Guidance on What an Unsportsmanlike "Choosing Methods" is

Discussion in 'Judges' Chambers' started by Cyrus, May 23, 2016.

  1. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    As one of the examples of "Unsporting Conduct: Severe," the following is included: "Determining the outcome of a match by random means, through the use of bribery or coercion, or via choosing methods/games." My question is...what does this mean? Whether in isolation or in context, it reads pretty ambiguously, so I'd like to clear it up.

    The way I read it, it seems like it means to say that a match should not be decided by some sort of negotiated agreement, such as the number of prize cards remaining or board state. But then there are situations where such an agreement would be the essence of sportsmanlike conduct, such as conceding to an opponent you know you wouldn't have beaten if they game continued.
     
  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Moving this to the Judge's Chamber forum which is better suited for this kind of question.
     
  3. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus


    What's your opinion, 'Pop?

    - - - Updated - - -

    (To the extent you're comfortable sharing your opinion, without influencing the discussion of subsequent posters.)
     
  4. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    Just to cover all aspects of Determining the outcome of a match... I will make a list of things you can and can not do

    You Can Not:
    • Flip a Coin to decide a winner of a match
    • Roll a dice to decide a winner of a match
    • Play Rock Paper Scissors to decide a winner of a match
    • Have a foot race aroud the venue to decide a winner of a match
    • Play VGC, Pokken, Pokemon Rumble, Pokemon Snap, Chess, Checkers, or really any other games to decide a winner (of a TCG match obviously)
    • Bribe your opponent to convince them to forfeit
    • Ask your opponent to concede to you
    • Suggest, Ask or Hint to your opponent that the two of you decide the winner of the game based on prize count or board state, doing this is asking for a stipulated concession, yes their is a stipulation in which you are offering the concession, but you are also asking for a stipulation in which you receive the concession. See above bullet point- You Can Not Ask your opponent to concede to you
    • You can not ask for an Intentional Draw more then once
    • You can not talk about Intentional Draw math with your opponent, they need to play their own game, talking about the math is rude, distracting and could even be seen has coercion if you continuously push the envelope.

    You Can:
    • Draw 6 Prizes (legally obiously) to win a game (See rulebook for full details on how to win a game)
    • Knock out all of the opponents Pokemon to win a game (See rulebook for full details on how to win a game)
    • Make your opponent draw all cards in their deck to win a game (See rulebook for full details on how to win a game)
    • Do any combination of the above three bullets twice to win a that is played best 2 out of 3
    • Out of the kindness of your heart, scoop to your opponent.
    • Tell your opponent that you will scoop to them during Game 3 if they are ahead on prizes (suggesting that they do the same is a bad thing to do)
    • Ask "Would you like to ID", and you may only ask this once per match.
    • Just take the Tie
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016
  5. Wolfgirl90

    Wolfgirl90 New Member

    You seem to be referring to so-called "gentleman's agreements", where two players make an agreement that a person gets a win based on the game state or the field (remaining prize cards, a KO'd Pokemon, etc).

    When it comes to gentleman's agreements, there was a change in the rules that causes these agreements to be illegal. The problem with these agreements is that you are effectively asking your opponent to concede to you, which is against the rules. If you decide to offer a concession to your opponent, that's fine. Players are always allowed to freely concede to their opponent. However, it gets iffy when I hear something like this at the table:

    This is something I hear all the time and for most high-level players, this is a deal that they make all the time. However, in this case, you are making a deal to concede to your opponent, but you are also asking them to concede to you. Any sort of agreement that sounds as if you are trying to get your opponent to concede to you is against the rules.

    In short, you may offer a concession to your opponent; your opponent may offer a concession to you. But you can not ask your opponent to concede to you under any circumstance.

    States Masters Head Judge
     
  6. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    Thanks for the great answer, Thoy -- you too, Wolf. I'd like to highlight something which I think is the heart of resolving this now that the rule is set in stone and we have a pretty clear idea that asking for a gentleman's agreement = a dq:

    Do either of you think it would be appropriate to say, "I will scoop during game three if time is called, neither of us can win, and I'm convinced you have a far more superior board position"? Functionally and technically that should be treated no differently than any one-sided concession offer based on the actual game played.
     
  7. Wolfgirl90

    Wolfgirl90 New Member

    I don't see a problem with that. You are always allowed to offer a concession to your opponent. Its when you ask them to concede in return that the line is crossed. If they accept your offer and decide to do the same for you, that's okay.

    Just remember that judges can't enforce these agreements. If your opponent backs out (or never agreed to do the same for you), we will rule based on the game state, not on your agreement.
     
  8. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    Anthony, just for clarity, where did you get the following list? It looks good, but did this come from an official source?

    The problem we have, in this instance especially, is that this seems to be an authoritative post, but where did the authority come from?

    I say that, in that I really, really like this list and explanation, and frankly may steal it for a recommendation for the judge manual.

    Vince

     
  9. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    Vince-
    I constructed the list as a nice summary for the readers of this thread, the content came from various sections of the Play! Pokemon General Event Rules and Pokémon Organized Play Penalty Guidelines.

    Please consult the follow sections in the following documents:
    Play! Pokemon General Event Rules
    • Section 1. The Spirt of the Game
    • Section 10. Match Outcome
    • Section 10.1. Conceding a Match
    • Section 10.2. Random Determination
    • Section 10.3. Bribery
    Pokémon Organized Play Penalty Guidelines
    • 7.6. Unsporting Conduct
    • 7.6.2. Unsporting Conduct- Major
    • 7.6.3. Unsporting Conduct- Severe
    • 7.6.4. Unsporting Conduct- Cheating

    Sections 10 Match Outcome and Section 10.1. Conceding a Match are sections that justify most of my You Can't/You Can list. If anyone can't find where an item from my You Can't/You Can is cited in one of the Organized Play documents, please let me know and I will explain in more detail. I'll go ahead and explain one bullet point from my list because it is the most challenging.


    This bullet point is tricky, most judges were not even aware of this until January of this year. There is a thread on the Organized Play forums in which Dan and Josh responded to a question, both said that players may not ask their opponent to decide the game by prize count, as doing so is asking for a concession. Asking for a concession is not allowed. (10.1. Match Outcome)

    After reading Dan and Josh’s responses, I coined the phrase “stipulated concession” to help explain to players why asking the opponent to decide the game off of prize count is still asking for a concession. Asking to decide the game based off the prize count is still asking for a concession pending certain conditions are met- “stipulated concession”

    Glad you like the list Vince, hope it does you some good.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016

Share This Page