| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Quote: | | The goal in the swiss is not to accumulate victories, but points. Victories are one way to accumulate points, but not the only. |
Yes, this is the definition of the current system, but where is the justification for it? In other words, I understand the ID system rewards byes [edit: Draws], but WHY give points for the action of intentionally drawing? My goal in designing a swiss format would be to reward the best performances, not award the player who accumulates the most points. |
That's a perfectly interesting conversation for another context, but it's besides the point.
As I address your points and you raise these arguments, you are moving the ball.
The issue, as I understood your disagreement, is whether IDs are the same as collusion in the sense that they produce the same kind of unfairness. Your position, as you stated, was that they were the same and equally unfair. In the thread of the previous article, I explained that they were qualitatively different, and described what those differences were.
Your response was that these differences were not relevant differences. In this article, I argued to show that in the context of the issue, fairness, that those differences were relevant differences.
Your response, presented in this thread, was that this argument was 'smoke and mirrors.' The reason you presented in support of this contention was that, as I understand it, is that it is somehow unfair to have later rounds count less than earlier rounds, and that players are being disadvantaged in an unfair way.
Yet, these were the same points I addressed in the article. Re-read the sections of the article where I address your forum posts. You haven't articulated anything new. I re-articulated those points, again, here. Now, uou say that you understand my point. Great.
However, at this point in the conversation you are arguing about the system itself, and apparently whether it could be improved or different. That's not the issue. The issue is whether IDs and Collusion are the same with respect to fairness. No one arguing, as I am, that collusion is qualitatively different than IDs has to justify the current system in order to establish this point. It's beyond the scope of the issue.
In another context and in another place, I'd be happy to explain what I view as the merits of the current system, but not until the basic point of contention is resolved (or, in the alternative, under all of the arguments and counter-arguments regarding the main issue have been fully addressed as far as possible).
The burden is on you to show that IDs are unfair in the same way that collusion is if your contention that IDs and Collusion are the same is to be accepted as a valid argument. You (as have many others) have shown that IDs disadvantage certain players, but you (and other persons) haven't shown that that disadvantage is unfair in the context of the tournament structure. People are being disadvantaged because of their prior performance. I can't think of a fairer basis for being disadvantaged than that. Anyone in a position to draw into top 8 would do so. Everyone is treated the same. In the case of collusion, a player is being disadvatnaged because of their deck choice. That's patently unfair. Opponents are colluding to advance a worse matchup.
The analogy I made on the Mana Drain is this: Consider discrimination. People are discriminated against all the time for all sorts of valid reasons: test scores, GPA, qualifications, work experience, etc. Discrimination on the basis of race is impermissible. Collusion is discrimiating against a player because of their deck choice. That's unfair. IDs disadvantage a player because of their prior performance. That's fair. The Top 8 cutoff does the same thing.
You are trying to steer the conversation into a debate over the system itself. The burden is not on me to justify the current system. The burden is on you to show that IDs produce the same unfair disadvantage as collusion, which you have not shown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Teflon_Jeff
The Man, The Legend.
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A few comments regarding the topic:
1. I started my competitive fix in DDM, where draws are 0 points. Interesting how that changed the landscape of tournament play. Instead of drawing, you would examine tiebreakers and selectively scoop friends in depending on matchups, while dreamcrushing others. It actually enhanced "Teamwork" in that manner. You knew that everyone would be on 3x points somewhere, and that made the math easier to manipulate.
2. Stephen, do you believe that ID's are never done with regards to what deck might make the top-8? Because I have seen players try to beat a bubble opponent to keep them out of the top-8 based on the perceived matchup to them or friends in the top-8.
3. How do you address players who are handed a deck before the tournament that they didn't choose, but are merely playing by someone else's advice? At GP:LA, GerryT played the same deck as LSV, because he was told it was the right deck, yet obviously performed not nearly as well (Along with everyone else in the building, obv.) Furthermore, how do you correlate someone who wins the tournament (say a PTQ) with a deck they were given right before the tournament? That player didn't make a selection other than "here, catch."
_________________
Writer, Star City Games
Check out my articles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teflon_Jeff wrote: | A few comments regarding the topic:
1. I started my competitive fix in DDM, where draws are 0 points. Interesting how that changed the landscape of tournament play. Instead of drawing, you would examine tiebreakers and selectively scoop friends in depending on matchups, while dreamcrushing others. It actually enhanced "Teamwork" in that manner. You knew that everyone would be on 3x points somewhere, and that made the math easier to manipulate.
|
Back in the day, there were no draws -- instead, Magic matches were decided by 'sudden death,' meaning either last person to lose life or suffer damage or life totals at the end of the match.
But again, this issue is besides the point. This has nothing to do with the issue of whether IDs produce the same unfairness as collusion.
| Quote: |
2. Stephen, do you believe that ID's are never done with regards to what deck might make the top-8? Because I have seen players try to beat a bubble opponent to keep them out of the top-8 based on the perceived matchup to them or friends in the top-8.
|
Beating a player to keep an opponent out is not an ID, nor is it collusion. And therefore it's completely irrelevant to any issue under discussion. It's similar to the question that MJSperlings question posed in the article:
| Quote: | | " Or someone IDs with a friend when he/she would have played for top 16 against a non-friend, for example, knocking some other guy or gal out of the top 8." |
See my response in the article.
| Quote: |
3. How do you address players who are handed a deck before the tournament that they didn't choose, but are merely playing by someone else's advice? At GP:LA, GerryT played the same deck as LSV, because he was told it was the right deck, yet obviously performed not nearly as well (Along with everyone else in the building, obv.) Furthermore, how do you correlate someone who wins the tournament (say a PTQ) with a deck they were given right before the tournament? That player didn't make a selection other than "here, catch." |
I don't understand the question. How do I 'address'? With respect to what? Correlate with what? I don't understand what you are driving at here. What's the relevance of these questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teflon_Jeff
The Man, The Legend.
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does your argument address the situation when a player wins a tournament without utilizing the "select a deck" skill. You argue it may be necessary, but not sufficient. In this instance, for that player, it wasn't necessary.
_________________
Writer, Star City Games
Check out my articles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teflon_Jeff wrote: | | How does your argument address the situation when a player wins a tournament without utilizing the "select a deck" skill. You argue it may be necessary, but not sufficient. In this instance, for that player, it wasn't necessary. |
My point wasn't that deck selection skill is a necessary condition to win a tournament. My point was that playing a good deck was a necessary condition to winning a tournament, regardless of whether it's intentional, unintentional, or random.
In any case, I think that is a skill. A player who takes a deck from another player is relying on the other player's skills/technology, not to mention, their own judgment to trust that other person's read of the metagame. Big-Shot Pro isn't going to give their top deck to anyone. Often, it's the case that players have teamed up for that purpose, etc, and a person is leveraging their networks, which they've presumably earned, or, the other pro believes that they will gain from in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Smmenen wrote: |
The burden is on you to show that IDs are unfair in the same way that collusion is if your contention that IDs and Collusion are the same is to be accepted as a valid argument. You (as have many others) have shown that IDs disadvantage certain players, but you (and other persons) haven't shown that that disadvantage is unfair in the context of the tournament structure. People are being disadvantaged because of their prior performance. I can't think of a fairer basis for being disadvantaged than that. Anyone in a position to draw into top 8 would do so. Everyone is treated the same. |
The similarity is this: the existence of IDs and/or Collusion decreases the chances that the top 8 best performances make the quarterfinals. That the simple form of my argument. You say the 8th best performing deck deserves to finish 9th because his loses came early (this isnt even always true, often random matchups determine who can draw in and who has to play), I am not seeing how that is relevant. If you're in a position to be colluded out of the tournament, I would imagine you have lost a match in the swiss. Saying that you thus deserve to miss the top 8 is the same as your argument regarding IDs. You can insulate yourself from the effects of collusion by losing less matches before the final round, yet you oppose collusion? Why? Because you shouldnt HAVE TO insulate yourself from collusion by losing less. And you likewise shouldnt have to insulate yourself from the unfairness of IDs by losing less in the prior rounds.
Step 1: determine the number of rounds of swiss you wish to play
Step 2: determine the best 8 performances over that many rounds.
Permitting IDs and permitting collusion both erode our ability to get from Step 1 to Step 2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HiVal
The Doug Linn of Legacy
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
Posts: 1576
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Bosh N Roll"] | bottomset wrote: |
Stifle is something to be aware of out of Merfolk as well. If you pop your Hexmage, all the counters come off, then they Stifle the "Sac. this make a token" effect you'll be left with a counterless, manaless, ability-less, legendary Dark Depths land in play. But that's even easier to play around than Wasteland. That's where the "this is not a combo deck, it's a control deck with a combo win condition" part of the article comes in. The Counter-Top lock can always counter 1 mana spells.
|
You need to Stifle the Hexmage, not the Dark Depths. Much like Standstill, Dark Depths keeps checking itself every moment that it does not have a counter on it; thus, Stifle will stop the first check, but not the one that happens in response to the Stifle and makes the token.
That's how it's been explained to me. I attribute most of this rules stuff to sorcery.
_________________
Team Meandeck: Let's all bow our heads and pretend to be serious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Smmenen wrote: |
The burden is on you to show that IDs are unfair in the same way that collusion is if your contention that IDs and Collusion are the same is to be accepted as a valid argument. You (as have many others) have shown that IDs disadvantage certain players, but you (and other persons) haven't shown that that disadvantage is unfair in the context of the tournament structure. People are being disadvantaged because of their prior performance. I can't think of a fairer basis for being disadvantaged than that. Anyone in a position to draw into top 8 would do so. Everyone is treated the same. |
The similarity is this: the existence of IDs and/or Collusion decreases the chances that the top 8 best performances make the quarterfinals. That the simple form of my argument.
|
Yes, there are similarities. People on the Mana Drain have pointed this out repeatedly, in the thread on collusion, advancing the same argument you have just articulated. But the fact that there are similarities does not mean that collusion and IDs produce the same unfair disadvantage.
Put more simply: just because you have shown a similarity does not disprove my showing that there are qualitative differences.
To analogize:
Suppose I showed you an Orange and an Apple. You could look at them and describe their similarities: they are both roughly spherical. They are both seeded. They are both fruit. They are both purchased in a grocery store, and come of trees, etc.
But just because there are significant similiarites does not mean that there aren't major differences.
That is the case here: I have demonstrated that there is a major, qualitiative difference between IDing and Collusion. Collusion disadvantages third parties on the basis of the deck they are playing. The colluding parties target at player in order to disadvantage them because of their deck choice. That is unfair. With IDs, this is not the case. The disadvantaged third parties are being disadvantaged because of their prior performance. That is not unfair. Everyone is treated the same except for their performance in the tournament. It's the same disadvantage that a top 8 cutoff produces.
| Quote: |
You say the 8th best performing deck deserves to finish 9th because his loses came early
|
no i didn't.
The 8th best performing deck is not an abstract idea. You already have in mind what you mean by that, and that idea is not the same as what is meant by swiss + top 8 The 8th best performing deck is the deck that places 8th place at the end of the swiss rounds.
| Quote: |
And you likewise shouldnt have to insulate yourself from the unfairness of IDs by losing less in the prior rounds.
|
Absolutely you should. That's the whole idea of a top 8.
If you lose in early rounds, you lose major ground. All the swiss in a swiss + top 8 is doing is have people jockey for position in the top 8 slots. Players are constantly ascending into the top tables, and players that are mathmatically eliminated drop.
If you go 0-2, you have seriously damaged your ability to make top 8 and should suffer the consequences of that.
| Quote: |
Step 1: determine the number of rounds of swiss you wish to play
Step 2: determine the best 8 performances over that many rounds.
Permitting IDs and permitting collusion both erode our ability to get from Step 1 to Step 2. |
That's precisely what we do. You just have a different definition of what it means to have 'best performances' over those rounds according to some abstract notion of what you feel is 'correct.' yet, you have yet to show that the system as it is currently structured is unfair, and therefore have failed to show that IDs and Collusion are the same.
You are talking in circles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | You just have a different definition of what it means to have 'best performances' over those rounds according to some abstract notion of what you feel is 'correct.' yet, you have yet to show that the system as it is currently structured is unfair, and therefore have failed to show that IDs and Collusion are the same.
You are talking in circles. |
We have different definitions of "best performance" for sure. Why you would want to use points to measure performance and then award them for an act other than playing the game of Magic, you have yet to explain.
| Quote: | If you lose in early rounds, you lose major ground. All the swiss in a swiss + top 8 is doing is have people jockey for position in the top 8 slots. Players are constantly ascending into the top tables, and players that are mathmatically eliminated drop.
If you go 0-2, you have seriously damaged your ability to make top 8 and should suffer the consequences of that.
|
Tiebreakers should handle this. It will be very very difficult for this person to make top 8 even in a world without IDs. But what you're saying is that even where somehow this person's opponents had more combined wins, and thus this person's road to X-2 was measurably more difficult, he shouldn't make top 8 because all the X-1s were allowed to play 1 less round and draw. You are actually not letting the tiebreaker system do what it is supposed to do, and for no good reason. The system without IDs would already reward going X-0 then loss rather than loss followed by X-0. The bottom line is that the current system factors non-magic events into the determination of top 8 performances.
We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree since I feel like we're at an impass. We fundamentally disagree about what it meant to choose the best 8 performances after X rounds of swiss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Quote: | You just have a different definition of what it means to have 'best performances' over those rounds according to some abstract notion of what you feel is 'correct.' yet, you have yet to show that the system as it is currently structured is unfair, and therefore have failed to show that IDs and Collusion are the same.
You are talking in circles. |
We have different definitions of "best performance" for sure. Why you would want to use points to measure performance and then award them for an act other than playing the game of Magic, you have yet to explain.
|
Why does this question matter to the issue of whether IDs are unfair in the same way that collusion is?
I don't believe I have to answer this question to resolve that issue.
You ask me to explain it, but my point is that it doesn't matter. I don't have to explain it. It's 100% irrelevant to the issue of whether IDs are unfair.
| Quote: |
The system without IDs would already reward going X-0 then loss rather than loss followed by X-0. The bottom line is that the current system factors non-magic events into the determination of top 8 performances. |
Non-magic events? IDing into a top 8 is not a non-magic event in any sense of the word. It's made possible by your previous performance.
| Quote: |
We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree since I feel like we're at an impass. We fundamentally disagree about what it meant to choose the best 8 performances after X rounds of swiss. |
We are not at an impasse because that's not the issue (the question being debated). The issue is not what we mean by best performances. I don't care about that issue. I'm merely stating what the current system defines as 'best performances.'
The issue is whether IDs are unfair in the disadvantage they produce in the same way as collusion. You claim that they are. i claim that they are not. You have not presented evidence or reasoning that counters my claim that the disadvantage they produce is perfectly fair. You merely suggest that the system could be better. Maybe, maybe not. That is irrelevant to the issue of whether IDs are unfair in the disadvantage they produce compared to the disadvantage of collusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You have not presented evidence or reasoning that counters my claim that the disadvantage they produce is perfectly fair. |
Yes I have. The evidence is that IDs help people make top 8, and the act of IDing is a non-magic related act. You're saying you have to use magic skill to get into a position to use the ID, but that is like saying:
10 mile marathon race. Once 8 people are within 1 mile of finishing the race, the top 8 runners will each be allowed to drive a car for the last 1 mile of the race, (the cars allowed have a max speed of 35mph.)
Is this unfair?
I would say yes, because non-running events (driving a car) are determining the top 8 finishers of the race, AT THE EXPENSE OF A POSSIBLE LAST MILE COMEBACK.
You would say, I believe, "the runners who are not in the top 8 with 1 mile left to run are being punished by the car rule FOR THEIR POOR PERFORMANCE UP TO THAT POINT. What could be more fair than this?"
The marathon with the Car Rule is unfair. "Unfair" of course means nothing in the abstract, but this example is an attempt to illustrate my definition in this context: giving players an edge for non-magic events, REGARDLESS OF THE STANDINGS PRIOR TO THIS GRANT OF FREE POINTS, is unfair because players should only be rewarded for magic events (or for running in the marathon). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThePChapin
"The Innovator"
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 585
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, i think that the argument is not whether or not ID are a better tool for determining performance than playing the games out, as I think only the most contrarian of debaters would argue this point.
The real issue is that to outlaw ID's in a game like Magic where draws can occur "naturally" -heavily- promotes GREATER collusion. This is because you are creating a situation where there are strong financial incentives to engage in a behavior that can not reasonable be enforced, giving a benefit to those that operate "in the grey area" and punishing people trying to adhere to the letter of the law. This is turn creates situations like in year 1 of the Magic Pro Tour where players would play out "games" ensuring that the match ends in a draw, as mutually understood by both parties prior to the match. That is ACTUAL collusion, which is the natural product of outlawing IDs. To outlaw IDs is to take 1 (big) step closer to making "criminals" out of "law-abiding citizens," as it is the exact type of (nearly) unenforceable rule that would be "bent or broken" by a TON of people that would normally not stray, further eroding their respect for the rules and regulations laid down by the DCI.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Should players be allowed to concede? If you can concede, why should you not be allowed to take a draw?
_________________
Patrick Chapin
"Next Level Magic" is on sale now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Quote: | | You have not presented evidence or reasoning that counters my claim that the disadvantage they produce is perfectly fair. |
Yes I have. The evidence is that IDs help people make top 8, and the act of IDing is a non-magic related act. You're saying you have to use magic skill to get into a position to use the ID, but that is like saying:
10 mile marathon race. Once 8 people are within 1 mile of finishing the race, the top 8 runners will each be allowed to drive a car for the last 1 mile of the race, (the cars allowed have a max speed of 35mph.)
Is this unfair?
I would say yes, because non-running events (driving a car) are determining the top 8 finishers of the race, AT THE EXPENSE OF A POSSIBLE LAST MILE COMEBACK.
You would say, I believe, "the runners who are not in the top 8 with 1 mile left to run are being punished by the car rule FOR THEIR POOR PERFORMANCE UP TO THAT POINT. What could be more fair than this?"
The marathon with the Car Rule is unfair. "Unfair" of course means nothing in the abstract, but this example is an attempt to illustrate my definition in this context: giving players an edge for non-magic events, REGARDLESS OF THE STANDINGS PRIOR TO THIS GRANT OF FREE POINTS, is unfair because players should only be rewarded for magic events (or for running in the marathon). |
If the rules were such that everyone knew that at the last mile marker the first 6 players to reach that marker could drive a car for the last mile, and everyone knew this rule going in, that would not be unfair.
Suppose hundreds and hundreds of tournaments have been conducted according to this rule, and everyone knew or should know that this would be the deal. You enter into such a marathon, knowing that this is the deal. It would simply redefine how you think about the event. Everyone knows, or should know, that the real race is the first 9 miles. And that the last mile is simply there to see who makes the last couple of slots in the top 8.
But, more importantly, your analogy fails for one simple reason: the person who makes it first in a swiss tournament does not win the tournament. Yet, the person who makes it first with the car at the finish line wins the event.
Swiss rounds aren't there to determine a winner. They are a filtering mechanism, to try and find 8 of the best decks in the field. For that purpose, they do very well.
You have repeatedly argued that you don't like the system because it doesn't allow last minute comebacks. I concede that. But that doesn't make it unfair. That just makes it different from how you would prefer things to be set up.
And, that certainly doesn't make it unfair in the sense that collusion is unfair.
Suppose you are in a top 4 match. You are playing Paper. Your opponent is Rock. On the other side of the top 4, Rock is playing Scissors. You are going to win your match, and Rock is going to beat Scissors. But your likely next round opponent, Rock, knowing that they can't beat you, collude with Scissors to advance Scissors and split the profits. That's a very different kind of disadvantage.
In the case of collusion, you are being disadvantaged because of your deck choice. In the case IDs, you are being disadvantaged because of prior performance. One is fair, the other is not. You claim that these are the same. Yet, your only argument is that IDs are unfair because they don't allow for last minute comebacks. That doesn't make them unfair, nor does it make them like collusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThePChapin wrote: | | Personally, i think that the argument is not whether or not ID are a better tool for determining performance than playing the games out, as I think only the most contrarian of debaters would argue this point.? |
Just to clarify: My point isn't that IDs are preferred to playing a match out. I don't express a view one way or another on that pint. My view, rather, is that IDs are different than collusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | If the rules were such that everyone knew that at the last mile marker the first 6 players to reach that marker could drive a car for the last mile, and everyone knew this rule going in, that would not be unfair.
Suppose hundreds and hundreds of tournaments have been conducted according to this rule, and everyone knew or should know that this would be the deal. You enter into such a marathon, knowing that this is the deal. It would simply redefine how you think about the event. Everyone knows, or should know, that the real race is the first 9 miles. And that the last mile is simply there to see who makes the last couple of slots in the top 8.
|
So if collusion is legalized and becomes commonplace, and people come to expect it, it isn't unfair? Any rule becomes fair because it is known and expected?
| Quote: | But, more importantly, your analogy fails for one simple reason: the person who makes it first in a swiss tournament does not win the tournament. Yet, the person who makes it first with the car at the finish line wins the event.
Swiss rounds aren't there to determine a winner. They are a filtering mechanism, to try and find 8 of the best decks in the field. For that purpose, they do very well.
|
This is classic "disctinction without a difference." Attacking my analogy this way just makes me posit a new marathon with a "top 8 race" one month after the initial race which has a $1million first prize. So the first race is just to determine the top 8. Now are you in favor of the Car Rule?
Your argument that what is known and accepted is therefore fair seems to me to support legalizing collusion. That way, what is now an underhanded and unexpected unfairness will become a known and therefore fair part of the tourament experience.
-Matt Sperling
[In favor of banning cars in marathons, regardless of how well the rule is advertised] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThePChapin wrote: | Personally, i think that the argument is not whether or not ID are a better tool for determining performance than playing the games out, as I think only the most contrarian of debaters would argue this point.
The real issue is that to outlaw ID's in a game like Magic where draws can occur "naturally" -heavily- promotes GREATER collusion. This is because you are creating a situation where there are strong financial incentives to engage in a behavior that can not reasonable be enforced, giving a benefit to those that operate "in the grey area" and punishing people trying to adhere to the letter of the law. This is turn creates situations like in year 1 of the Magic Pro Tour where players would play out "games" ensuring that the match ends in a draw, as mutually understood by both parties prior to the match. That is ACTUAL collusion, which is the natural product of outlawing IDs. To outlaw IDs is to take 1 (big) step closer to making "criminals" out of "law-abiding citizens," as it is the exact type of (nearly) unenforceable rule that would be "bent or broken" by a TON of people that would normally not stray, further eroding their respect for the rules and regulations laid down by the DCI.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Should players be allowed to concede? If you can concede, why should you not be allowed to take a draw? |
The rules now are that you cannot play slowly in order to win a match 1-0 when you win the first game. How is this rule not subject to the same criticisms you advance above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smmenen
Joined: 04 Mar 2003
Posts: 1910
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Quote: | If the rules were such that everyone knew that at the last mile marker the first 6 players to reach that marker could drive a car for the last mile, and everyone knew this rule going in, that would not be unfair.
Suppose hundreds and hundreds of tournaments have been conducted according to this rule, and everyone knew or should know that this would be the deal. You enter into such a marathon, knowing that this is the deal. It would simply redefine how you think about the event. Everyone knows, or should know, that the real race is the first 9 miles. And that the last mile is simply there to see who makes the last couple of slots in the top 8.
|
So if collusion is legalized and becomes commonplace, and people come to expect it, it isn't unfair? Any rule becomes fair because it is known and expected?
|
Not all. For example, what if there was a rule that said: Everyone with the first name Stephen will get a 1 mile head start. That would be unfair. Yet, it would be a rule that everyone knew.
Collusion is unfair -- even if it were legal -- because it targets people on account of something that they shouldn't be treated differently about: their deck choice.
As I said, it's like discrimination. IDing is a disparate impact form of discrimination. The requirement that certain people have certain work experience can produce a disparate impact, but it's fair. Similarly, Iding is disadvantaging people because of their prior performance. Collusion is more like racial discrimination: you are disadvantaging someone on an illegitimate basis. Collusion is discriminating against a player because of their deck choice.
It would be pretty unfair if at the beginning of the round it was announced that anyone with a basic Island in their deck would be awarded a game loss. Collusion is an unfair disadvantage -- EVEN if players have equal opportunity to collude. People are being treated differently on a basis that they shouldn't be.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | But, more importantly, your analogy fails for one simple reason: the person who makes it first in a swiss tournament does not win the tournament. Yet, the person who makes it first with the car at the finish line wins the event.
Swiss rounds aren't there to determine a winner. They are a filtering mechanism, to try and find 8 of the best decks in the field. For that purpose, they do very well.
|
This is classic "disctinction without a difference." Attacking my analogy this way just makes me posit a new marathon with a "top 8 race" one month after the initial race which has a $1million first prize. So the first race is just to determine the top 8. Now are you in favor of the Car Rule?
|
That's not a distinction without a difference. You've modified your marathon hypo so that one of the differences that made a difference is no longer present. That doesn't mean that my point wasn't relevant.
While I think the marathon could be structured differently, I don't think that giving the first competitors who reach the final mile marker a car is unfair so long as its in the rules before hand.
| Quote: |
Your argument that what is known and accepted is therefore fair seems to me to support legalizing collusion. That way, what is now an underhanded and unexpected unfairness will become a known and therefore fair part of the tourament experience.
|
You are misconstruing my position with respect to fairness. Knowing or being able to know the rules of an event before hand to the same extent as everyone else is not sufficient to make an event fair, but it is a necessary condition. I was qualifying your example to make sure that the competitors knew that there would a car waiting for them at the 9th mile marker. If they didn't, for example, some marathon runners may have planned to run hardest in the final mile, conserving their energy, not knowing that they'd need to run hardest in the 8th mile. That wouldn't be fair.
But so long as everyone knew these particular rules, I don't see anything unfair about it. Everyone knows the deal going in. The relevant skills are tested. Everyone is treated the same and in the same position to make top 8, and so on.
While it would be silly to have a car waiting in the final mile, there is nothing unfair about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bosh N Roll
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 670
Location: Central, Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="HiVal"] | Bosh N Roll wrote: | | bottomset wrote: |
Stifle is something to be aware of out of Merfolk as well. If you pop your Hexmage, all the counters come off, then they Stifle the "Sac. this make a token" effect you'll be left with a counterless, manaless, ability-less, legendary Dark Depths land in play. But that's even easier to play around than Wasteland. That's where the "this is not a combo deck, it's a control deck with a combo win condition" part of the article comes in. The Counter-Top lock can always counter 1 mana spells.
|
You need to Stifle the Hexmage, not the Dark Depths. Much like Standstill, Dark Depths keeps checking itself every moment that it does not have a counter on it; thus, Stifle will stop the first check, but not the one that happens in response to the Stifle and makes the token.
That's how it's been explained to me. I attribute most of this rules stuff to sorcery. |
Alas, you're right. My thinking when I typed all that was "It must only happen once. If it happened every time the condition was true, it'd just keep happening in response to itself every time anyone has priority ever and the world would implode." And using rules for simple triggers I'd be correct, but this is a state trigger. Fortunately the "sorcerers" who wrote the comp. rules thought of that.
| Comp Rules wrote: | | 603.8. Some triggered abilities trigger when a game state (such as a player controlling no permanents of a particular card type) is true, rather than triggering when an event occurs. These abilities trigger as soon as the game state matches the condition. They’ll go onto the stack at the next available opportunity. These are called state triggers. (Note that state triggers aren’t the same as state-based actions.) A state-triggered ability doesn’t trigger again until the ability has resolved, has been countered, or has otherwise left the stack. Then, if the object with the ability is still in the same zone and the game state still matches its trigger condition, the ability will trigger again. |
Note to self: reading is tech. 
As a small nitpick though, it is not like Standstill. Standstill is a simple trigger. "When this --> Effect" Stifling a Standstill activation is playing another spell and causing it to trigger again, there's no rules difference from the frist spell triggering the Standstill and the Stifle triggering it. State triggers are more like "When this, if an instance of Effect isn't already occuring ---> Effect".
_________________
I run/judge events in Central PA. If you live in the area, ask for details.
Bosh N Roll on MTGO, AIM, SCG, ManaDrain, TheSource... and everywhere else you want to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sti
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | ThePChapin wrote: | Personally, i think that the argument is not whether or not ID are a better tool for determining performance than playing the games out, as I think only the most contrarian of debaters would argue this point.
The real issue is that to outlaw ID's in a game like Magic where draws can occur "naturally" -heavily- promotes GREATER collusion. This is because you are creating a situation where there are strong financial incentives to engage in a behavior that can not reasonable be enforced, giving a benefit to those that operate "in the grey area" and punishing people trying to adhere to the letter of the law. This is turn creates situations like in year 1 of the Magic Pro Tour where players would play out "games" ensuring that the match ends in a draw, as mutually understood by both parties prior to the match. That is ACTUAL collusion, which is the natural product of outlawing IDs. To outlaw IDs is to take 1 (big) step closer to making "criminals" out of "law-abiding citizens," as it is the exact type of (nearly) unenforceable rule that would be "bent or broken" by a TON of people that would normally not stray, further eroding their respect for the rules and regulations laid down by the DCI.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Should players be allowed to concede? If you can concede, why should you not be allowed to take a draw? |
The rules now are that you cannot play slowly in order to win a match 1-0 when you win the first game. How is this rule not subject to the same criticisms you advance above? |
This is an enforcable rule as the other player can call over a judge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DDRMaster
Chili Boy
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sti wrote: | | mjsperling wrote: | | ThePChapin wrote: | Personally, i think that the argument is not whether or not ID are a better tool for determining performance than playing the games out, as I think only the most contrarian of debaters would argue this point.
The real issue is that to outlaw ID's in a game like Magic where draws can occur "naturally" -heavily- promotes GREATER collusion. This is because you are creating a situation where there are strong financial incentives to engage in a behavior that can not reasonable be enforced, giving a benefit to those that operate "in the grey area" and punishing people trying to adhere to the letter of the law. This is turn creates situations like in year 1 of the Magic Pro Tour where players would play out "games" ensuring that the match ends in a draw, as mutually understood by both parties prior to the match. That is ACTUAL collusion, which is the natural product of outlawing IDs. To outlaw IDs is to take 1 (big) step closer to making "criminals" out of "law-abiding citizens," as it is the exact type of (nearly) unenforceable rule that would be "bent or broken" by a TON of people that would normally not stray, further eroding their respect for the rules and regulations laid down by the DCI.
Besides, think about it for a minute. Should players be allowed to concede? If you can concede, why should you not be allowed to take a draw? |
The rules now are that you cannot play slowly in order to win a match 1-0 when you win the first game. How is this rule not subject to the same criticisms you advance above? |
This is an enforcable rule as the other player can call over a judge. |
True. But top tables usually have some amount of spectators who can call over a judge if they see such activities occuring. Hell if I'm at table 3 and I see the people at tables 1 and 2 trying to screw me out of the top 8 I will yell "Judge!" without hesitation.
_________________
12:34 INV_JeffCunningham: chili boy
12:34 INV_JeffCunningham: the 17th invitationalist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sti
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure me and Chapin could play a match where we drew 1-1 in such a way you would have to watch vs very closely to prevent this.
Do you really want judges to have to figure out if players are playing correctly and trying to win? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mjsperling
Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sti wrote: | I'm pretty sure me and Chapin could play a match where we drew 1-1 in such a way you would have to watch vs very closely to prevent this.
Do you really want judges to have to figure out if players are playing correctly and trying to win? |
yes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arioch69
El Presidente
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1275
Location: Deepest Darkest Coldest Hell
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mjsperling wrote: | | Sti wrote: | I'm pretty sure me and Chapin could play a match where we drew 1-1 in such a way you would have to watch vs very closely to prevent this.
Do you really want judges to have to figure out if players are playing correctly and trying to win? |
yes |
Good luck with that. Judges aren't necessarily very good players. And even if some are good players others won't be, so you enter a very grey area at best in terms of judges having to decide if people are making optimal or at least legitimate strategic plays.
_________________
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimCapes
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:54 am Post subject: Outlawing IDs |
|
|
Matches where one player is up a game are a win.
Matches where the game is tied 1-1 get 3 extra turns and are decided on life totals. If the life totals are equal the player who went first loses.
There you go, no draws and you can ban IDs since players can't draw at all.
This is pretty much the only enforcable way to do it (with minor variations on end of match procedure). Lots of games do this.
Collusion isn't the main reason however. Most games like people to play a lot in tournaments. Most swiss tourneys that allow IDs function as double elimination tournaments with the option to play on. Games that allow 2 losses and have some X-2's make top 8 (i.e. those that don't allow draws) will often have it possible to make top 8 from 2-2 or 1-2, since your opponents are more likely to stay in the tourney and can possibly go on a winning streak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seeker after Chaos
Custom Title:
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 4340
Location: Rochester, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: Re: Outlawing IDs |
|
|
| TimCapes wrote: | Matches where the game is tied 1-1 get 3 extra turns and are decided on life totals. If the life totals are equal the player who went first loses.
There you go, no draws and you can ban IDs since players can't draw at all. |
And voila, you've just made slow control decks played by slow players an instant dog!
I mean really. There's a reason we give the draw bracket various cute nicknames based on the deck du jour. It wouldn't be the Psychatog bracket under these rules, for instance.
(Not to mention something like the 'tog mirror but with fetchlands - would you really win game three by your opponent cracking a single fetchland?)
_________________
| Mike Long wrote: | | In this game, what are you looking for but a two-for-one? |
| RidiculousHat wrote: | | Sorry, not everything is enormous tech. We just like attacking for two. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
