Is intentionally scooping moral?

[losjackal]

If the question is, is this "fair" for Player C, I believe z-man has it right: it doesn't matter. Player C has no business sticking his/her nose into the outcome of the match between Player A and Player B. It will resolve one way or another. Player C or any outsider examining the way the match was resolved or what a player's intentions were is just creating a problem where one does not exist.

(That's JMO too...but I welcome a reply from someone who can make a lucid argument of why Player A and Player B need to worry about the outcome of their match and whether it's fair for Player C. Truly think about it, sitting in their shoes. You don't even know who Player C might be!)

 

[z-man]

If he can win then play the game. I agree if he plays the game and wins then that is not creating a situation. It is when A scoops to B that it is not creating a situation.

90% of the time, from my understanding, Player A (X-0) offers the scoop for Player B (X-1). This is out of kindness. If Player B gives Player A incentive to scoop, that is illegal, but Player B rarely does that. He/she may suggest to his friend that it would be nice for Player A to scoop, but begging/bribing just doesn't happen. You're acting as though this is Player B's doing entirely. Player A is making the offer. Who in their right mind would rather play a game and possibly miss cut when their opponent offers giving the X-1 player a win? This is especially true in a major event. Would I rather definitely make cut and accept a scoop, or play a game out and possibly miss cut? Hard decision... As I said before, Player C (the one who might bubble) should not care how the game is won. That does not matter. The game will either be won by Player A or Player B (or double gameloss, but we'll ignore that). As long as the game is won by either Player A or Player B, how that happens should not be of concern to Player C.

 

[evil psyduck]

Your right. IF the game was played. Scoop and the game IS NOT PLAYED.

 

[Kenshin's Garde]

Your right. IF the game was played. Scoop and the game IS NOT PLAYED.

If the action of playing the game is the only thing standing between whether something is ethical or unethical, then what do you think of this situation?

Player A, who is X-0, plays down to Player B who is X-1. A makes cut whether they win or lose, while B will only make it in if they win. Player A starts the game with one basic and passes until he loses.

Is this more acceptable? The game was played out and essentially does the same thing as scooping. Why not simply mediate the process and scoop at the beginning?

 

[SteveP]

My beloved Broncos made the playoffs because the Raiders "did their best" to lose their final game. :lol:

Players who think others control their own destiny are mostly fooling themselves.

Like I said previously, IMO, players "should" try their best to win, or lose less miserably (play the game out).

Nevertheless, how dare we try to impose our ideas upon others who might have different motives when playing.

Last weekend, I played some Settler of Catan board games with my siblings. My approach to the game was that everyone should do their best to 1) win, and 2) pick on those leading the game. To my dismay, that was NOT how some of them played. As the eldest, my siblings "took joy" in picking on me, regardless that I had no chance to win.

Why do I recite this example? We should play Pokemon without seriously worrying about the "legal" motives of others. The happiness they get from playing the game might conflict with our motives. We might not like it, but it's pointless to "miss sleep" over it.

 

[djjoe227]

How about you take some of your own advice then? Play the game and win. Taking a scoop IS NOT wining.

In the scenerio, A DID win. Pay attention to your own scenerios. A won, and no matter what the outcome A was going to top cut.

Player A won, period.

 

[evil psyduck]

In the scenerio, A DID win. Pay attention to your own scenerios. A won, and no matter what the outcome A was going to top cut.

Player A won, period.

If the action of playing the game is the only thing standing between whether something is ethical or unethical, then what do you think of this situation?

Player A, who is X-0, plays down to Player B who is X-1. A makes cut whether they win or lose, while B will only make it in if they win. Player A starts the game with one basic and passes until he loses.

Is this more acceptable? The game was played out and essentially does the same thing as scooping. Why not simply mediate the process and scoop at the beginning?

Part in bold says player A loses.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Why are we vilifying the person who gets the win? I only ask, because scooping means that someone intentionally loses, and the person who progresses is free of such blame.

 

[Kenshin's Garde]

Part in bold says player A loses.

JFYI, djjoe227 and I have separate examples. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Part in bold says player A loses.

That suddenly makes it better? Also from my experience most people at least play a bit of the game before they fold, so this shouldn't even be an issue

 

[djjoe227]

Part in bold says player A loses.

Convenient that someone posted that part after your post. At the point of your post, you had no backing. Good job on the luck of finding such a foothold.

Player A had won- they were top seat (assumably) and were making it no matter what the outcome. It would be like if Player A was instead winning a race and decided the last leg of it to walk instead of run. Sure, he could run and just outright win, maybe get B's hopes up and cause him to lose confidence and Player C can take 2nd place, or Player A can walk, let B think he's gaining speed and still has a chance, and just outright beats Player C entirely from the lead he already, small or large.

Whatever player A does in his game, whether it last 0 turns, a few turns, or goes to time is in control of Player A's hands. Player C should be worrying about and focusing on his own games. If he had been doing so from the start, he wouldn't be going into that round with the risk of being cut.

 

[raxl]

Whatever player A does in his game, whether it last 0 turns, a few turns, or goes to time is in control of Player A's hands. Player C should be worrying about and focusing on his own games. If he had been doing so from the start, he wouldn't be going into that round with the risk of being cut.

Player C could totally be worrying about and focusing on their own games but still be X-1. In general, a tournament will have two X-0 players in the last round, maybe more if there are flights, maybe fewer. In a game with this much luck, it's unreasonable to say that if you went X-1 in Swiss, you weren't worrying about and focusing on your own games! There are some sour grapes going when people complain about getting pushed out of cut, but I think you're taking this line of argument too far. You're not the first person here to say things like "well if you want to top cut you should never lose a game" and given that Swiss rounds are structured such that only one person per flight can possibly end up X-0, that statement seems true but not useful. No one shows up to a tournament trying to lose a game!

...well, actually, that's part of the debate here. But generally speaking.

 

[PokeMedic]

Why are we vilifying the person who gets the win? I only ask, because scooping means that someone intentionally loses, and the person who progresses is free of such blame.

In some cases there can be an agreement between them that this will happen.

 

[Vablakes]

Why? Look at it from the X-3 player's point of view. He/she has no reason to win, and nothing to win. If he wins, he'll actively have less fun because he'll have a friend around him that missed cut because of his win.

Now look at it from the X-2 player. You have something to win, and your opponent cannot win anything from winning the game. You can be understandably upset if your friend knocks you out of the tournament when he clearly has no shot at making cut. Friends don't let friends miss cut when it is avoidable.


Now look at it from an outsider point of view. Here's an X-2 player playing down against an X-3. Either the X-2 player wins or the X-3 player wins. If the X-2 player wins, he'll be in cut. If the X-3 player wins, oh well. Why should the cause of the X-2 player's win mean anything to you? The effect is what important, and that effect is that he won.

Now then, as the X-2 player, I wouldn't expect my friends to scoop to me, but it would be nice. As the X-3 player, I have no reason not to scoop, so why not? The purpose of these tournaments is to have fun, and I have fun watching my friends play in top cut. I also have fun playing in top cut, but if I can't do it, I'd rather my friends do it.


I hope this makes sense to you. As an observer, the effect of the game should be the only thing that really matters to you. The cause of why someone wins should be irrelevant to you. Both players can possibly win, so who cares how they win?

What makes anyone worthy to get free wins just because they have friends? Just because a person is your friend doesn't make them any more deserving to make top cut. I would never let a friend scoop to me. It's just wrong. I make top cut the real way, not by using friends for cheap wins to get me in. I am embarrassed to say that I play the same game that cheaters who use friends to manipulate their rating when they get matched up against them, play. I am angered that anyone would kick someone out of top cut that is more deserving to play in it because they were selfish and got cheap wins against friends because they scooped to them. It's not cool. :nonono: The person that got kicked out is probably more deserving to play because he probably actually won his games the right way. Play the game right, not cheap people!

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

In some cases there can be an agreement between them that this will happen.

Yes, but those are only some, not all, and even in those instances the one scooping is do it of their own accord.

---------- Post added 01/23/2012 at 04:35 PM ----------

What makes anyone worthy to get free wins just because they have friends? Just because a person is your friend doesn't make them any more deserving to make top cut. I would never let a friend scoop to me. It's just wrong. I make top cut the real way, not by using friends for cheap wins to get me in. I am embarrassed to say that I play the same game that cheaters who use friends to manipulate their rating when they get matched up against them, play. I am angered that anyone would kick someone out of top cut that is more deserving to play in it because they were selfish and got cheap wins against friends because they scooped to them. It's not cool. :nonono: The person that got kicked out is probably more deserving to play because he probably actually won his games the right way. Play the game right, not cheap people!

It's called an act of kindness. I'm sorry if you're offended by it, but when someone's friend makes top cut and they feel that they might have had a hand in helping them it can often bring joy for both of them.

I'm sorry that you feel that people, based on your partial information are cheating, but not everyone agrees on that, and the rule book most certainly doesn't refer to the act as cheating either.

I personally like the fact that the atmosphere of the game isn't so hyper competitive that friends are willing to throw games, because they're playing for fun and just want to make each other happy.

 

[z-man]

What makes anyone worthy to get free wins just because they have friends? Just because a person is your friend doesn't make them any more deserving to make top cut. I would never let a friend scoop to me. It's just wrong. I make top cut the real way, not by using friends for cheap wins to get me in. I am embarrassed to say that I play the same game that cheaters who use friends to manipulate their rating when they get matched up against them, play. I am angered that anyone would kick someone out of top cut that is more deserving to play in it because they were selfish and got cheap wins against friends because they scooped to them. It's not cool. :nonono: The person that got kicked out is probably more deserving to play because he probably actually won his games the right way. Play the game right, not cheap people!

From all the examples I have seen, the player who needs the win will never ask for the win. I would never do such a thing, and my friends would probably not do that either. No one is "using friends for cheap wins". I have offered the scoop to my friends before, and I think a friend has scooped to me... once or twice. It isn't like anyone is going into the situation where this is the main plan. It happens as a result of unfortunate circumstances. Very few people go in expecting their friend to scoop to them. It isn't an abuse of the system, but a way for players to make the best out of an unfortunate situation.


As far as game theory goes, let's look at the following situations. We'll say that A is X-0 and B is X-1. They are friends and have to play final round.

1. Player A and Player B play, and Player A wins. If B makes it, no harm done. If B misses cut, this was a bad idea and makes Player B upset.
2. Player A and Player B play, and Player B wins. No harm done
3. Player A scoops to player B. Both players make cut.

Now then, this example is ignorant to how many X-2 make cut and other situations like that, but which would you rather? As a player, I want to see as many of my friends make cut. I'll put my ability to cut above my friends (if we both need to win to make cut, I won't scoop). If I don't need the win, give me a good reason why I shouldn't scoop to my friends?


ONCE AGAIN, I have a question for all people who think that the player who is scooped to doesn't deserve to make cut. If any of that player's opponents doesn't show up, or gets a gameloss, is the winning player still nondeserving of the win?

 

[SteveP]

People who think they deserve something due to the actions (or inactions) of others live a in a woeful, entitle-listic, "where's mine" world.

 

[Vablakes]

If the opponent doesn't show up, that is not a cheap win. Just because something could be wrong with a family member (I know this one first hand), they got sidetracked, ect. Now, intentionaly scooping and kicking someone out of top cut is a whole different story.

 

[Kenshin's Garde]

I would never let a friend scoop to me. It's just wrong. I make top cut the real way, not by using friends for cheap wins to get me in.

Why is it wrong? What aspect of scooping makes it unethical to you? Is it the fact that no game was played, that someone "got a free win," etc.? If its the no game aspect, I point you to my posts responding to evil psyduck. If its the "free win" issue, then why is a scoop less respectable than a real game? If I'm in a position where I can't lose my spot and my opponent is in a spot where, if they win they hit cut and if they lose they miss, I'll subconsciously play looser whether I mean to win or lose because I have nothing to gain (other than ELO points) by winning or losing this game. It doesn't matter if they're a friend or not.

I am embarrassed to say that I play the same game that cheaters who use friends to manipulate their rating when they get matched up against them, play. I am angered that anyone would kick someone out of top cut that is more deserving to play in it because they were selfish and got cheap wins against friends because they scooped to them.

As z-man pointed out before, its very rare for someone to actively ask the opponent who is the X-0, X-1 etc. to scoop. It is almost always the other way around. Also, as pointed out multiple times, scooping =/= cheating. This thread isn't about whether scooping is cheating or not, but whether or not its ethical. Also, the highlighted portion legit makes no sense. If you scoop, you don't win...which is kinda the point.

The person that got kicked out is probably more deserving to play because he probably actually won his games the right way. Play the game right, not cheap people!

Well, if this is about bubbling, in a large-scale tournament, then the player who got scooped in probably has the same amount of "legitimate" wins as the person(s) who bubbled e.g. Player A went X-1-1, where - -1 is the game that they were scooped in. Player B went X-2-0. In this system, X remains the same between both players. Both the player who was scooped in and the person who wasn't had the EXACT same win rate.

 

[z-man]

If the opponent doesn't show up, that is not a cheap win. Just because something could be wrong with a family member (I know this one first hand), they got sidetracked, ect. Now, intentionaly scooping and kicking someone out of top cut is a whole different story.

You're equating "intentionally scooping" and "kicking someone out". I can tell you for a fact that nobody has ever intentionally scooped with malicious intent. IDK where you're getting that from.

You're looking at this from the leaver's point of view while you're looking at scooping from the receiver's point of view (and outsiders as well). Scooping and no-showing has the exact same effect. One player gets a free win while the other player automatically loses. Is it unfair for everyone else to have a no-show in top tables? I can tell you that having a no-show in top tables is equally unfair for everyone as having a scoop to a friend take place in top tables: not at all unfair. Moreover, you didn't answer my question. I asked if the player was nondeserving of the win. You want to claim that any player doesn't deserve a win against a scooper. Does that player deserve a win against a no-show or a gameloss?

As far as I am concerned, a win is a win is a win. Unlike you, I don't place value in who deserves what...