back then were not (perhaps because of their rarity in my area). My going there just to snag rare cards (that weren't good in Limited), besides being unlikely to succeed also would provide what amounted to a Bye (without the drawbacks) for those who faced me, "ruining it" for the people who were there for a "real" tournament.
SteveP, your spectator argument doesn't work for me and I'll explain why. First, even when someone such as myself drew parallels to sporting events, I know I made sure to state it was not a perfect comparison, analogy, etc. They work different, and ignoring those differences would be foolish.
You make a claim that rules against forfeiting exist primarily because of the need to provide a game for the spectators. I don't know sports well enough to know if this is true. It makes some sense, but at the same time I would really need something else to prove that it was the primary reason.
Still, assume it is: why is it a problem? The spectators were promised a game and the organization would fail to deliver. This is an irritation for the most part when dealing with "free" events, but anything involving actual payment for tickets (or broadcast rights), now it is a matter of honoring contracts.
So what was one of my concerns again? That is right. Tournaments exist for more than just "having fun", and as such when you scoop you are failing to deliver the match you promise by entering to begin with. The rules allow you to scoop most likely (I don't claim to know this as a fact) because sometimes it will be unavoidable. If someone is suddenly injured or it becomes apparent that illness will keep them from playing, forcing them to play it out would be cruel.
Someone trying to manipulate certain standings in their own favor, or the favor of someone else are in many ways defeating the purpose of the event, unless "playing the system" is considered a legitimate Pokemon skill (and as I have stated, if it is considered that, then this part falls flat).
Then we get to (probably almost non-existent) "nice guy" scoop. First, this still may alter the event outcome as above. Second, if you entered a tournament to play Pokemon, why aren't you playing Pokemon?
As for SteveP's comments about morality, are there universally agreed upon morals? I've had many make this claim and I usually point out there are exceptions in various cultures, and as time shifts even within the same culture. Maybe your examples are poor. I know murder is awkward because even if it is universally "forbidden" in established cultures, what constitutes murder varies deeply. Likewise I'd happily tackle the "problems" you feel making the murder of the unborn illegal. I also question that is is actually legal, but that is yet another debate.
I get it SteveP: you think morality is too subjective. Just remember that all laws are ultimately based on subjective morals.
Chuzzoe quoted (well, tried to quote - you might want to fix those quote tags
).Chuzzoe brings up that people have different reasons for entering tournaments. This should not be ignored, but neither should what I kept trying to point out:
What are tournaments for? Just because someone enters a tournament for "their own reasons", doesn't change the point of having tournaments. You may not be going to the tournament because you want to win the tournament, but again even if it is not perfect, the goal of the tournament is for that day, to try and filter out the best player/deck there. So if you don't want to play to win, you're putting your desires above others.
If you really don't care about winning tournaments, I'd suggest considering petitioning TPC for a change in what the big events are. I am not a skilled player anymore, if I ever was. It might be fun to have "Pokemon League Mega-Meets!" instead of the tournaments then. The money set aside for Prizes at tournaments could instead be put towards some exclusive promos or similar prizes for the Mega-Meets. Skilled players can still make use of the event for most of the reasons they would attend a tournament (and a real tournament might be a 'side-event'). Everyone else could just enjoy normal Pokemon League fun, magnified by the size and scope of participation and Prize support.
If that sounds kind of silly... well it is.
I just wanted to explain that we have tournaments for more reasons than just "having fun". I didn't get this concept myself when I was new to organized play, and I really annoyed one of the Master Trainers (yeah, this was under WotC days) when I made a point that I'd just attend Draft Limited events to snag the best cards. I never actually did that, but it was due to a lack of opportunity.Anyway, whichever WotC staffer it was, he was annoy that I wasn't seriously competing, because that was the point of the tournament! Modern Pre-Releases are set-up to be friendly to new players and be only minimally competitive (at least compared to other official tournaments), but draft events back then were not (perhaps because of their rarity in my area). My going there just to snag rare cards (that weren't good in Limited), besides being unlikely to succeed also would provide what amounted to a Bye (without the drawbacks) for those who faced me, "ruining it" for the people who were there for a "real" tournament.
SteveP, your spectator argument doesn't work for me and I'll explain why. First, even when someone such as myself drew parallels to sporting events, I know I made sure to state it was not a perfect comparison, analogy, etc. They work different, and ignoring those differences would be foolish.
You make a claim that rules against forfeiting exist primarily because of the need to provide a game for the spectators. I don't know sports well enough to know if this is true. It makes some sense, but at the same time I would really need something else to prove that it was the primary reason.
Still, assume it is: why is it a problem? The spectators were promised a game and the organization would fail to deliver. This is an irritation for the most part when dealing with "free" events, but anything involving actual payment for tickets (or broadcast rights), now it is a matter of honoring contracts.
So what was one of my concerns again? That is right. Tournaments exist for more than just "having fun", and as such when you scoop you are failing to deliver the match you promise by entering to begin with. The rules allow you to scoop most likely (I don't claim to know this as a fact) because sometimes it will be unavoidable. If someone is suddenly injured or it becomes apparent that illness will keep them from playing, forcing them to play it out would be cruel.
Someone trying to manipulate certain standings in their own favor, or the favor of someone else are in many ways defeating the purpose of the event, unless "playing the system" is considered a legitimate Pokemon skill (and as I have stated, if it is considered that, then this part falls flat).
Then we get to (probably almost non-existent) "nice guy" scoop. First, this still may alter the event outcome as above. Second, if you entered a tournament to play Pokemon, why aren't you playing Pokemon?
As for SteveP's comments about morality, are there universally agreed upon morals? I've had many make this claim and I usually point out there are exceptions in various cultures, and as time shifts even within the same culture. Maybe your examples are poor. I know murder is awkward because even if it is universally "forbidden" in established cultures, what constitutes murder varies deeply. Likewise I'd happily tackle the "problems" you feel making the murder of the unborn illegal. I also question that is is actually legal, but that is yet another debate.
I get it SteveP: you think morality is too subjective. Just remember that all laws are ultimately based on subjective morals.
- Status