Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

A moral dillema...

Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as I would care for a friend and want to see him go far.....AH, I'd probably concede. Just because I'm a sucker for friends. But it isn't really fair to everyone else who doesn't have a friend that can concede to them.Games should be decided by two people playing. And as much as you don't want to hurt the other person's rating, they chose to enter the tournament with the possibility that they might lose points.

Lame, I know.
 
Well I think that most people would concede to their friends if they could get the ranking invite that way. But I also think that it's wrong, if you have done well starting season and you have lots of friends in the end season you don't have to worry about bas starting hands or prizes, you just win eitherways your deck works or doesn't work and I don't think it's fair, but in the end it's understandable.
 
I have concended to my friends, thus giving them an invite. I'm proud of it. because worlds is so small this year, we need to have someone to hang out with, because many of our INTL friends might not make it ;)

Maybe this is unfair to some, but I'd much rather have Axel,. my good friend, than this Glenn V which I don't know at all ;)

Just my thought
 
Mandy conceeds to Billy because they are friends. Meanwhile at the other table Joe is playing Sandy, Joe is winning and if Billy looses its Joe that goes to worlds. These two matches are the decider for the worlds trip. Joe has worked hard for the victory and outplayed Sandy.

I wonder how Joe feels when he discovers that Mandy gifted the tournament to Billy.
 
Yes, I would.

It isn't fair to other players who don't have friends to give them wins. It isn't fair that I lost because I flipped loads of tails on burn against Flariados. Life isn't fair.

If I have a good friend with a low rating who beats me and doesn't want to take my points, I'm not gonna tell him/her no. If you think that's morally wrong, that's your business and your morals.
 
Right or wrong, this stuff happens every day, and when you could tie in a match there was more of it. I feel its wrong, but if I were to play my daughter, wife, or sons would I give them the win? Chances are that wouldn't even be an issue, but if it was, I sure would.

Face it life is not fair, and it never will be, to build on this, look at the parent child, the sibling vs sibling, spouse vs spouse, and team play matches. compound this with smaller non-podded events where people play out of their age group.

In our smallest BR, Anna had to face her brothers Alan and Chris, Kathy, had to face her kids, another dad had to face is 6 year old.

Anna beat Alan, did he let her win? Maybe, but her toyed with her I'm certain, and in the end may have, but he wasn't going to just tell her, Chris faced her in round 3 of a 3 round event, he was going to win, there were no playoffs, but he sat down and conceded to his younger sister who would have come in second had she lost.

Do Chris and Alan play tough against Anna's competition, yes.

Was it fair that she got that win? Not to Chris who gave up his win, or to other players, did the dad let his 6 year old win, he sure did, was that fair to the other Juniors, no.

Do parents let their kids win? yes
Do kids let their parents win? sometimes if it will help them.

Is it right for Mandy to let her friend win no, but I guess they just have to accept it.

I know this is a twist on this subject, but in many smaller events, the winner of a younger age group may depend 100% on being paired with a family member or friend.

Some of what I added in as examples would go away if we never did cross age pairing, the rest, we will just have to accept it, even if you were to make a rule against conceding, it would be impossible to enforce, you just throw out a single pokemon, leave it there to die!

Should somone who has accepted a position on staff at worlds be able to play in an event with family or friends? Do these people give wins to their players? Sometines they do.

Older players are giving up their chance to win all the time because they have a soft spot for younger kids in cross age paired events. Point are not really an issue, but cross age paired events are one of the flaws in the current ranking system.
 
NoPoke said:
Mandy conceeds to Billy because they are friends. Meanwhile at the other table Joe is playing Sandy, Joe is winning and if Billy looses its Joe that goes to worlds. These two matches are the decider for the worlds trip. Joe has worked hard for the victory and outplayed Sandy.

I wonder how Joe feels when he discovers that Mandy gifted the tournament to Billy.
Click to expand...

You can't please everyone all the time, plain and simple. I'd say it sucks to be Joe in that scenario.
 
I would concede to family and normally before we ever shuffled. I don't want to play them in a tournament. Has nothing with helping them but has to do with me not wishing to play against a family member. Ask me in about 6 or 7 years and if my nephew is still playing then might give a different answer. Only one friend I can think of that I would concede to and he said I better never do it. My other friends that I would even think of conceding to probably would not enjoy it. I believe each one of them prefers to earn it.
 
If someone works hard to earn a trip and is paired with a good friend who has a low rank then yeah he/she should conceed because then neither of the two would get the trip. It's wrong when a player has a good shot at worlds and is ruined because of 1 game. It makes no sense for someone who has played only a couple of times to ruin someone who has played the whole season and has done well enough to have a shot at worlds.
 
By making that game a loss, Mandy is not increasing her rating (the assumption here is that it would be decent if she actually played, right?), meaning that any other high-ranked people she beats will take unnecessarily high point losses.

There are different angles to consider here.
 
Black_jirachi said:
I have concended to my friends, thus giving them an invite. I'm proud of it. because worlds is so small this year, we need to have someone to hang out with, because many of our INTL friends might not make it ;)

Maybe this is unfair to some, but I'd much rather have Axel,. my good friend, than this Glenn V which I don't know at all ;)

Just my thought
Click to expand...


And that's why BR should be before ANY nationals.
Jasper missed his invite due to this kind of "flaws" , you did it for Axel and Matthew from Belgium did it for Glenn.
So conceding does hurt sometimes a 3rd person, but that's how the system worked this season.
I can only hope it will chance next season.

It's different when somebody who has not yet a trip, concedes. Than that person is hurt itself too (even if there might be 3rd person hurt).
 
A point that a lot of the responses in this thread seem to have missed is that Billy and Mandy are not team mates or even friends. They are just two players playing in a tournament. The original post is asking if you should concede to a high ranked player to preserve their ranking, just because they are a high ranked player and have a chance for the big prize and you have no chance. Carrying that logic a bit further then once you get a 2000 ranking, you have an auto win by concession over 95% of the players you will ever face. Might make the game a bit boring IMHO.

BDS
 
Black_jirachi said:
I have concended to my friends, thus giving them an invite. I'm proud of it. because worlds is so small this year, we need to have someone to hang out with, because many of our INTL friends might not make it ;)

Maybe this is unfair to some, but I'd much rather have Axel,. my good friend, than this Glenn V which I don't know at all ;)

Just my thought
Click to expand...

Poster Child #1 for reinstituting win one and done! Once you have your invite secured, you cannot play in another tourney that affects points for rankings invites.

Keith
 
Big Daddy Snorlax said:
A point that a lot of the responses in this thread seem to have missed is that Billy and Mandy are not team mates or even friends. They are just two players playing in a tournament. The original post is asking if you should concede to a high ranked player to preserve their ranking, just because they are a high ranked player and have a chance for the big prize and you have no chance. Carrying that logic a bit further then once you get a 2000 ranking, you have an auto win by concession over 95% of the players you will ever face. Might make the game a bit boring IMHO.

BDS
Click to expand...


Also if they are not friends, how would they know each others rankings.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Lawman said:
Poster Child #1 for reinstituting win one and done! Once you have your invite secured, you cannot play in another tourney that affects points for rankings invites.

Keith
Click to expand...


Or everybody who has an invite will not be able give/loose points.
Because otherwise David and Arnoud (as Worlds winners) would not have been able to play for the whole season.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy Snorlax said:
A point that a lot of the responses in this thread seem to have missed is that Billy and Mandy are not team mates or even friends. They are just two players playing in a tournament. The original post is asking if you should concede to a high ranked player to preserve their ranking, just because they are a high ranked player and have a chance for the big prize and you have no chance. Carrying that logic a bit further then once you get a 2000 ranking, you have an auto win by concession over 95% of the players you will ever face. Might make the game a bit boring IMHO.

BDS
Click to expand...

Is why I explained who I would consider conceding to. I don't worry about any of the other stuff because I try and play hard. Conceding here is also no guarantee that the one with a chance would still get it and that makes it even more difficult unless is the last match that will be played.
 
How far would you be willing to take this...

Lets say that there is an understanding among the pokemon community of State "X" That they want to send a player to worlds this year and halfway though the Citys they all decide that from now on every player will concede all matches to "Billy" so that one of them will get to play in Worlds. Everyone agrees because they really want a player from their state in the Worlds tournament. So for the next 15 tournaments every player who plays against Billy concedes the match at the end of the game regardless of who was winning. By the end of the season Billy has a 2150 ranking and wins the free trip without playing in any tournaments outside of his state.

So now dose Billy deserve to play in worlds or not? What about the person, Joe who finished ranked #9 with a 1989 score that he rightfully earned, but did not get to play in worlds because he finished Top 8 at Nationals and missed out on score due to all of Billy's friends desire to help him out.
 
Last edited:
Concessions... better left at the *INSERT LOCAL PROFESSIONAL TEAM HERE* stadium.

In early years, I conceeded a few matches to people that I knew "needed the win" but as I learned more about the ENTIRE GAME, it is unfortunate to see concessions being made. Most people I play (when I play) know that I am going to play them for the WIN!! It isn't to KO them from a ranking or position, it is to remind them that every dog has their day and today just might be mine. You know, we play for fun at Leagues.. we play to WIN at Tournaments! That is just th eway it is. Heck, Even if I see I am going to lose and there is no way back, I play it out... you learn that way and the best teaching area are Major Tournaments!

Conceeding, kinda of POPEYES DICE IMHO.....
 
Once you have an invite and your Nationals tournament has taken place then you should not be allowed to compete in rated tournaments. Why not? Because this prevents the worst excesses of points passing to friends whilst allowing Worlds winners to play and practice.

If the USA reintroduces Regionals awarding invites to worlds then these tournaments have to take place close to USA nationals. personally I would allow the regional winners to take part at USA Nationals, but I would consider restricting regional winners from playing in other premier rated tournaments prior to Nationals.

Isn't it a shame that we have to have restrictions on everyone to control the behaviour of a few?

Europe can easily be split up into countries. The number of ratings invites that a country can claim each season can be limited. This addresses the geography and location effects that we can see have a big impact on who gets the ratings invites in Europe. I know that there is often complaint from the USA players about location too, so is it practical to limit the USA in some similar way by State or Region. The Top 12 states would all get to send a player to worlds for example?

A more sophisticated way of deciding which state a player belongs in would be to use the actual tournament locations to decide player address. You would represent each state you played in by the proportion of tournaments in that state that you attended. Hmm thats currently a half-baked idea. I wonder if it can be worked into a real proposal or is fatally flawed. Perhaps you represent the state where you gained most of your points?

Anyhow a bit closer to the original topic.

  • concessions happen.:rolleyes:
  • I would prefer that they didn't when a third party is also effected by the concession.:mad:
  • If there is no third party affected then spread-the-wealth.:clap:
=======

As to the morality of such actions:-
What is the motive behind the concession?
What is the impact?
Does the concession have a victim?
=========
As a bit of fun we know who 'Mandy' is, any idea who 'Billy' is?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top