Invitation to Collusion?

[Pikabruce]

So I was playing under the new best-of-3 rules with only a few matches remaining in Swiss. In the current match, my opponent and I have each won 1 game, and as we are setting up for the 3rd game he says to me (this is not an exact quote, but the essence of what he said):

"If time is called and our game is not completed, then a tie wouldn’t give either of us enough points to still have a chance for advancing to the top 32. So shall we agree that if this game is not finished we will roll a die and the winner of the roll will be declared the winner of the game and match?" (Or perhaps he meant the loser of the roll would simply scoop if the 3rd game was unfinished.)

I told him no, let’s just play the game and let the results stand. He was clearly annoyed with me, and I said: It sounds too much like collusion. The 3rd game was completed, which he won, so he won our match but later did not advance to top 32.

He had been annoyed at my refusal, but his offer left me with a lingering annoyance at his casual attempt to involve me in clear collusion. So later I looked up the exact rule (in the Pokémon General Event Rules):

10.2 Random Determination
Players my never determine the outcome of a match through a random means (flipping a coin, rolling dice, etc.)

That is absolutely clear. I was thinking about what I should have done, or what I would do in future tournaments if a similar suggestion is made by my opponent. I think I should simply raise my hand for a judge and say to my opponent: "Let me see if your offer is OK with a judge." (And if the judge ignorantly says it’s OK, then I would request that the head judge be asked.)

And I wondered how much similar collusion of this nature is now going on during these big tournaments? Perhaps the general announcements before the tournament should warn against this sort of collusion (since newer players may not be aware that this is a rule violation), and specify what penalty would apply. Perhaps a larger penalty should be applied against the player who suggested the collusion, and a lesser penalty against the player accepting the collusion.

[Or should TPCi consider a rule change? After all, since intentional mutual ties are now allowed, should intentional mutual non-ties be allowed? In both cases, the players are trying to wiggle points to advance in the tournament, but one case is legal and the opposite case is not.]

 

[Cyrus]

While it's certainly illegal, Random Determination is not contemplated in the penalty guidelines. For the most part it's a harmless error caused by ignorance and not some attempt to insult the tournament system.

 

[rileysill32]

I believe with the current point advancement system & ties coming into HUGE effect during swiss on the larger tournaments. There will be a lot of players asking these same types of questions. The "if I get 3 more points, I'll be in the top 8, you need 12 more points in just 2 rounds, will you scoop and let me advance?" type remarks. Amongst the more competitive late rounds, this actually happens quite often where if a good player knows he has no chance and his opponent does, they will just scoop and let them advance. I've seen it plenty of times in the last few years.

 

[Pajamas]

More likely than not, your opponent wasn't familiar with that particular rule.

I think the best approach would be to inform your opponent that while random determination is not allowed, there are still plenty of other ways within the rules that you can avoid being saddled with an outcome that might as well be a double game loss. Maybe you agree to only play a one game match. Maybe you agree to treat the third game like it were a top cut match, and whoever is trailing on prizes after +3 will scoop. There are tons of options, so long as there's no bribery or intimidation.

The worst approach would be to insist on taking an outcome that hurts both players. You've got a legal way to increase your chances at cutting; why not take it?

 

[Charranitar]

This was a widespread thing that happened in Indiana as well. There were a lot of matches that were decided by a coin flip throughout the tournament. I think player's weren't necessarily trying to game the system, but I honestly don't think most of them who were doing it knew about the rules. That will definitely be something that should be added to the announcements before the next big tournament using the best-of-3 format. Before one of the later rounds one of the players in a match next to me had said he had determined all of his ties by coin flip since like round 3.

The saddest part is the ignorance of the players talking about this. It was kind of a pressure thing to get their opponents to think the same way to try to play the tournament how they see fit when it was totally unneeded. Based on where we were at headed into the round, ties were still beneficial, although a win was needed to continue on to top 32. For example, as long as my opp win% was good enough, 2 ties and a win would have been good enough to get me into the next day. Presumably most of the players around me were at the same point total, so for them ties would still be beneficial as well.

I think now that we have numbers from the tournaments for what will probably make day 2 swiss/top 8, there will be less player's thinking of stuff like this and being more willing to tie.

 

[TuxedoBlack]

After competing in my first Regional tournament this past weekend, I can honestly say that "needing to complete the third game" for it to officially count was VERY annoying and frustrating (several opponents intentionally maintained "reasonable" game pace (??) in their games to avoid match losses). There were entirely way too many tied matches throughout the day (84 after the first round... if I remember correctly). In my opinion, I'd like this particular aspect of the match format revised so that each match will conclude with a clear winner and loser. (My proposed "how" of determining the 3rd game winner is still under development... more to follow) Eliminating ties would, IMHO, significantly reduce/eliminate at least 1 collusion opportunity.

 

[losjackal]

X/Y rules will slow the game down, so fewer people will reach Game 3.

That said, ties are needed in Swiss to make sure events run on time....so if you can think of a FAIR way to determine a winner, I'm pretty sure people would listen.
(It would have to be not just because that's how Best of 3 Single Elimination has done it in the past, and not just because it's what you'd prefer. That's what players have been suggesting so far.....so I'm hoping you have something original, Richard!)

 

[TheDarkTwins]

It's not collusion, but it's against the rules. I mean the thing that I saw players doing, and I believe is within the guidelines, was before the best of 3 started, agreeing that if it went to 3 games, whoever was winning on prizes after the +3 turns would get the win, if game 3 didn't finished.

Drew

 

[PokePop]

It's not collusion, but it's against the rules. I mean the thing that I saw players doing, and I believe is within the guidelines, was before the best of 3 started, agreeing that if it went to 3 games, whoever was winning on prizes after the +3 turns would get the win, if game 3 didn't finished.

Drew

That would be legal. It is not random.

 

[psychup2034]

That would be legal. It is not random.

Pokepop, assuming that a tie would mean both players whiff cut, while a win by either player ensures that the winning player makes cut, is it permissible to play a skill-based game with a random component (like best-of-11 rock-paper-scissors) to determine who wins the match? Just like drawing more prizes in a game of Pokemon TCG, rock-paper-scissors is a skill-based game with a random component.

 

[psychup2034]

^ I'm asking this for practical reasons, because there are situations where Games 1 and 2 end up at 1-1, and time is called before Game 3 starts. Both players know that if one player wins, that player gets in, but if they draw, no-one gets in. A third game in the match cannot be played (because time was called) to determine the winner by prize lead, even if both players have agreed that the winner should be determined by prize lead in Game 3. What mechanisms are available for the players to determine a winner in this situation?

- Bribery and collusion are obviously off the table. Offering prizes for a concession is clearly against the rules and in my opinion, should continue to be banned.
- Determining the outcome by a coin flip or roll of the die is banned by the rules. I'm assuming this is because these processes are completely random.

That's why I'm asking about best-of-11 rock-paper-scissors. It's a skill-based game with a random component that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time (a minute or so). To me, it seems like a good option given that there is a lack of "fair" ways to determine which of the two players will make it into cut (given the situation I laid out above where a tie means both players whiff and there is no time for Game 3).

Obviously, there is the third option of just actually tying the game. However, I don't see this option as very appealing to anyone except the most vindictive of players (which I'm optimistically assuming is no-one in the community). If anyone has any better ideas, please post them.

 

[Otaku]

Question: What is the official view of the purpose of tournaments?

I ask because, and I can't quite put my finger on it... something seems off. It almost seems like the point is that if you can't get a clear win, you can't get a clear win and that is how it is supposed to be. At the very least, it seems like it would be better for that to be a player's personal code of conduct and not something they set-up with others.

Maybe some of this is because I am unaware of how Pokémon defines collusion. Is it really "okay" to generate false results for a match just because at the time the deal is being struck, it can go either way?

 

[Pikabruce]

Originally Posted by TheDarkTwins
It's not collusion, but it's against the rules. I mean the thing that I saw players doing, and I believe is within the guidelines, was before the best of 3 started, agreeing that if it went to 3 games, whoever was winning on prizes after the +3 turns would get the win, if game 3 didn't finished.

Drew

That would be legal. It is not random.

So players are free to mutually disregard Match Resolution rules, but not Random Determination rules? This reminds me of another situation I overheard during a tournament, where a judge said something to a player (I don't know what it was about), and the player responded with "I'm just trying to play a game. I don't have a problem with the way I'm playing, and my opponent doesn't have a problem with it." My sympathy in the dispute was totally with the judge, but you seem to be saying that some rules can be mutually disregarded. It would be nice to have clarification as to which specific rules can be disregarded by mutual agreement of the players.

 

[Biggie]

So players are free to mutually disregard Match Resolution rules, but not Random Determination rules?

No. Players may decide to concede at any time they wish. As long as there is no coercion or bribery involved, and as long as a match is not determined randomly, the reasons for a concession is immaterial.

That said it should be noted that:

1) Any player agreement on conduct/concession/etc does not supersede the rules.
2) The judge staff is there to enforce the rules, not your private concession agreements. Calling a judge to resolve a dispute about a concession agreement will result in a match being called based 100% on the game state.
3) Our rules are guidelines. If it is determined that behavior related to these kinds of issues is harmful to our program, we will take what we feel is the best corrective action available.

 

[psychup2034]

No. Players may decide to concede at any time they wish. As long as there is no coercion or bribery involved, and as long as a match is not determined randomly, the reasons for a concession is immaterial.

Thanks your your reply, Biggie.

I have one further question. What is the official position on playing a best-of-11 game of rock-paper-scissors to determine the winner of a match? Is this "random" or not? In a 2008 compendium ruling, it was determined that rock-paper scissors is considered a game of skill, but I'm not sure whether this applies to determining the outcome of a match.

Q. Is it OK to roll a dice to randomize my Rock-Paper-Scissors choice?
A. No. R-P-S is a game of strategy. You must not appear to be randomizing your choice by any method. (Oct 16, 2008 PUI Rules Team)

At every single State/Regionals/Nationals/Worlds tournament, it is almost a certainty that there will be situations where a tie means that both players miss cut, while a win ensures that at least one player makes cut. In most of these situations, players will agree to determine a winner based on prizes (or some other means that makes sense). However, there will occasionally be the situation where the two players are tied at the end of game 2 and do not have time to begin game 3. This is a classic coordination game, but the most obvious means to arrive at a Nash equilibrium (through a coin flip or die roll) has been banned.

I think as players, we need some guidance from TPCi as to which actions are legal and which actions are not in such situations. What is the appropriate way for the two aforementioned players to arrive at a Nash equilibrium? It is only a matter of time before this messy situation will arise and cause a firestorm at a major tournament. Thanks for your help.

 

[Pikabruce]

No. Players may decide to concede at any time they wish. As long as there is no coercion or bribery involved, and as long as a match is not determined randomly, the reasons for a concession is immaterial...

Thanks for your reply. In that instance, there was no explicit mention of concession. [We all know that the end result is the same if the players agree that when time is called, either
(1) the person ahead on prizes is mutually declared the winner, or
(2) the person behind on prizes concedes.
But if there is no mention of "concede" or "scoop", is it still OK?]

And what are the guidelines for "coercion"? Threat of physical force, obviously. But what about psychological/social coercion? There was certainly some last year when some players close to having enough Championship Points to qualify for Worlds might essentially say to their opponent: "C'mon, don't be a jerk, there's no way you can qualify so the points won't do you any good. Scoop and let me get the points. If you don't, you're just a dog-in-the-manger grinch."

Is asking your opponent to concede a violation of "Spirit of the Game"?

 

[PokePop]

Thanks for your reply. In that instance, there was no explicit mention of concession. [We all know that the end result is the same if the players agree that when time is called, either
(1) the person ahead on prizes is mutually declared the winner, or
(2) the person behind on prizes concedes.
But if there is no mention of "concede" or "scoop", is it still OK?]

What players call it doesn't change the fact that the "losing" player is conceding.
In games terms, either the match is resolved per the game state (a tie) or one player concedes to allow the other player to have a win. As Biggie noted, the game does not recognize agreements between players.

 

[Professor Dav]

Thanks for your reply. In that instance, there was no explicit mention of concession. [We all know that the end result is the same if the players agree that when time is called, either
(1) the person ahead on prizes is mutually declared the winner, or
(2) the person behind on prizes concedes.
But if there is no mention of "concede" or "scoop", is it still OK?]

And what are the guidelines for "coercion"? Threat of physical force, obviously. But what about psychological/social coercion? There was certainly some last year when some players close to having enough Championship Points to qualify for Worlds might essentially say to their opponent: "C'mon, don't be a jerk, there's no way you can qualify so the points won't do you any good. Scoop and let me get the points. If you don't, you're just a dog-in-the-manger grinch."

Is asking your opponent to concede a violation of "Spirit of the Game"?

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

 

[P_A]

Well .....




that being said .....




my impression is that TPCi is willing to turn a blind eye ..... to a point. I'm not particularly liking it, but when has my opinion mattered? My guess is that they are constrained by circumstances to accept a certain amount of hi-jinx for decisions they've made. Hopefully it doesn't come back and bite everyone on the butt.

 

[psychup2034]

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 French guy.

Why? The American player explained twice that both players will make cut if they intentionally draw, which is mutually advantageous for both players. The French player responds quite rudely (falling into an unfortunate stereotype) at an offer that is mutually advantageous for both players, while putting himself at risk for elimination from the tournament. If the French player really wanted to play for whatever reason—maybe he avoids an unwinnable matchup in cut by winning the last round of swiss—he/she could have responded in a more polite way. "Sorry, but I'd rather not intentional draw. I want to play it out." would have sufficed. But no, he chose to respond snarkily and rudely.

Not only was the French player a poor sport for being rude, he's a dolt for refusing to take the intentional draw. Sometimes I see reality TV shows where players forego an opportunity to send themselves to the next round (via immunity) in order to prove themselves, when there is no advantage to putting themselves at risk. A recent instance of this was on the most recent season of Master Chef, where a player with the opportunity to avoid elimination chose to not save himself because he wanted to prove himself in front of the judges. Needless to say, this person was not behaving rationally. Instead of taking a sure thing, he opted to put himself at risk for elimination, just like the foolhardy French player in your example.

I believe that most (if not all) Pokemon players will behave in a more intelligent and rational way than the misguided Frenchman that you describe.