Riddle me this, good sirs.
What was that about people only scooping to their friends?
Is intentionally scooping moral?
- Thread starter cabd
- Start date
- Status
What was that about people only scooping to their friends?
I think the main thing to consider is that even if you ban/punish intentional scooping (which I don't think is right anyway), people can just intentionally play badly if they really want to lose. A rule against intentional scooping is not going to stop anything (not that it's really a problem anyway).
If asked whether or not scooping to a friend is morally right, I would have to completely stand by the point that it is. Well, in specific, I would use the double negative "it's not morally wrong", if that makes a difference to anyone.
As for why, I'd like to go back to some points that were made earlier. Any TCG, at its heart, no matter how many search cards or the like are printed, is a game of luck. Luck in what you pull in a booster pack, luck in what you draw for your turn...even luck in who you face in a round. In other words, it's also luck, at least a little bit, that let Player A run into Player B, who was willing to unconditionally scoop. Likewise, it was luck for Player B to run into someone who he was willing to scoop to.
Or, if you wish for me to take a different approach, feel free to replace a majority of those "luck" usages with "skill". They were both "skilled" enough to make it to the position where Player B could scoop to Player A. they used their skill to get to that point. Thus, it is within their moral right to scoop, something that you can feel free to call their "reward" for being skilled/lucky enough to get that far.
As for why, I'd like to go back to some points that were made earlier. Any TCG, at its heart, no matter how many search cards or the like are printed, is a game of luck. Luck in what you pull in a booster pack, luck in what you draw for your turn...even luck in who you face in a round. In other words, it's also luck, at least a little bit, that let Player A run into Player B, who was willing to unconditionally scoop. Likewise, it was luck for Player B to run into someone who he was willing to scoop to.
Or, if you wish for me to take a different approach, feel free to replace a majority of those "luck" usages with "skill". They were both "skilled" enough to make it to the position where Player B could scoop to Player A. they used their skill to get to that point. Thus, it is within their moral right to scoop, something that you can feel free to call their "reward" for being skilled/lucky enough to get that far.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
Alright, enough of the "It's moral." and "It's not moral."
Obviously, this is a thread of opinions. Nobody has any right to objectively say, without any backup or explanation, that it is or is not.
I'm all for people continuing to express opinions, so long as they back it up/give reasons. If you just state an opinion without any reasoning, you're not adding anything to the conversation and your post will be treated as such.
Now then, as you were
Obviously, this is a thread of opinions. Nobody has any right to objectively say, without any backup or explanation, that it is or is not.
I'm all for people continuing to express opinions, so long as they back it up/give reasons. If you just state an opinion without any reasoning, you're not adding anything to the conversation and your post will be treated as such.
Now then, as you were
Alright, enough of the "It's moral." and "It's not moral."
Obviously, this is a thread of opinions. Nobody has any right to objectively say, without any backup or explanation, that it is or is not.
I'm all for people continuing to express opinions, so long as they back it up/give reasons. If you just state an opinion without any reasoning, you're not adding anything to the conversation and your post will be treated as such.
Now then, as you were
but wrong opinions won't have good reasons
Articjedi
Active Member
let's take out the social interaction of the game, one of the key parts that makes it fun. That will go over REALLY well.
That was meant to be a satirical remark.
BTW, it does bother me that this is an argument about ethics, not morals. You guys toss the word morality around too easily.
Roarkiller
Member
Righteousness of morals differ from person to person. So are ethics. Because they are all opinions.
There's no right or wrong. Not even this post itself.
Bottomline is, unless there is a law or rule that you are obliged to follow, everything is an opinionated argument that holds no water to the other person. Simple as that.
I feel that scooping, without any reasons constituting to gambling or bribery as stated by the rules, is fine.
That is my opinion. No laws or rules stopped me. Therefore no one has the right to tell me I am wrong.
There's no right or wrong. Not even this post itself.
Bottomline is, unless there is a law or rule that you are obliged to follow, everything is an opinionated argument that holds no water to the other person. Simple as that.
I feel that scooping, without any reasons constituting to gambling or bribery as stated by the rules, is fine.
That is my opinion. No laws or rules stopped me. Therefore no one has the right to tell me I am wrong.
SuperWooper
New Member
[Yes/no], intentionally scooping is (not) moral, because I do(n't) like it.
Ness
Member
I think the only part of this worth debating is whether or not it is right or wrong to concede to a friend. That is definitely a gray area because Pokémon is a game of friendship, but at the same time, people want to see winners deserve their wins.
However, when you are playing a stranger in the last round of swiss, scooping to him definitely makes no sense. Why reward one stranger by conceding to him and then punish another who then bubbles the Cut? In that case, you should simply play and let wins & losses decide who gets in.
However, when you are playing a stranger in the last round of swiss, scooping to him definitely makes no sense. Why reward one stranger by conceding to him and then punish another who then bubbles the Cut? In that case, you should simply play and let wins & losses decide who gets in.
Roarkiller
Member
To lower your own resistance and avoid a bad matchup. I know of at least two people who have the habit of scooping their last game after going X-0 to do just that, friend or otherwise. Sometimes they even scoop two matches, or the second last match so they get to go against an easier opponent in the last round and still top cut. Once in a while they do it just to get a longer rest time for the top cut matches.
It's all strategic. Like I said, it's either advantageous to you, or non-disadvantageous to you. Either way, you win, and as you said, they're just strangers.
PokeMedic
New Member
This reminds me of people dropping after their byes at Nationals to preserve their worlds ratings for invites. A totally unwarrented, disruptive action that had a negative effect on the overall environment and richness of the game. Before you go all HAHA POKEMEDIC NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS; the move to the CP system was brought about in large part because of that behavior.
Since this PokeGym I'm going to go out on a limb to say this: if you scoop for someone you are a push-over and have no self-respect -don't care how good the other person is, don't care if you want them to make top-cut, don't care if you think you're going to lose, don't care about bad match-ups, no matter how you justified it you let yourself get pushed aside. Hey, why don't you justify trying to play the game. It's easier to pick up your cards and LOL SCOOP'D but you can't follow through on the game? If you didn't want any of those above things to happen, you should have stayed home, sir. Or ma'am.
>2012
>Go to premier event
>Loses a round
>Gets a bad match-up
>Meets David Cohen
>LOL SCOOP
The height of selflessness.
Since this PokeGym I'm going to go out on a limb to say this: if you scoop for someone you are a push-over and have no self-respect -don't care how good the other person is, don't care if you want them to make top-cut, don't care if you think you're going to lose, don't care about bad match-ups, no matter how you justified it you let yourself get pushed aside. Hey, why don't you justify trying to play the game. It's easier to pick up your cards and LOL SCOOP'D but you can't follow through on the game? If you didn't want any of those above things to happen, you should have stayed home, sir. Or ma'am.
>2012
>Go to premier event
>Loses a round
>Gets a bad match-up
>Meets David Cohen
>LOL SCOOP
The height of selflessness.
Only sith deal in absolutes.
Edit: Now that I think about it, I feel ever so slightly bad for simply trolling the thread the entire time so I'll contribute this one serious point. Pokemon is at its heart a game of social interaction, its about making friends and having fun. In any case where people are going to become friends, occasionally (although it may shock and astound some) people will want to do favors to those they hold dear. I can't imagine what would push people to begin complaining about a simple act of kindness shown at pokemon tournaments. (Aside from the scooping for personal gain to avoid bad matchups etc, but I can't see why anyone would ever whine about that as its only trying to further your own chance of winning: not screwing with the resistance for the sake of "collusion" like the topic is here).
Last edited:
PhadedPhione
New Member
Magic Worlds 2011 - Conley Woods was undefeated except for two intentional losses to two team members to guarantee their position in the top eight.
So by Pokemedic's definition, he would be a "pushover" despite showing his mastery of the game, his deck and thee format by being undefeated to begin with because he placed his teammates into an advantageous position?
Justify trying to play the game? In my own personal example, I played the match and won the match. The intentional concession on my part stemmed from my own personal motive of valuing the results we would gain from his making the top cut, and seeing how his deck would play out or handle the top cut versus taking my win, being 5-0, gaining 6 rating points, and losing valuable playtesting information in regards to our preparation for future events.
Pokemedic took the stance that its somehow an insult to the game to use all resources available to you to try for the best possible outcomes.
Another personal example:
A few years ago at a Magic Grand Prix in New Orleans, round 8. I'm playing my friend and playtesting partner. The outcome of the match would determine the placement in the pods for day 2. I give him the win so he enters day 2 with an 8-0 record. My deck does what its supposed to, and knocks out several decks that would have given my friend's deck issues. He makes top eight at the event, and I finished in the money either way. I could have played out the match and probably taken the win, and risked all of our prep for the event to go to waste on principle or an assertion that isn't even firmly rooted in reality. Instead, I used all the knowledge available to me and my team to make the best possible decision to generate the best outcome I can.
This "issue" about the morality of scooping or whatever is just as heated if not more so in Magic, where the intentional draw exists. You can easily gauge a player's skill level in Magic relative to their understanding of the system for intentional draws, concessions and how they interact with match pairings.
So by Pokemedic's definition, he would be a "pushover" despite showing his mastery of the game, his deck and thee format by being undefeated to begin with because he placed his teammates into an advantageous position?
Justify trying to play the game? In my own personal example, I played the match and won the match. The intentional concession on my part stemmed from my own personal motive of valuing the results we would gain from his making the top cut, and seeing how his deck would play out or handle the top cut versus taking my win, being 5-0, gaining 6 rating points, and losing valuable playtesting information in regards to our preparation for future events.
Pokemedic took the stance that its somehow an insult to the game to use all resources available to you to try for the best possible outcomes.
Another personal example:
A few years ago at a Magic Grand Prix in New Orleans, round 8. I'm playing my friend and playtesting partner. The outcome of the match would determine the placement in the pods for day 2. I give him the win so he enters day 2 with an 8-0 record. My deck does what its supposed to, and knocks out several decks that would have given my friend's deck issues. He makes top eight at the event, and I finished in the money either way. I could have played out the match and probably taken the win, and risked all of our prep for the event to go to waste on principle or an assertion that isn't even firmly rooted in reality. Instead, I used all the knowledge available to me and my team to make the best possible decision to generate the best outcome I can.
This "issue" about the morality of scooping or whatever is just as heated if not more so in Magic, where the intentional draw exists. You can easily gauge a player's skill level in Magic relative to their understanding of the system for intentional draws, concessions and how they interact with match pairings.
Why is this topic here?
It's filled with too many special snowflakes who played in a Little League where "everybody wins"!
Fortunately life doesn't work that way, people "scoop" for their buddies all the time in the real world.
You don't like it? Then i think you need to
A) Get a better deck/skills so you win all your games so there's no question of making cut.
Or
B) Get some "scoop buddies" of your own.
Posted with Mobile style...
It's filled with too many special snowflakes who played in a Little League where "everybody wins"!
Fortunately life doesn't work that way, people "scoop" for their buddies all the time in the real world.
You don't like it? Then i think you need to
A) Get a better deck/skills so you win all your games so there's no question of making cut.
Or
B) Get some "scoop buddies" of your own.
Posted with Mobile style...
PokeMedic
New Member
If I do something that is specifically allowed in the rules, it's legal. For example, I can concede if not cooerced or bribed.
If I do something that is not directly spelled-out in the rules, it's up to the judge to interpret. For example, I can show my hand to my opponent, but the judge may advise me not to and/or issue a penalty.
Moral and ethic issues, but themselves, don't come into play when a judge gets involved -- just the rules and the facts.
IMO, games "should" be played to completion with both sides doing what they can to 1) win or 2) doing their best not to lose so badly if it's apparent they'll lose regardless. Concessions can sometimes seem senseless and/or dubious, even in the best situations. Nevertheless, it's not for the judge to decide one way or the other. Judges MUST allow concessions.
If I do something that is not directly spelled-out in the rules, it's up to the judge to interpret. For example, I can show my hand to my opponent, but the judge may advise me not to and/or issue a penalty.
Moral and ethic issues, but themselves, don't come into play when a judge gets involved -- just the rules and the facts.
IMO, games "should" be played to completion with both sides doing what they can to 1) win or 2) doing their best not to lose so badly if it's apparent they'll lose regardless. Concessions can sometimes seem senseless and/or dubious, even in the best situations. Nevertheless, it's not for the judge to decide one way or the other. Judges MUST allow concessions.
JandPDS
New Member
You can never get rid of scooping
If scooping were outlawed, then it would hurt top cuts. If you ban it then if you are stuck with a bad start in a best 2 out of 3 game in game one then you are stuck and have to play it out. You would no longer be able to conceed the game to save time for the 2nd game.
Plus outlawing scooping would not stop it from happening, only of you wanted to scoop you would only play down one basic and let it be knocked out. So reslly nothing that you can do to stop it so you might as well allow it. Personally I see nothing wrong with scooping your match at any time for any reason. This topic really is kid of silly. OF course scooping is moral and legal and nothing needs to be done about it.
If scooping were outlawed, then it would hurt top cuts. If you ban it then if you are stuck with a bad start in a best 2 out of 3 game in game one then you are stuck and have to play it out. You would no longer be able to conceed the game to save time for the 2nd game.
Plus outlawing scooping would not stop it from happening, only of you wanted to scoop you would only play down one basic and let it be knocked out. So reslly nothing that you can do to stop it so you might as well allow it. Personally I see nothing wrong with scooping your match at any time for any reason. This topic really is kid of silly. OF course scooping is moral and legal and nothing needs to be done about it.
Why is this even a question of morality? Since when is random acts of kindness considered immoral? Seriously, what has our society come to where we even have to question this....
Lets keep three things in mind:
1. IF you are x-2 playing x-3 in the last round, then the x-2 got paired down. Will scooping REALLY help them much (and yes, I AM aware that is HAS)? Even if that is not the scenario, does scooping ensure they cut? No.
2. Top Cut positions aren't won and lost in the last round, they are earned over the course of the tournament. Denver "beat" Pittsburgh in OT a few weeks ago by throwing an 80 yard bomb. But, there was 4 quarters of play before that where Denver put up 23 points and over 400 yards of offense. So, to imply they lost they game on the last play is ludicrous. To imply that a player didn't top cut because someone conceded to another player is just as equally ridiculous. The person that bubbles misses cut because they didn't play as good in the tournament as x-amount of people did...oh, and the one person who got in after the scoop....the person bubbling had equal chance to beat out the other 15, 31, 63...whatever. The point is, they didn't bubble "because someone scooped to the last seed."
3. Who's to say they wouldn't have won the match anyway? I had a guy tell me at a cities that he was gonna make me earn my x-2 record when we got paired together last round. I beat him and he told me he was going to scoop to me anyway had I not. And, since the question appears to be whether or not the make someone that "earned" it bubble, lets remember this: going into the match, the scooper is x-3 while the scoopee is x-2.... theoretically, the X-2 goes into the match the better player anyway, baring an auto loss. And, for what it was worth, me being X-2 and being paired down the last round, I was dead last of all x-2 players and missed cut by a mile, as is the norm. Situations like Ross at worlds are, believe it or not, rare (where the x-2 paired down last round makes cut).
---------- Post added 01/19/2012 at 07:10 PM ----------
The question at hand here is nowhere NEAR this...
World invites are earned, without a doubt, as are byes. The question is, is it moral to scoop since it hurts other players that would've (theoretically) earned it more.
Preserving your invite that you've earned and taking advantage of byes that are earned are NO WHERE near the same...
Lets keep three things in mind:
1. IF you are x-2 playing x-3 in the last round, then the x-2 got paired down. Will scooping REALLY help them much (and yes, I AM aware that is HAS)? Even if that is not the scenario, does scooping ensure they cut? No.
2. Top Cut positions aren't won and lost in the last round, they are earned over the course of the tournament. Denver "beat" Pittsburgh in OT a few weeks ago by throwing an 80 yard bomb. But, there was 4 quarters of play before that where Denver put up 23 points and over 400 yards of offense. So, to imply they lost they game on the last play is ludicrous. To imply that a player didn't top cut because someone conceded to another player is just as equally ridiculous. The person that bubbles misses cut because they didn't play as good in the tournament as x-amount of people did...oh, and the one person who got in after the scoop....the person bubbling had equal chance to beat out the other 15, 31, 63...whatever. The point is, they didn't bubble "because someone scooped to the last seed."
3. Who's to say they wouldn't have won the match anyway? I had a guy tell me at a cities that he was gonna make me earn my x-2 record when we got paired together last round. I beat him and he told me he was going to scoop to me anyway had I not. And, since the question appears to be whether or not the make someone that "earned" it bubble, lets remember this: going into the match, the scooper is x-3 while the scoopee is x-2.... theoretically, the X-2 goes into the match the better player anyway, baring an auto loss. And, for what it was worth, me being X-2 and being paired down the last round, I was dead last of all x-2 players and missed cut by a mile, as is the norm. Situations like Ross at worlds are, believe it or not, rare (where the x-2 paired down last round makes cut).
---------- Post added 01/19/2012 at 07:10 PM ----------
The question at hand here is nowhere NEAR this...
World invites are earned, without a doubt, as are byes. The question is, is it moral to scoop since it hurts other players that would've (theoretically) earned it more.
Preserving your invite that you've earned and taking advantage of byes that are earned are NO WHERE near the same...
PhadedPhione
New Member
First example, not sure if it was clear, but the player who was scooping was undefeated. He was X-0 when he conceded to his teammate who got paired up. He had already clinched his top cut spot when he gave his team mate the win in the following round. He was X-0, the X-1 and then X-2. All three players made the top cut.
Example two - By giving him the win, we would guarantee that we would not play each other later and knock one of us out of making the top cut. By giving him the win, he went to pod 1, and I went to pod 2. He was 8-0, and I was 7-1. We were both 7-0 when we decided this. We knew that having an intentional draw e.g. being 7-0-1 was useless. Pod 1 had better match ups for his deck, Pod 2 had better match ups for mine before the top cut rounds were announced at the end of day 2.
- Status