Is intentionally scooping moral?

[dalee78]

I've never competed in a pokemon tournament, and I probably never will, so I have no dog in this fight, but I am utterly *shocked* that so many people think that it is perfectly acceptable (or virtuous!) to lose to a friend on purpose in tournament play. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it "immoral," but it's definitely unsportsmanlike. It violates the spirit of fair competition in an obvious way.

This may sound silly, but think of Ash Ketchum, who clearly values friendship over winning, and ask yourself whether he would ever lose a match on purpose in order to help a friend win something. I seriously doubt it.

I think it's worth mentioning that in more established, serious competitions such as chess or tennis, there would be no dispute whatsoever about whether this sort of thing is right or wrong.

 

[raxl]

I think it's worth mentioning that in more established, serious competitions such as chess or tennis, there would be no dispute whatsoever about whether this sort of thing is right or wrong.

While I find intentional losses to friends unsporting, the grandmaster draw is very common in chess, and sounds fairly similar in intent to what's going on here: manipulating standings through choosing to draw rather than play out a game. A number of chess players, historically and in the present day, have argued for doing away with this, with limited success. (Source: personal recollections from playing chess, Wikipedia article on "Draw by Agreement" to refresh my memory) A lot like here, a good chunk of the playerbase believes this is perfectly reasonable, and a sizable minority think it is unsporting. Both sides include grandmasters; it's not just "good players feel X way and bad players feel Y way." (At least in chess. I can't speak for other games.)

Intentionally _throwing_ a game in chess I think would be frowned upon way more, but I don't think it would have the same ramifications as it would in Pokémon and so I'm not sure it's the best comparison? But there's room for debate there, too.

 

[PhadedPhione]

While I find intentional losses to friends unsporting, the grandmaster draw is very common in chess, and sounds fairly similar in intent to what's going on here: manipulating standings through choosing to draw rather than play out a game. A number of chess players, historically and in the present day, have argued for doing away with this, with limited success. (Source: personal recollections from playing chess, Wikipedia article on "Draw by Agreement" to refresh my memory) A lot like here, a good chunk of the playerbase believes this is perfectly reasonable, and a sizable minority think it is unsporting. Both sides include grandmasters; it's not just "good players feel X way and bad players feel Y way." (At least in chess. I can't speak for other games.)

Intentionally _throwing_ a game in chess I think would be frowned upon way more, but I don't think it would have the same ramifications as it would in Pokémon and so I'm not sure it's the best comparison? But there's room for debate there, too.

The gentleman's draw in chess is a well debated topic.
In Magic, this draw is very common at the high tables. In some situations - the extension of it (scooping a match to the benefit of both players) is also common. I don't see how it's any different in Pokemon. The skill level comparison has to do with understanding the outcomes of the action and have to deal with decision theory - which admittedly games such as chess and most (if not all) card games delve very deeply into.

 

[raxl]

The gentleman's draw is chess is a well debated topic.
In Magic, this draw is very common at the high tables. In some situations - the extension of it (scooping a match to the benefit of both players) is also common. I don't see how it's any different in Pokemon. The skill level comparison has to do with understanding the outcomes of the action and have to deal with decision theory - which admittedly games such as chess and most (if not all) card games delve very deeply into.

I agree that being a more skilled player likely means understanding the ramifications of these types of intentional draws and losses, even if that skilled player chooses not to use those techniques for ethical or stubbornness reasons.

I have to admit that even though it is easy to say that I would never do these things --- and have kept friends out of BR top cuts --- if I were sitting at Worlds (heh, as if!) and controlled my best friend's fate, or was paired in a chess tournament and knew my friend could end in the money and I had no chance... That would be a really hard choice. In chess, rating matters, and so there's some motivation to me to win every game even aside from the circumstances of individual tournaments. In a CP system like Pokémon has right now, rating matters much less; all I'm giving up by scooping is potential tiebreaker points for a Worlds invite. For some people that might matter, but for the vast majority of players, myself included, it doesn't.

(I am leaving aside that sometimes a _lower_ chess rating is a positive, if it lets you sneak into a lower ratings bracket in a major tournament where you are more likely to win money, but that ("sandbagging") is definitely frowned upon, and there isn't an equivalent in Pokémon, so it's not really relevant here.)

 

[losjackal]

I think it's worth mentioning that in more established, serious competitions such as chess or tennis, there would be no dispute whatsoever about whether this sort of thing is right or wrong.

But it really isn't worth mentioning. Chess and tennis do not have the element of luck that Pokémon card games have, not to mention the the way the tournament software pairs particular opponents. You can't compare it to a competitive sport that is purely based on ability.

 

[raxl]

But it really isn't worth mentioning. Chess and tennis do not have the element of luck that Pokémon card games have, not to mention the the way the tournament software pairs particular opponents. You can't compare it to a competitive sport that is purely based on ability.

I don't know if that's completely true; at least in chess, there's luck in the metagame if not in the game itself. Pairing in swiss rounds works very similarly, and while people don't build decks that draw random cards over the course of the game, players do prepare specific openings more than others, and if you happened to get paired with the other person who's read all the books on the Franco-Benoni, so much for your brilliant scheme to take your opponents out of book within three moves. That's not to say a direct comparison is by necessity valid, but I think there are enough similarities to at least consider them.

I can't speak for tennis.

 

[PhadedPhione]

Men's Tennis uses a best of point system taken from the various tiers of Tennis events from Grand Slam down. You get points based on where you finished the events. (I think Novak Djokovic from Serbia is at the top of Men's Tennis with 13,000+ points, followed by Nadal and Federer more than likely who have 9.5k and 8k respectively.) I do like the ATP rankings because they are a rating based on the raw point values from placing in events. Currently, the ELO ratings in Pokemon are only there to break ties between players with the same CP.

Pairings in Swiss are only random at the beginning of an event, which is why a lot of high level events for TCGs award some system of byes.

 

[chrataxe]

I don't know if that's completely true; at least in chess, there's luck in the metagame if not in the game itself. Pairing in swiss rounds works very similarly, and while people don't build decks that draw random cards over the course of the game, players do prepare specific openings more than others, and if you happened to get paired with the other person who's read all the books on the Franco-Benoni, so much for your brilliant scheme to take your opponents out of book within three moves. That's not to say a direct comparison is by necessity valid, but I think there are enough similarities to at least consider them.

I can't speak for tennis.

That's not luck, that's skill. That's why the big wigs of chess are the grandmasters, they know how to counter that kind of stuff while outplaying their opponent. Using an untraditional opening in hopes that your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is hoping for luck, not the same. If that strategy gets you through the first few rounds of swiss at chess, I doubt it will win you the tournament.

 

[raxl]

That's not luck, that's skill. That's why the big wigs of chess are the grandmasters, they know how to counter that kind of stuff while outplaying their opponent. Using an untraditional opening in hopes that your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is hoping for luck, not the same. If that strategy gets you through the first few rounds of swiss at chess, I doubt it will win you the tournament.

At the grandmaster level? Absolutely not, you are entirely correct. In U1600 or U1800, say, it matters much more, and that's where I've played. The fact that there are ratings brackets does make this process fairly different from Pokémon, where at a large enough tournament if you keep winning you will run into a master-level player. The reason I think the comparison still has some validity is that both games use swiss pairing systems, based on a combination of performance in previous rounds and a random seed, that offer players the chance to intentionally lose or draw in order to influence the ultimate placing of other players in the tournament, not because I think chess and Pokémon are super similar or that chess is fundamentally luck-based.

 

[losjackal]

The reason I think the comparison still has some validity is that both games use swiss pairing systems, based on a combination of performance in previous rounds and a random seed, that offer players the chance to intentionally lose or draw in order to influence the ultimate placing of other players in the tournament, not because I think chess and Pokémon are super similar or that chess is fundamentally luck-based.

Good, we agree they have the Swiss pairings in common, and that those pairings contain an element of randomness or "luck" in whom you are paired with.

Players know that element of randomness/luck exists, and generally don't like it some of the time, therefore I believe:

1. The pairings aren't so holy and good that they must never be strayed from
2. When given the opportunity to exert some "control" over an outcome, players will consider doing so as long as it doesn't negatively affect themselves

In other words, there are so many elements and variables out of players' control which went into determining who precisely faced whom in the last round of Swiss, that influencing one variable (who won a single match out of X being played in the last round) is not a big deal. That single match had one of two outcomes. Someone was going to bubble out either way. Ahead of time, there is no prescribed way it "should" have gone, so having it go a certain way afterwards was just as likely. (Maybe those aren't the right words to describe it, so I'm hoping the meaning comes through.)

 

[The Gorn]

The tie was removed from Pokemon for pretty much this reason. People we "gaming" the system to get their friends in top cuts.

That was fixable. And it got fixed.

I'm not a big fan of the scoop to get someone's buddy in top cuts, but I don't see how to avoid it. Someone could simply play and intentionally lose.

So it's legal. Is it moral? I don't like that the top cut is being determined by something other than the results of actually playing the game, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it immoral.

Shifty and cheap, but not immoral.

Is it against the spirit of the game? Only if spirit of the game includes determining winners by actually playing the game.

 

[homeofmew]

I don't think there's anything wrong with scooping especially in top cut where you won game 1 and you scoop game 2 when you think time may be an issue and you think you can't win.

How people feel about it may be different.

- You know you are going to loose ie- You know you have no energies left in your deck from search.

- You know you are going to deck out (More Prizes then cards in your deck) (and you can;t double ko stuff)

- All 3 of your Banette EX are prized (real story)

 

[raxl]

In other words, there are so many elements and variables out of players' control which went into determining who precisely faced whom in the last round of Swiss, that influencing one variable (who won a single match out of X being played in the last round) is not a big deal. That single match had one of two outcomes. Someone was going to bubble out either way. Ahead of time, there is no prescribed way it "should" have gone, so having it go a certain way afterwards was just as likely. (Maybe those aren't the right words to describe it, so I'm hoping the meaning comes through.)

I don't think it's that big of a deal, like you say. I don't think Pokémon needs to change it, like you imply, and as seems to be the general consensus of the thread. I do think it's unsporting. Other than maybe that, I'm not sure what if anything we are disagreeing about?

 

[PokeMedic]

An interesting revelation that there are likely a number of players out there at the larger premier events who are making their moves to top-cut not totally on their ability to play the game, but with the aide of people just giving them an outright win by a quick scoop at the beginning of the game. That's almost wagering, and in some cases it might just be.

 

[ChaosJim]

An interesting revelation that there are likely a number of players out there at the larger premier events who are making their moves to top-cut not totally on their ability to play the game, but with the aide of people just giving them an outright win by a quick scoop at the beginning of the game. That's almost wagering, and in some cases it might just be.

Did you forget to add, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"?

People have demonstrated ITT that they are playing to win the event. That seems more important than winning a game. I play events to win them, and typically winning games is the ideal strategy. Sometimes, it isn't. Choosing the ideal strategy should be rewarded. I'd argue that the majority of people infuriated by scooping have never been in a position where they might do so for someone else.

 

[gallade]

Is scooping moral you ask? Absolutely, you're doing a nice favor for a friend/aquaintance/whatever. Why does the topic need to extend beyond that?

Exactly.
Is buying a friend a present immoral because you are not donating it?

 

[PokeMedic]

Did you forget to add, "Crucify him! Crucify him!"?

No, I think you're over analyzing the critque. But while you're up there on the cross-

People have demonstrated ITT that they are playing to win the event.

>Play to win
>Have someone scoop for you
>Didn't play that game
>Ideal strategy

I'd argue that the majority of people infuriated by scooping have never been in a position where they might do so for someone else.

This sounds like it's supposed to be the ultimate act of Pokemon selflessness. This can't really boil down into u mad bro because someone didn't scoop for me. I'm not questioning the morality of scooping, but I am concerned that people are coming out about how how neat it is and running their big mouths about how they think it's a fair practice. You give someone an advantage if you purposely scoop because they can place higher and top-cut; they didn't play the game, they didn't even try, they just let the guy report his win to the TO.

It was said earlier in the thread that some teams come to agreements before the game about what they'll do and who they'll scoop for. That's right on the edge of wagering and I wouldn't be surprised if it counted as so.

 

[Vablakes]

Scooping so that a friend can get into top cut is wrong. I know that I would be very upset if a person scooped to a friend and kicked me out of top cut. An that's always how I look at something. How does the victim feel? How would I like to be in their shoes?

 

[Kenshin's Garde]

Scooping so that a friend can get into top cut is wrong. I know that I would be very upset if a person scooped to a friend and kicked me out of top cut. An that's always how I look at something. How does the victim feel? How would I like to be in their shoes?

Having been a "victim" of bubbling from a concession, I felt fine. It sucked not making cut, but I could've played better/played a different deck/tech, etc.

If you bubble at a large event, then it comes down to how you played, and ultimately WHO you played. Is it moral that you were forced to play against a bunch of poke-parents who were in the event just to "have something to do?" Or someone who decided to play a "fun" deck?

If you bubble at a small event, then the probability that your miss actually affects you is minimal. Again, it sucks to bubble after going X-1, but if attendance is small, the tournament results probably don't really matter.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I honestly can't believe so many people if facing a FRIEND and having nothing to play for, while their friend has something significant on the line would not consider scooping. Do we go around in our daily lives taking things from our friends to no advantage to ourselves?

I understand the arguments against it, but really are you going to say 'Yeah, I'm going to take away this really meaningful thing from you, even though it does me no good. We're cool right?'

I know I would feel bad. I can't believe anyone that wouldn't. People keep saying how would the bubble-out victim feel. How is your friend going to feel, when you, a friend, could've let him in? I feel bad when I beat my friends anyways, but to beat them when the win does me no good, that just would feel terrible. The only gray areas are when there is something small to play for. When I was playing cities this year, I really didn't need any of the events from a worlds stand point, but I wanted to win a tournament. I weighed the options and was going to scoop to my closest friends in the running for worlds, but not others as I still wanted to try and go deep in a tournament.
If there is absolutely nothing to gain though, against a friend, the decision would be easy.

As for being 5th, bubbling out etc., that's part of the game. When things get close, luck takes over. The luck of the pairing that would lead to a concession is similar to the luck of the pairings that lead to one result over another, leading to different resistances and bubble-ins and bubble-outs. Donks are largely luck. Opening hands, who goes first, lots of things happen in this game you can't control. A pairing that leads to a concession is just one of them. You might as well think of it as a pairing with a very one-sided matchup, it effectively is not different. Is it exactly the same? No. I hear the arguments for no concessions and I do feel it would be better if they just happened to never come up. My uncomfortableness on this issue is low but not zero. But people need to remember that you are at the mercy of a lot of events out of your control in a pokemon tournament, and this is just one of them.

I do disagree with the extreme, of say 5 people coming in all to make sure 'player A' gets the win. That definitely crosses the line for me. That is coming in with a goal of manipulation. Siblings, parents, players like me at cities do not come in with the goal of opening up a path for someone. At the same time, we didn't come to block that friend/relative's path either, and would feel bad about playing if we did.