Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Is intentionally scooping moral?

Status
Not open for further replies.
concessions are allowed.

If POP wanted to eliminate the impact of concessions upon other players then they could. For example by altering the tournament structure so that resistance is not a factor in who makes the cut while at the same time removing the rigidly fixed power of two cuts that require resistance to be used to make up the cut in most tournaments.

There is nothing sacrosanct about power of two cuts. No reason why we have to use resistance to fill the top cut with a few of the players on the next record down.

So if it is a sin to concede it is a very small one and not one that POP have thus far seen fit to address by changing the tournament structure.
 
To me, there is not much of a moral case to be made for scooping the last game when paired down. The one thing about the tie-breaking system that I've always liked about Pokemon is that after you've played an opponent and either won or lost, you really mean it when you wish them good luck in the next game. For the rest of the tournament you are joined by the first tie breaker, Opponent's Win percentage. Conceding the last game means giving you last opponent an advantage and all of your previous round opponents a disadvantage.

From me it's a relatively simple moral question of the good of the one over the good of the many...
 
Ian, power-of-two numbers are easy and pretty from a binary-search perspective (essentially single-elim). I agree that we should have a hard line winning percentage for the top cut, and that's that. But the prettyness of power-of-two cuts are alluring for the same reason that ELO is alluring. They're elegant, and they generally work.
 
Moral isn't a definitive term. Everyone has their own morals. Personally I'm 100% fine with scooping to a good friend to get them into top cut when I'm at 0% risk. I might screw someone else out of top cut, but that assumes that a. I would win my game b. The entire system of resistances would change and let them in, which you never can determine for sure.

So in my case I find it completely moral, if I'm at a place where I can scoop to help someone that I want to win, I'll do it. People who have invites commonly scoop to friends, people who are X-0 last round of swiss will scoop to X-1s that they know, etc.
 
This whole T16 thing is nonsensical. Did he deserve his win? Who cares. He won. Morals and deserving something are both subjective. The rulebook is ultimate, and it does not prohibit scooping to friends, so scooping to friends is okay.
 
Last edited:
Legality and morals are two different things. The discussion isn't over whether it's legal but whether it's moral.
 
InnoceNt said:
Legality and morals are two different things. The discussion isn't over whether it's legal but whether it's moral.
Click to expand...
This. Anyone using the argument "the rules don't say anything about it so it's fine" are NOT understanding the entire point of this thread. This is a discussion as to whether it is "right" to do, or if it's "wrong".

People will have different opinions on the answer to that question, but that is the WHOLE POINT of a discussion thread like this. The rules aren't relevant here. What matter is how you feel about it. Why do you think it is alright or not alright? What makes it moral/ not moral? THAT is a constructive discussion; invalidating the entire discussion is not, in any way, beneficially to anyone here.
 
We're really doing this aren't we...

First of all poor choice in using the word moral. The word indicates weather or not the behavior is acceptable or not and puts things into a negative connotation when it "isn't moral"

I'll take this T16 thing as an example. Why should it matter if the guy scooped to him? Why should he be vilified for what his opponent did. Do you think he should have been punished for what his opponent did?

While I understand why one would be annoyed by this, especially if it's a higher tournament, but seriously let's not start vilifying an action like this.
 
z-man said:
If anything happens to change this, people can get around it. I can accidentally forget to play supporters to let my opponent win, or I can scoop at the last minute because I just can't see a path to victory when I have 1 prize to my opponent's 5.
Click to expand...

lol...

I don't see anything wrong with scooping to friends.
 
Amt said:
lol...

I don't see anything wrong with scooping to friends.
Click to expand...

If I'm going to bubble in at 6/3, but miss because someone who should've lost got in due to an intentional scoop, how in the hell is nothing wrong with that? There's no way to fix it, but it isn't right.
 
No matter what, someone is always going to miss cut. If I'm 6-0 and playing my friend in the final round of swiss, who is 5-1, why not give him the win? I'll be in at 6-1, and it's possible he could miss at 5-2.

Obviously it sucks for someone to bubble, but there's always going to be someone pissed off because they didn't make it etc.
 
Amt said:
No matter what, someone is always going to miss cut. If I'm 6-0 and playing my friend in the final round of swiss, who is 5-1, why not give him the win? I'll be in at 6-1, and it's possible he could miss at 5-2.

Obviously it sucks for someone to bubble, but there's always going to be someone pissed off because they didn't make it etc.
Click to expand...

Said friend doesn't deserve to cut if he wouldn't otherwise make it, so why should he?
 
TheDarkTwins said:
I don't have any issue with scooping. I think that it's not really a big deal. It's not something you can say you can't do. I don't scoop too often, but the one time in recent memory that I did was in Worlds 2009 during the last round of Swiss. I was 3-3 and my opponent was 4-2. I didn't know who he was at that time (It was Yuta who won 2010 Worlds, I believe), but since I had no way to make cut with a win, and he would 100% made cut had he won, I scooped. I was HIGHLY favored in the matchup as I had already gone 2-0 against the deck he was playing, but couldn't do that to someone. The biggest gripe people had with it was what about the people that got 33rd. My thoughts on that is if you want to make cut at Worlds go 5-2 (that year). I have no issues with what I did, and think that it was beneficial. I gained nothing out of it.

I'm sure there are reasons that can be a bit more sketchy, but if done for the right reasons it becomes something that is really positive, not questionable as some of you might think.

Drew
Click to expand...
So shouldn't Yuta have to go 5-2 to cut then? To me, it sounds like he went 4-2 and would have been 4-3 if he had to play another game.

If you played Yuta and he beat you, he would be 5-2 and make cut. If he lost to you, there was somebody who deserved to be in cut more than he did.

What is it that you "couldn't do to somebody?" To me, it sounds like somebody got unfairly screwed worse than Yuta would have been if you had played him and beat him, knocking him out of cut.

That being said, I suppose I don't have any real issue with scooping. I find it unethical since it makes the results of a match (and sometimes the tournament) illegitimate. However, by refusing to scoop to put my friends in cut or the opposite, I put myself at a disadvantage to those who do. That probably sounds pretty bad, but I guess I find scooping less unethical than putting myself and my friends at a disadvantage to those who do abuse scooping.
 
"Deserves to cut" -- Who decides who deserves to cut? IMO, anyone able to cut deserves to cut. Obviously, the previously mentioned 5-1 player deserves to cut because he/she was able to go 5-1. Obviously, the 6-0 player doesn't need the win, so if that player is playing against a friend who needs the win, the 6-0 player will happily give the 5-1 player the win. Do players who receive byes not deserve to make cut? You're assuming the 5-1 player is at a disadantage and is going to lose to the 6-0 player. Often, scoops like this happen before the round starts.
 
In the scenario Drew described, he said he had a huge advantage over the player he scooped to.

Byes are somewhat different because they wreck your resistance. Getting a bye means that you're generally going to bubble if you end up with a record where you're not guaranteed in. Players who get byes generally aren't happy about it, especially if it's after the first round. Having your friend scoop to you makes your record and your resistance better.

Imo, the people who deserve to cut are the people who have legitimately played and won enough games to make cut. They aren't the people who are lucky enough to play against their friends.
 
ddub65 said:
I read through that article and the comments on there too and I gotta say I agree with you. It is cheating. I understand wanting your friends to succeed but not at the cost of another person who deserved it missing out.
Click to expand...

If he deserved it, then he would have gotten in.

InnoceNt said:
Said friend doesn't deserve to cut if he wouldn't otherwise make it, so why should he?
Click to expand...

Since no game was played to measure this fact, you can't really state unequivocally whether or not he deserves it, can you?

Fine, then I'll say that [big name champion player] didn't "deserve" to win [high-profile tournament] in [year], because someone somewhere scooped a game that altered someone's tiebreaker that put them in. It makes me feel better about bubbling out (because that's what this thread is really about, isn't it). It also screams that I should be wearing a sandwich board that says "I'm a scrub".

I like how all of you can apparently predict the future and "know" someone shouldn't have won a game or gotten in to cut. You should utilize your immense psychic powers for the good of humankind, not debate on the intertubes.
 
untitled said:
Imo, the people who deserve to cut are the people who have legitimately played and won enough games to make cut. They aren't the people who are lucky enough to play against their friends.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, friends generally do not like it when they are paired up with each other in Swiss rounds.
 
I agree with Losjackel, I despise playing against friends in swiss rounds because one of us would then have to either win-out to make cut or possibly be out of the cut altogether. I know this may sound a bit dumb but I feel as though even if one were to scoop to someone else they should at least play it out. Best case scenario: the person who was going to scoop loses and he/she doesn't have to scoop at all. Worst case scenario: at least the players played a round. Endurance is part of the game. Deeper in cut your play usually deteriorates. Even going past screwing other players who won all their rounds legitimately you're more fresh than your opponent who may have played an intense 30+3 swiss round or something.
 
When I go undefeated in swiss and I'm playing a friend who is X-1, I scoop and give them the win. I do this in any tournament for any game. Pokemon, Naruto or Yugioh. I rather know my friend get in then some random I don't know. it's just like someone said. Teams do show up and flood events to make sure one of them wins.

Ultimately, If the player who is X-0 is playing someone X-1, then that player has the right to change the top cut. There is nothing you can really do about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top