Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Is intentionally scooping moral?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since every1 seems to be chiming in on this-
it's funny but my friend and i were just talking about this sunday(not having read kenny's article) and what we both basically said(and that i agree w/ completely)
the only ways i would scoop(outside the normal, i need to go home ASAP or if i'm i can't win)
a). the sitution drew mentioned and if I win I can't cut, but if my opponent does he can cut. I'd scoop there.
b). if i was already assured a top cut spot( X-0 or maybe X-1 already) and I was playing against a friend or a deck I know I have a good matchup against in top cut.

that's about it.
 
As a player of many TCGs, who has had the privilege of competing at a high level in many events across many games, I find that I cannot understand how blaming someone else's play style, play skill and individual choices in a tournament setting impacts someone else.

If I go 4-0 in an event, a CC, and play one of my regular playtesting partners and friends round five. I play the match out for understanding's sake: good, bad or indifferent. In this case - I won the match cleanly. I could have chosen to go 5-0, but instead, from a calculated perspective based on match ups and points - I gave my friend and play test partner the win and the top cut slot.

Is this unfair to you? If it is, then maybe you should have played a better deck, better techs or cleaned up your play to reach the next level where it can be you making the decision I made, that I earned, by being 4-0 in a five round CCs. I fully support gentleman concessions in situations where you gain no benefit but would like to see someone else excel. I fully support concessions in situations like the one I described, where 6 rating points and being 5-0 was worth less to me than seeing my friend and partner's deck perform in the top cut for the advancement of our whole playtesting group.

Making informed choices during a tournament is as much a part of the tournament as the decks you play, the techs you use, your play styles and whether playing a deck that goes against your play style is a informed choice over a deck that appears stronger in the metagame.

As a general observation, I find that Pokemon is less developed than other TCGs where this kind of decision theory is studied, discussed and talked about by players of all skill levels.
 
While im not sold either way on this, there is one truism people are missing. It's not about the game at the table, it's where at the table you are sitting. If you lose your final round of swiss to an autoloss, it was the pairing taking effect. If you win it by a miracle and then bubble because someone scooped to a friend to get them in top 8, that is their matchup taking effect. As long as their is no bribery involved, it is still completely decided by the random pairings, wether it pairs a Durant player to a Tyram player or a friend vs a friend, that aspect is still out of our control, which to me shows that it is in check. Birbery tries to eliminate the need for a relation with the person you are playing, taking that control away, and is rightfully illegal.

Bottom line, those friends could've been paired against different people and earned their top spots through a different method, but random pairings gave them another way out. If it were a big enough problem, they could fix it at the bigger tournaments at least. But i dont see it as that big a deal.
 
ChaosJim said:
This is a topic that everyone shouldn't worry about.

Is it moral? I say yes, but also consider that if it isn't...

Is it enforceable? I'm allowed to misplay, and I could just forget to put down a second Pokémon. I could forget to attack. So, without, "scooping," players could still throw away a game. There isn't a real fix even if this were a problem. Move along, play better.
Click to expand...

They could make sure the players are blind to who they're playing, dividers of some kind.
 
Chairman Kaga said:
If he deserved it, then he would have gotten in.



Since no game was played to measure this fact, you can't really state unequivocally whether or not he deserves it, can you?

Fine, then I'll say that [big name champion player] didn't "deserve" to win [high-profile tournament] in [year], because someone somewhere scooped a game that altered someone's tiebreaker that put them in. It makes me feel better about bubbling out (because that's what this thread is really about, isn't it). It also screams that I should be wearing a sandwich board that says "I'm a scrub".

I like how all of you can apparently predict the future and "know" someone shouldn't have won a game or gotten in to cut. You should utilize your immense psychic powers for the good of humankind, not debate on the intertubes.
Click to expand...


So because we don't know what would've happened makes it completely moral to scoop intentionally and screw someone out of cut?


Mkay

---------- Post added 01/17/2012 at 04:28 PM ----------
baby mario said:
You can't/shouldn't count on people to do you a favour and help you scrape into cut.
Click to expand...

I am laughing SO hard at the irony in this statement.
 
InnoceNt said:
So because we don't know what would've happened makes it completely moral to scoop intentionally and screw someone out of cut?


Mkay
Click to expand...

Miss the point?

What he's saying is that claiming that X happened (someone won a tournament) because Y happened (someone scooped their match arbitrarily), doesn't mean Z would have happened (someone else won), or X wouldn't have happened if Y didn't happen.

More importantly he was trying to point out that complaining about this is only an endeavor to feel better about yourself, because you were 'wronged by a flawed system' instead of simply trying harder next time.

Stuff happens and records can screw people over like that. It's no different than rolling 5 ones in a row. Sometimes you're just unlucky just deal with it and let other people play their games how they want to.
 
How on earth would you even know that I've been wronged by the system? I've bubbled out a total of one time.


A good card game aims to remove "luck" and let the best and deserving players win. It's not as simple as "Deal with it."
 
InnoceNt said:
How on earth would you even know that I've been wronged by the system? I've bubbled out a total of one time.


A good card game aims to remove "luck" and let the best and deserving players win. It's not as simple as "Deal with it."
Click to expand...

It was a vague statement, and not targeted directly at you, and why do you care so much if it's happened only one time.

While many games aim to minimize luck very few games aim to remove luck, and all games have luck, and in my opinion should have luck. As that is what gives the most enjoyable experiences many times.

In any case the situation at hand doesn't even have to do with luck in the game, but luck in real life, and if you can't deal with such a small thing then I can't begin to imagine how hard real life is to handle for you then.
 
TheRolesWePlay said:
It was a vague statement, and not targeted directly at you, and why do you care so much if it's happened only one time.

While many games aim to minimize luck very few games aim to remove luck, and all games have luck, and in my opinion should have luck. As that is what gives the most enjoyable experiences many times.

In any case the situation at hand doesn't even have to do with luck in the game, but luck in real life, and if you can't deal with such a small thing then I can't begin to imagine how hard real life is to handle for you then.
Click to expand...

...Are you really throwing insults over a discussion about this?

Classy
 
I will say I've never played a game where people who team together have advantages that solo players don't. Let's talk card pools insted of scooping. You play someone who has the perfect tech against your deck, but you later find out his friend lent it to him. Did this person deserve not to win? I will argue it is the same as one individual is gaining an advantage in both situations. Let's say your opponent that beat you only got there due to a ride from a team mate? Where do you draw the line for acceptable actions of teams? I gained advantage by playing a friend who made a really high class version of a deck that I hadn't played against. The experience helped in a tournament. If you really find the actions so appaling why not make your own team/friends who are like minded to get some advntage?
Posted with Mobile style...
 
Trican said:
I will say I've never played a game where people who team together have advantages that solo players don't. Let's talk card pools insted of scooping. You play someone who has the perfect tech against your deck, but you later find out his friend lent it to him. Did this person deserve not to win? I will argue it is the same as one individual is gaining an advantage in both situations. Let's say your opponent that beat you only got there due to a ride from a team mate? Where do you draw the line for acceptable actions of teams? I gained advantage by playing a friend who made a really high class version of a deck that I hadn't played against. The experience helped in a tournament. If you really find the actions so appaling why not make your own team/friends who are like minded to get some advntage?
Posted with Mobile style...
Click to expand...

Because it's not morally right.


:p
 
This past weekend I scooped the finals game at a city champs to Pooka, and you know something, I felt great about it. Kyle is one of the nicest pokemon players I know, I knew he wasn't capped on champ points (because funnily enough, I knew there was a good chance we'd meet in the finals and asked him earlier in the day), and I had just gone 9-1 with an original deck I had made myself. Being able to take pride in that and help out a friend is just as good (better?) than a win in my book.

A player conceding a game to help out a friend isn't cheating, or bumping someone else out who "deserved" to be there more. If you make it high enough in a tournament, you absolutely have earned the right to help out a friend if you choose, especially if it's someone who really deserves it.
 
If you wish to prevent me from scooping to somebody, I suggest you put yourself in a position to do so by either directly beating me or performing better than I do in the preceding rounds of swiss. Otherwise, I'll excercise the right given in the rulebook to concede a match at any point if I so please.

The way I see it, You're salty about getting bumped out by a player that MAY POTENTIALLY be a weaker player than you. However, the only way for that to happen is for you to perform worse than the person that is in the position to scoop. It's like in football, you control you own fate until you lose enough that you lose that privellege.

You don't see a football team petition for a playoff spot because the team they needed to get in over beat a team that rested their starters. It's the same concept. They're in a position to rest their starters because they performed better than you in the regular season. The player who scoops is in the position to do so only because you didn't perform as well as they did and placed yourself on the bubble in the first place.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top