Invitation to Collusion?

[rivershock]

While the last sentence of the French player is rather uncalled for and clearly in the wrong (though not his refusal to accept the proposal), I'd be inclined to say the American is being a slightly bad sport (more annoying than say a jerk, however) by trying to force the issue when they already got their answer. (Personally, I would NEVER agree to draw in such a situation. I go to tournaments to play, and honestly, the result means little to me.) I haven't had this come up in a Pokemon game, though. (But I've had it happen in YGO a few times.)

 

[losjackal]

(In case Professor Dav doesn't enter into a debate on this, I wanted to contribute...)

First of all, the French guy is using different language than we're used to. So for purposes of discussion, let's ignore the tone of his response. That is not the focus of the "poor sport".

psychup, you suggest he is being a dolt for refusing the sure thing. Yes, that could be independently true. But if we examine the definition of sportsmanship (I looked it up on Wikipedia) it speaks to:

Sportsmanship (or sometimes sportspersonship) is an aspiration or ethos that a sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors....Sportsmanship can be conceptualized as an enduring and relatively stable characteristic or disposition such that individuals differ in the way they are generally expected to behave in sport situations.....Sportsmanship is also looked at as being the way one reacts to a sport/game.

By that characterization, someone who is there to play the game, no matter the situation, would be exhibiting good sportsmanship. Someone who looks at the situation and says "you know what? if we don't play this match, we both get to play on" would seem to be exhibiting poor sportsmanship. They are playing the system, not each other, and as a result another player who may have otherwise made it into Top 8 would be left out in the cold due to these two players choosing not to play their match.

The only piece of sportsmanship relevant here would seem to be the "fellowship with one's competitors". But that seems to be about mutual respect at all times, even when adversaries, rather than temporarily bonding together to get further in the tournament.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia page also suggested this "See Also" page:

Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end". It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport.

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

My biggest concern with statements like "if we ID we both make the cut" is what if they don't. Yes, we know a lot about how TOM works, but we are NOT the computer - and I daresay the American player above might have failed to take all scenarios into account - like what if everyone else ID's, or wins, or plays the magic "I get all the prizes" card.

At any rate, I've told my kids (and would follow the same advice myself) to be suspicious of someone telling you that they know what TOM will do. In Philly last weekend, Round 4 of Day 2 the top table did an ID because according to their math, "30 points will make it." Then they get a play break, they are sure to both get 30 points or more, and they'll be fine. Bottom line_they were wrong, and the T8 had to have 31 on Day 2 in order to cut.

So, even if it isn't being done to mislead people (which we heard of last year in CP's), you could always be wrong. Still better to play for the win for yourself - and if you tie, then you'll just have to see. jmo.

 

[psychup2034]

First of all, the French guy is using different language than we're used to. So for purposes of discussion, let's ignore the tone of his response. That is not the focus of the "poor sport".

Tone (and the attitude inferred from one's tone) is one critical component of determining whether one is sportsmanlike. There's a difference between "Hey Sam, I'm sorry I can't go to your party tonight, I have somewhere else to go" and "Hey Sam, I'm not going to your party;

By that characterization, someone who is there to play the game, no matter the situation, would be exhibiting good sportsmanship. Someone who looks at the situation and says "you know what? if we don't play this match, we both get to play on" would seem to be exhibiting poor sportsmanship. They are playing the system, not each other, and as a result another player who may have otherwise made it into Top 8 would be left out in the cold due to these two players choosing not to play their match.

Alternatively, someone who is willing to risk his/her own spot in cut—as well as risk his/her opponent's spot in cut—just to play another round of the game that he/she has already been playing for 13 rounds is a sadistic jerk who either lacks basic understanding of mathematics or lacks the propensity to reason, (given there is no tournament-related reason for getting a higher seed, such as dodging a bad matchup).

They are playing the system because the system is defined by the rules of the game. The system is set up such that there are certain situations where players are incentivized to intentionally draw. Intentionally drawing in those situations does not impede "proper consideration for fairness, ethics, respect, and a sense of fellowship with one's competitors." In fact, not intentionally drawing in such a situation would be a great way to shatter "the sense of fellowship" among players (as you mentioned).

As to your point about the other "player who may have otherwise made it into Top 8" being left out, the two players earned their right to intentionally draw by playing well throughout the earlier portions of the event. That "other player" does not deserve to make top cut if he doesn't get enough points, plain and simple. Obviously, we had a situation in Ft. Wayne where a player that did not get enough points was screwed because of a computer pairing error, but I think this is situation where the exception proves the rule.

My biggest concern with statements like "if we ID we both make the cut" is what if they don't. Yes, we know a lot about how TOM works, but we are NOT the computer - and I daresay the American player above might have failed to take all scenarios into account - like what if everyone else ID's, or wins, or plays the magic "I get all the prizes" card.

Quite frankly, if two players don't make it into cut after intentionally drawing, then someone failed at math (and deserve to miss cut because of their mistake). While humans are not computers, there is no longer any room for computer error in the last round of swiss. When the first two tables at Philadelphia Regionals scooped in round 14, we had already calculated the worst case scenarios for them in that round. Even in the worst case scenario, the players at the top two tables could not mathematically miss cut if they intentionally drew.

In Philly last weekend, Round 4 of Day 2 the top table did an ID because according to their math, "30 points will make it." Then they get a play break, they are sure to both get 30 points or more, and they'll be fine. Bottom line_they were wrong, and the T8 had to have 31 on Day 2 in order to cut.

I was one of the two people you are describing who intentionally drew in round 4 of day 2 at Philadelphia (and thus I'm intimately familiar with what happened). What you're describing is not what we said at all. We were pretty confident that 31 points was in cut, and there was a chance for some 30s to be in cut as well, so I intentionally drew round 13 to put myself at 30 points. I knew that I still needed at least an intentional draw in round 14 to guarantee cut, but I didn't try to play out round 13 because my opponent (who would put himself at 31 points by intentional drawing) was playing a Tool Drop deck, and I was playing 0 Tool Scrappers. This was a mutually advantageous situation for both of us: an intentional draw got my opponent into cut, and I got to 30 points which allows me to get into cut by drawing or winning round 14. If I had lost round 13, I would force myself to need a win in round 14, and I was not confident about the round 13 matchup.

You're not going to convince me that taking the 1 guaranteed point is a worse option than risking losing and ending up with 0 points against a Trubbish deck when I'm playing 0 Tool Scrappers.

So, even if it isn't being done to mislead people (which we heard of last year in CP's), you could always be wrong. Still better to play for the win for yourself - and if you tie, then you'll just have to see. jmo.

You could be wrong, but if you think about the mathematics behind intentional draws, you won't be wrong. If you have a "still better to play for the win for yourself" attitude, you will be screwing yourself out of cut more often than someone who thinks about the numbers and uses intentional draws wisely.

 

[FincastlePokemon2]

I was one of the two people you are describing who intentionally drew in round 4 of day 2 at Philadelphia (and thus I'm intimately familiar with what happened). What you're describing is not what we said at all.

Thanks - I apologize for my error.

 

[losjackal]

I would reply that there are rules of the game, and rules of the tournament. We don't have to mix them together.

Rules of the game, and being a good sportsman at that game, would mandate playing the actual game of Pokémon Trading Card Game.

Rules of the tournament is what is being manipulated here, to achieve the end goal of making Top 8. No games of Pokémon TCG are being played in an intentional draw (at the beginning of the match, yadda yadda...yeah they could fake it, but you get my point).

Psychup, what did you think of my contrasting Gamesmanship to Sportsmanship? Indeed gaming the system to get into Top 8 is simply what is going on. It's legal, as disclaimed in the Wikipedia definition, but I don't believe it is a good display of sportsmanship, and that's Dave's point was. Here is a larger example of it happening at the Olympics:

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/...xpelled-for-losing-matches-intentionally.html

 

[sneasal2]

It seems that when you ask someone for a scoop, you are not considering anyone else in the Pokemon community because you ARE indeed affecting the standings of other players in the tournament, and quite possibly knocking someone else out of a top cut who had to play all of their rounds and take a chance of a loss. When I read player's reports and they talk about a couple of rounds that they were scooped to, it makes me wonder if they really won a tournament, or would they have even made the cut without the scoops. It just seems tainted to me and not nearly as impressive as those players that risk a loss in each round and still go on to win.

There are some super-bright players in the pokemon community, and if there is a way to manipulate a system there are many players who are more than capable of doing so...but that doesn't mean that doing so is admirable--neither the action nor the results.

 

[FunnyBear]

I would reply that there are rules of the game, and rules of the tournament. We don't have to mix them together.

Rules of the game, and being a good sportsman at that game, would mandate playing the actual game of Pokémon Trading Card Game.

Rules of the tournament is what is being manipulated here, to achieve the end goal of making Top 8. No games of Pokémon TCG are being played in an intentional draw (at the beginning of the match, yadda yadda...yeah they could fake it, but you get my point).

Psychup, what did you think of my contrasting Gamesmanship to Sportsmanship? Indeed gaming the system to get into Top 8 is simply what is going on. It's legal, as disclaimed in the Wikipedia definition, but I don't believe it is a good display of sportsmanship, and that's Dave's point was. Here is a larger example of it happening at the Olympics:

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/...xpelled-for-losing-matches-intentionally.html

In organized Chess, this is called the Swiss Gambit, and usually involves drawing Round 1 in order to be half a point behind the leaders. This way you get weaker pairings all the way through and if you win out, you may well win the event. I wonder if this happened at Regionals as well as an early draw would give you a much easier event even as late as Round 5.

 

[psychup2034]

Psychup, what did you think of my contrasting Gamesmanship to Sportsmanship? Indeed gaming the system to get into Top 8 is simply what is going on. It's legal, as disclaimed in the Wikipedia definition, but I don't believe it is a good display of sportsmanship, and that's Dave's point was. Here is a larger example of it happening at the Olympics:

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/...xpelled-for-losing-matches-intentionally.html

I do not believe that it is prudent to separate the rules of the game versus the rules of the tournament. These two sets of rules coexist and thus players should consider the implications of both when making rational decisions about the course of action to take. I believe that it is absolutely ludicrous to accuse a player of being unsportsmanlike when they are making the most rational/logical decision in a given the rules of the game/tournament imposed upon them by the governing body that writes the rules.

The blame here is misplaced. If you believe that players who are incentivized to intentional draw (a completely legal action) are unsportsmanlike, your gripe should be with the designers of the rules of the game/tournament who have provided a competition structure that incentivizes players to act this way. Assigning fault to players for intentionally drawing in their best interest is a severe and misguided misappropriation of responsibility. The responsibility lies with the governing body (TPCi)—not the players—to design rules that do not incentivize intentional draws if the governing body believes that intentional draws are unsportsmanlike.

Now, I'm glad you brought up the Olympic women's badminton example. I watched coverage of the Olympics as well, and after that incident, I remember Bob Costas commenting something along the lines of: a system where players have an interest to throw matches needs to be revisited. Now, there is one huge, huge difference that you ignored between the Olympic women's badminton example and intentional draws: the Chinese and Malaysians were throwing their match, not intentional drawing it.

For an example of intentional draw in the Olympics, look no further than the Japanese women's soccer team (coincidentally, also in the 2012 Olympics). The Japanese women's soccer team played for the tie (just like an intentional draw). Why? So they could avoid a brutal travel schedule.

Japan did not throw a match to lose, but they played not to win.

Coach Norio Sasaki admitted to telling his players to play defense instead of attacking. It had to be difficult to tell players to not go all-out against a team they could have easily beaten. However, the coach elected to go for the tie and not have to travel for the next game.

Japan was able to lock up second place with a tie, which meant the team was able to play in the same stadium in Cardiff, Wales, for its quarterfinal game. If they had won, they would have won Group F and been forced to travel from Wales to Scotland.

Now, the reaction to the Japanese women's soccer coach's decision was actually quite laudatory. Although there were some critics of this decision (as there always will be), my assessment of the national media coverage (mostly Sportscenter) led me to believe that most people actually agreed with the Japanese coach's decision. He was putting his team in the best position to win. He was not throwing the game; he was playing for a tie—a tie that the coach determined would give them the best chance to win the tournament.

 

[Otaku]

It's currently not viewed as such, but perhaps we'll need to look at that. Every single think you used as an example above would qualify as coercion. A favorite story related to me recently from back in the early days of Magic: The Gathering, when players were just sort of learning about IDs and such. A French player is playing an American player in the final round of Swiss. The American player says "Hey, we should draw, then we'll both make the cut". The French player replies, "No." The American says again, "But, we'll both make the finals. We should ID." The French player replies, "I came here to play. If I can shave you [from the top cut], I will."

Who is being a poor sport in the above example?

Prof. Dav

The American, though I can see why others don't agree with me.

They are competing in a tournament: normally the purpose of a tournament is to try and winnow out the best player and deck that are present that day. Due to various X factors, this won't always be the case, but that doesn't create an excuse for violating things further.

The French player actually attended an organized series of games... to compete in an organized series of games. As for pointing out that he would eliminate his opponent from the event... that's the point of the game. It is no more rude that stating "If I can beat you in this race, I will!" The statement might have been rude if there are factors we weren't given, but as a statement, it is just being honest. It wasn't even being brutally honest, such as

"If I can shave you [from the top cut], I will because your willingness to ID indicates you must not be a strong player."

As for the players who believe at winning at all (legal) costs e.g. gamesmanship remember that we don't have all the data and this could even be an example of gamesmanship. What if the French player was convinced (whether correct in his assessment or not) that taking out his American opponent then and now was necessary for an eventual win of the entire event?

TL;DR: Go to a tournament to play the game and to win, please. That is what they are for; if not playing can help you advance further, that is your decision to make, but if someone is there to play you've got no grounds complaining that they won't ID.

 

[yoshi1001]

There is one other perspective that should be considered-the spectator, and by extension, whoever provides the coverage. Sure, you'd still have the playoffs ahead of you, but you're losing the opportunity to watch or show a match, most likely between two players of approximately equal skill.

 

[psychup2034]

There is one other perspective that should be considered-the spectator, and by extension, whoever provides the coverage. Sure, you'd still have the playoffs ahead of you, but you're losing the opportunity to watch or show a match, most likely between two players of approximately equal skill.

There are still so many great matches for spectators, even with the top couple tables deciding to intentional draw. This is almost always a non-issue, except if you want to watch a specific player who has intentionally drawn his/her game.

 

[tutti]

It's currently not viewed as such, but perhaps we'll need to look at that. Every single think you used as an example above would qualify as coercion. A favorite story related to me recently from back in the early days of Magic: The Gathering, when players were just sort of learning about IDs and such. A French player is playing an American player in the final round of Swiss. The American player says "Hey, we should draw, then we'll both make the cut". The French player replies, "No." The American says again, "But, we'll both make the finals. We should ID." The French player replies, "I came here to play. If I can shave you [from the top cut], I will."

Who is being a poor sport in the above example?

Prof. Dav

Trash talk aside, I'd say... neither? Wanting to go for a mutually beneficial draw is legitimate. Preferring to compete over it is also legitimate. Why do we need one to be right and the other wrong?

 

[P_A]

Good point, tutti. I have to admit, that post made me think - enough so that I at least considered my opinion in a new light. Thanks.