| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
lynchpt
Sergeant
930 Posts
    
 | | 06/05/2005 11:29 PM |
| | recovered topic 4430 | |
Dreamblade Rules Advisor | |
|
lynchpt
Sergeant
930 Posts
| | 06/05/2005 11:29 PM |
| As referenced in another thread, to be fair to the draw takers, the offically provided tournament software (DCI Reporter) allows draws for DDM, and counts them as .33 of a win. Given that, we really have no basis to say that the drawers "should" be put into the lower bracket. And remember, when you draw, it is still worse than a win. You personnally don't gain from a draw unless you could reasonably have expected a loss in the match. And if that is the case, then the other guy (who would have won) definitely loses something by offering the draw.
I haven't run all the scenarios with DCI Reporter. Is it a fact that two guys taking an intentional draw can cost someone else a slot in the top 4 under some circumstance?
Pat Lynch | |
Dreamblade Rules Advisor | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 06/05/2005 11:33 PM |
| quote:
Is it a fact that two guys taking an intentional draw can cost someone else a slot in the top 4 under some circumstance?
I think in a 5 round tournament you could end up with two 5-0, two 4-0-1 and two 4-1 when you "should" have had 3 5-0 and 3 4-1, which depending on tiebreakers could definitely shut out the "wrong" person. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
12507 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 06/05/2005 11:47 PM |
| In qualifiers, if a few guys want to go in as a "team" and help each other out by taking draws with each other, I'm okay with that. Hey, they still have to put themselves into that strong position by winning other matches. It's not like taking all draws will get you anywhere. And don't forget, you still "lose" the chance to win when you agree to a draw with a friend or teamate.
Now, where I do have trouble with taking ties would be the GenCon championship. I would not want Kiddoc/Dagni/bshugg or whoever's in the finals to take a tie and be co-champions and share 1st prize. Here, if I had a say, I'd make 'em play so we had one champion. Of course, I'm quite sure that's how our elite players would go about it anyway. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
| 
dj-chuckles
Underboss
2455 Posts
The State that invented Spam!
| | 06/05/2005 11:53 PM |
| | I'd have to agree though with Anonymous. I mean my friend Garrett went 4 and 1 his only loss to me. When it came down to a nail biter. He came in 6th place yet if the draw software gives .33 points instead of 0 points that puts them higher. DDM isn't a team sport. I give congratz to the winners but still intentional draws are not cool in my view. | |
Posted By WakeXX on 09/25/2006 4:49 AM OMG DJ!This has to be the spammiest spam thread ever! 
Member of Team Game-Rocket.netScry into Blood War | My Trade Thread | My Reference Thread| Vindicated Champion of the Dragon Rider & Dracolich | New Champion of Cadderly | | |
|
johnny.quest
Underboss
1386 Posts
| | 06/05/2005 11:57 PM |
| | It does seem as though team playing (alliances) could be problematic as the hobby grows larger. | | | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
12507 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 06/05/2005 11:59 PM |
| | I see what you're saying. Intentional draws also really don't "feel right" when you look at the spirit of competition. But again, if you look at my points above, they still seem valid. You still need to put yourself in a strong position by winning your early games. A player would definitely not want to take two draws in his/her first two matches as that would all but eliminate them from a high ranking. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 12:12 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by johnny.quest
It does seem as though team playing (alliances) could be problematic as the hobby grows larger.
It could, but hopefully by then we'll have rated team events. DDM would seem a more natural team game than M:tG, to be honest.
At that point, judges would probably feel more comfortable tightening up the 'team friendly' situations in solo events, on the ground that the event is not rated as a team event.
Of course, this could inspire a whole 'nother thread - what rules would you like to see in a rated team event?
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
| Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
12507 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 06/06/2005 12:21 AM |
| | Now we're talking. Do it Ryder Cup style like in golf. Have individual matches between opposing team members, and 2-on-2 paired matches. It would be interesting to see the synergies people would create in the 2-on-2's. One guy would play an LG blocker team for his partner's CG missile team. And maybe on the evil side you'd have CE heavy hitters running interference for some Gauth/Beholder combos. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
| 
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/06/2005 3:54 AM |
| We should all thank Bonepinhimer and S_F for pointed out this rule that most DDM's did not know (I'm assuming this).
I did some research about the rule(on-line and DCi magic judges), and they are correct.
The Draw rule is very commonly used in magic tournements. The idea being "Scammers" would be able to force a draw anyways, so it allows all players to do it.
Personally I don't agree with the rule, but rules are rules. I'm just glad I know about now.
| |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 8:38 AM |
| Agreed Newtoncain ... you can not like the rule but that does not change its existence.
What I would suggest is to post this thought over on the wizards boards under the heading of "organized play" and start a discussion there if you really feel like you'd like to see a change.
I'm going to restate what I said before - I'm not sure I care whether or not they are legal. What I care about is a resolution so that the larger DDM community of players and judges have a good understanding of what IS and IS NOT contained within the rules. I'm almost certain that there are only a few places (MN being one) where the community has enough knowledge to even attempt such a thing. I would wager that in newer locations the DDM floor rules are read and understood but the larger DCI rules are simply glossed over. The players and judges in these places may or may not know all rules and options. Most judges and TOs probably refer to them in case of a problem.
What I want to see is clarity, understanding and the further education of the DDM community. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/06/2005 8:58 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Agreed Newtoncain ... you can not like the rule but that does not change its existence.
What I would suggest is to post this thought over on the wizards boards under the heading of "organized play" and start a discussion there if you really feel like you'd like to see a change.
I'm going to restate what I said before - I'm not sure I care whether or not they are legal. What I care about is a resolution so that the larger DDM community of players and judges have a good understanding of what IS and IS NOT contained within the rules. I'm almost certain that there are only a few places (MN being one) where the community has enough knowledge to even attempt such a thing. I would wager that in newer locations the DDM floor rules are read and understood but the larger DCI rules are simply glossed over. The players and judges in these places may or may not know all rules and options. Most judges and TOs probably refer to them in case of a problem.
What I want to see is clarity, understanding and the further education of the DDM community.
I totally agree and I did make the same comment under Trieds thread addressing the issue. I did not even know about the rule until Gaddszooks told me about it (I kept calling to get an update on the qual and a semi-fix I was jonesing for[)]. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
| 2004 D&D Miniatures Champion
Kiddoc
Underboss
1797 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 9:45 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
In qualifiers, if a few guys want to go in as a "team" and help each other out by taking draws with each other, I'm okay with that....
Now, where I do have trouble with taking ties would be the GenCon championship...
No.
There can be no double standard.
You should treat the rules and regulations regarding a qualifier, and your play therein the same way you would treat play at the championship level. I doubt anyone would be inclined to overlook cheating (adding HP back to a creature, purposely fudging activations, etc.) because it was happening "at a qualifier" as opposed to happening "at the Championship." There are different levels of "rules enforcement" that can happen at tournaments, but those apply to the penalties handed out for infractions NOT to the extent to which rules should be followed.
If draws and concessions are to be legal, they must be legal in all formats. If draws and concessions are to be illegal, the same rules should apply.
You make a good point about the championship though, and I'd like to extend it a little further. DDM is a smallish game, and as such, the potential for collusion is generally overlooked. If you're a fan of the draw, imagine the following situation:
This is just an example, contrived and exaggerated. Not meant as a representation of anything real, just an extension of the debate that's occurred regarding this topic.
Bshugg, Dagni, DoubtofBuddha, ChadtheDragonlord, Derry, and I are all a "team." We think up a name and decide that we're going to apply a team mentality: Our individual performances are unimportant, the only thing that matters is maximizing the gain of the team. Because we practice every week, and our average DCI rating is huge, we know who our strong players our, and where our strengths lie. So the Championships come, and we decide that if any of us meet, we're going to draw, or concede to the stronger player, depending on what round it is, what our records are, and what the warband situation looks like (i.e., if we see a very "heavy" metagame in one direction, we want to influence our warbands that favor that metagame more). If they limit the number of players to around 80 or so, there's a good chance that the 6 of us will meet at some point. Given our collective skill level, that chance is going to go up each round, thanks to the swiss pairing system. When we get down to the last few rounds, with players of our relative strength, we're going to be matching up against each other (hypothetically, but it happened last year in a number of instances, right Jesse [:D]), so there will be plenty of opportunites to draw/concede. Remember, we're a team, we don't care about individual performances. After 5/6 rounds, we will know which players are playing the best, which warbands we'll be facing, and which of our bands are best equipped to face it. So the drawing/conceding we do will be directed towards advancing the player/warband combination that we (as a team) feel has the best chance.
And then comes the finals. Say 4 of us make the cut, so Bshugg, Doubtofbuddha, Dagni, and Chad are all in the finals, and we decide that Chad has the strongest band and is the strongest player. With 4 players in an 8 man final, 2 will get matched up in the first round. For argument's sake, Chad and Dagni get matched up. But, it's been a 7-round tournament already, and it's been going since 9am (it's 10pm now), people are exhausted. Think of the mental and physical advantage we've just gained by having Dagni concede to Chad, no game played. Moreover, Chad can now get up, relax, stretch, grab something to eat, oh, and not to mention--go observe his opponent's games. Meanwhile, everyone else is still in the pressure cooker, but Chad gets a chance to relax, plan his strategy, and regroup. That can be a huge advantage in a tournament that lasts 14 or 15 hours.
While this is obviously hyperbole, it's certainly something that's possible. In such a small game, players know each other fairly well. And while it might seem improbable that any player would give up the chance at winning the championship, we have plenty of other examples in life of exactly this type of occurrence. Heck, maybe the 6 of us got together and we all had our input into what type of figure we want to make. If we really wanted that lance-weilding knight on dragonback to come out, the best chance we have is to work together right? Besides, if we all win prizes, like cash and product, and split it between us, the chances are much higher that everyone leaves with something.
Anyhow, I guess my problem is more with collusion than intentional draws. I think ID's are a difficult thing to deal with in DDM. In other games it's a much more simple matter. I don't have the answer, just an opinion.
Here's a little snip from the DCI floor rules on just such a subject:
quote:
25. Conceding Games or Matches
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the match.
The following actions are prohibited:
§ Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a match
§ Attempting to determine the winner of a game or match by a random method, such as a coin flip or die roll
Players who engage in these actions will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have won as they wish, such as with teammates, as long as any such sharing does not occur as an exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop or draw of a game or match.
EXCEPTION: Players in the final match of the single-elimination portion of a tournament have the option not to play their match. If both players of the final match agree not to play, one of them must agree to drop from the event (in order for prizes to be awarded). The DCI ratings of the players will not be affected because no match will have been played. The dropping player receives the second-place prize, and the other finalist receives the first-place prize.
| |
POST DISCLAIMER: Above post may contain humor. Now with micro scrubbing bubbles. Do not operate heavy machinery. Take with food. Use only as directed. Contents may settle during shipping. No user-servicable parts inside. Void where prohibited. Beware of dog. This side up. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. No salt, MSG, or artificial coloring or flavoring added. Actual cash value of this post is 1/100th of a cent. Avoid contact with skin... | |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 9:50 AM |
| It sounds to me like agreeing to a draw so that both players have a better chance of advancing mathematically is very similar to agreeing to draw in order to split a prize. (the prize being a place in the finals)
There are always going to be players who take advantage of any possible "bug" in the system.
There was a thing on HBO's Entourage where Turtle was winning game after game after game of Mortal Kombat with the same kick. It's funny because we've all been there.
The tough part for the WoTC game designers is that they have to put the spirit of every rule perfectly down in writing. Gamers in general, and especially the best gamers, work to find exploitable abuses at all costs.
Is it honorable? No. But in an era of non-contact sport and often de-personalized gaming, you can't simply start a hockey-fight with people.
DDM is at least somewhat personalized because someone who intentionally takes a draw or takes advantage of some obscure rule at least has to look everyone else in the face and make some excuse about it (or just be rude).
The actual fault lies with R&D and the floor rules if these situations are permitted, even though they're hard to detect when done secretly. Offering Draws should simply not be permitted, even to the point of deciding drawn games with a dice roll.
Let's not mince words. Offering a draw may not be cheating, but, it ranks with borderline stalling as one of the worst displays of maturity and sportsmanship possible.
People may do it because they feel, if they don't, someone else will do it to them first, and so, it should simply be fixed that no draws are ever allowed for any reason.
I bet nobody would risk a draw if it came down to a dice roll to see who won. Problem solved.
Don't want to wear yourself out playing another game? Don't go to the tournament. | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:02 AM |
| Basically, I agree with kiddoc.
I think intentional draws go against the spirit of the game as much as things like stalling do.
And yes, its quite possible you can encounter multiple top-level players or even players you know at Nationals. I ended up facing three of the top eight over the course of my rounds leading up to the quarter-finals, and I wasn't even in the winner's bracket! :)
| |
I am not gone. | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:30 AM |
| I think we are all agreeing the the rules allow it.
So the question is, do the people who play the game, many of whom visit these boards, think that the ID rule should be removed from organzied DDM play.
My feelings are as follows:
30 minute breaks after each 3rd round should be established as a standard in the floor rules.
ID should removed from the DDM Floor rules (i.e. taken as an exception in the DDM floor rules to the standard DCI floor rules). ID seems to go against the intent of the game, where there are enough established tiebreakers to make it well nigh impossible to end in a draw otherwise. (As I understand them, the only way to draw is to have both opponenets at teh same victory point level, with both having a figure adjacent to there opponent, sitting at the center of the board.)
Lets not confuse how we feel things should be tweaked in the future, for what happened in the past, where clearly, ID WAS and IS legal.
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
| 2004 D&D Miniatures Champion
Kiddoc
Underboss
1797 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:41 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
And because at heart I'm a troublemaker
Sometimes to make an omlet, you have to break a few eggs.
Eggs were broken this weekend, let's hope that somebody cooks up something sweet, instead of affirming the status quo and trying to put humpty dumpty back together again. | |
POST DISCLAIMER: Above post may contain humor. Now with micro scrubbing bubbles. Do not operate heavy machinery. Take with food. Use only as directed. Contents may settle during shipping. No user-servicable parts inside. Void where prohibited. Beware of dog. This side up. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. No salt, MSG, or artificial coloring or flavoring added. Actual cash value of this post is 1/100th of a cent. Avoid contact with skin... | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:43 AM |
| Even if drawing is made illegal, conceding is legal. Frankly, though a bummer, collusion is therefore inevitable.
There's really no way to make concession illegal. In board games anti "throwing the game" rules don't work, and simply create a culture where it happens anyway and everyone denies it.
So as Skirmish gains in popularity we should all get used to the idea that it *will* happen. Peer pressure is about all that can be done about it; making it "uncool" to quit too early. And making ID illegal will ensure that such "team play" costs the team something, rather than spreading the risk between the team members. | |
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 10:47 AM |
| Frankly I'd like to see more clarity in ALOT of areas ... I've had the pleasure of playing games in a number of different states and with a number of different judges / organizers. The 60-minute round is interpreted VERY differently in those places and that really disrupts the metagame.
Do you finish out the current round if you're in the middle of one? Do you hard stop at 60 minutes? Do you finish out that players turn? That figure's turn?
The worst part is, now I'm hungry. All that omelet and egg talk ...
I think that our little DDM game is on the verge of (potentially) growth (and the same may be true for SWM). Minis games are different than card games, I'm sure the folks at WotC recognize this implicitly. As this game grows (and maybe this year is the year), perhaps they will be able to spend some time really nailing down the lose pages of the DDM tournament rules.
And maybe someone will make me an omelet. Cream cheese + spinach topped with bernaise sauce would be nice. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:27 AM |
| quote:
The 60-minute round is interpreted VERY differently in those places and that really disrupts the metagame.
Do you finish out the current round if you're in the middle of one? Do you hard stop at 60 minutes? Do you finish out that players turn? That figure's turn?
I don't mean to hijack this thread, please point me in the right direction and lets leave it at that.
Where is the official method described.
EDIT: I now have the info, no further need to HiJack the thread, Lynchpt can PM me if he reads this...
Lynchpt is this your recollection of what happened at TJ's last year, or am I smoking something?
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
|
Shadow_Fox
Underboss
1751 Posts
Litchfield, MN
| | 06/06/2005 11:32 AM |
| Im going to give my side of the story here. I know I have had issue with several people on the forums regarding various topics. And I admit I have let my temper get the better of me in some situations. I get very passionate about my views and I do stick my foot in my mouth.
I am asking everyone to please set that aside for a moment. Just for this thread. If you like me or hate me lets just please have a heart to heart on this one topic because it is indeed a very very important one that needs to be fixed.
I am not going to comment about the false allegations (and they ARE false) brought against my character on the WotC boards because that is another ball of wax.
It is obvious that everyone thinks that the intentional draw Doug Lee and I took was cheating. Doug and I come from a strong Magic: The Gathering background (around 7 years) and draws were common place and happened in every tournement. Due to our familliarity with intentional draws, and knowing it was legal as according to the DCI floor rules we didnt think anything of this action. It certainly was not our intent to "cheat" or "rob" anyone of anything but many people certainly feel that it was exactly that.
I feel horible that it has turned into what it has. If I could go back in time and tell myself not to do it I would without a second thought. We didnt think we were exploiting a "loop hole", we were using a rule that we and many others had used many times in the past. We did not go into this tourment saying we would draw against each other if we paired against each other. We have a ravenous want to beat each other when we do get paired up.
WE SAW A DRAW AS LEGAL or we would not even have considered it in the slightest. Because we are friends and team mates it has been viewed as a collaboration to cheat the system for the betterment of said team but PLEASE believe me when I say that was not our intent at all.
People are very quick to say we pulled an unbeatable maneuver that guaranteed us both top 4 slots, but this is definately not the case. We both knew that if either one of us lost our next match, BOTH of our tiebreakers would be shattered and neither of us would make it. We didnt have a desire for one to qualify and the other not qualify, and neither of us wanted to play in the open qualifier at gencon. So we took the draw, as the rules allowed, as we had so many times in the past against numerous people. We took a big risk by drawing and we were fortunate enough to both win our next matches.
We were not plotting and scheming to hose others. We were talking within earshot of eveyrone at the top tables for pete's sake! If we were scheming and plotting evil things as people are quick to say we were we certainly would not have been very successful having everyone hear our discussion!
When we sat down to play our match in the top 4 we found out that the prize packs had been split between the people who didnt make the top 4. There were no packs, I didnt care about the money, and I had my gencon passes. I had a migrane so I conceeded to Doug because I didnt want to play anymore. There was no reason for me to. I had come there for the packs (because I dont buy DDM packs) and the passes.
Doug and I are both deeply regretful that this has turned into such a huge debacle. Chris found the post where Mike D said that it is not intended for draws to be in DDM. Neither Doug, John aka Gadzooks (our judge), Jason (our TO) nor myself had any idea that Miked D had ever said anything like this. We honestly thought nothing was wrong with our action. It was a mistake made by all four of us.
| |
Email | Ebay Feedback Page | Maxminis Referance Thread | Have/Want List | |
|
PatEllis15
Commander
4463 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:39 AM |
| Shadowfox:
These are not the WotC boards. People may disagree with things you have written or done in the past, but my expereience is that here, people are MORE than willing to have an open dialogue.
quote:
It is obvious that everyone thinks that the intentional draw Doug Lee and I took was cheating.
Actually I think it is the minority that feel this way.
I think most of the focus on THESE boards have been:
A: What you did was Legal
B: The rules should be changed to make ID's illegal, as draws are not supposed to happen in the game.
Keep you chin up, perhaps we'll meet at GenCon.
Pat E | |
"Games evolve. Otherwise we'd still be pushing rocks around the dirt. What do you think the cavemen said when some dude showed up with sticks?" - Chairman7w | |
| Hero of Skirmish
doubtofbuddha
Commander
3371 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:40 AM |
| Shadow Fox, I don't think you were cheating or thought you were cheating. It wasn't illegal, you are correct. I think, however, that it should definitely be made illegal in the future as I think the rule, as it stands, goes against the spirit of the game. (In fact, I didn't even know that it existed until you guys did it.)
Better for it to happen now and get resolved, then it to come up at the Championships.
| |
I am not gone. | |
|
Shadow_Fox
Underboss
1751 Posts
Litchfield, MN
| | 06/06/2005 11:42 AM |
| Im sorry, I did say everyone saw it as cheating but I know thta there are those that didnt see it as such and supported us and for that I am very grateful.
I agree this rule needs to be changed NOW so no one else makes the same blunder as we did. | |
Email | Ebay Feedback Page | Maxminis Referance Thread | Have/Want List | |
|
Terentia
Sneak
62 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:43 AM |
| This is from the DCI D&D Floor rules...
quote:
End-of-Match Procedure A match ends when
• a player meets the scenario’s victory condition,
• no creature takes damage and no player makes an attack roll or saving throw for 10 complete game rounds, or
• the tournament round time runs out. If the tournament round time runs out during a game round, play continues until a player meets the scenario’s victory condition, or the end of that game round (whichever happens first).
I thought the active player finishes their turn, learned something new. You finish the round if victory conditions were not met. | |
| |
|
kaiserluger
Warrior
319 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:45 AM |
| For competitive tournaments, I don't think there is anything wrong about the intentional draw. In large fields, you are going to need to win the bulk of your matches anyhow.
Besides, what the difference if two people decide to "play it out" and just turtle for an hour. Accomplishes the same end no?
I just think its a legitimate strategic move, and should be part of the overall strategy. | |
Kaiserluger - | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 11:48 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Shadow_Fox
It is obvious that everyone thinks that the intentional draw Doug Lee and I took was cheating.
Egads no. It clearly was NOT cheating ... how can it be if it is explicitly in the rules? I think perhaps some are dissappointed that the final placement and outcome was determined by a match NOT being played as opposed to being played and that causes some angst.
quote:
WE SAW A DRAW AS LEGAL or we would not even have considered it in the slightest. Because we are friends and team mates it has been viewed as a collaboration to cheat the system for the betterment of said team but PLEASE believe me when I say that was not our intent at all.
Either way, it IS legal and according to the specific universal rules, use of the intentional draw SHOULD NOT be considered cheating or collusion.
quote:
Doug and I are both deeply regretful that this has turned into such a huge debacle. Chris found the post where Mike D said that it is not intended for draws to be in DDM. Neither Doug, John aka Gadzooks (our judge), Jason (our TO) nor myself had any idea that Miked D had ever said anything like this. We honestly thought nothing was wrong with our action. It was a mistake made by all four of us.
No, I found the post by Mike but that only highlights the issue.
Mike posted that he felt ties were not something they wanted to occur in DDM. That's fine. Everyone can "not want that to happen" as much as they want but as long as it is in the floor rules it will.
You and Bonepinhimmer did nothing wrong in agreeing to the intentional draw. What you did you exposed a clear difference in understanding of the rules between different DDM community members. This disparity of understanding needs to be resolved (and preferably quickly).
There are many folks (myself included) who believe that the INTENTION of the game is to not allow for ties and draws and we've voiced such. The Pats, Kiddoc, me, Newtoncain I think, others. We've also posted that regardless of our believe and what we'd like to see it is pretty clear what rules exist right now.
Heck, I'd like to see the incorporeal roll changed to be done in the same direction as the others, simply for consistency. I don't particularly like the way it is done now but that's the rule and thus that's the game.
Don't beat yourself up for the draw. Sure, maybe some folks are angry ... but the rules support your action. Perhaps this event (as Kiddoc suggests) may be the first small pebble in an avalanche of change. Perhaps not. I know I'm re-reading the DCI Universal rules again myself .... | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
12507 Posts
The Fortress of Solitude
| | 06/06/2005 11:57 AM |
| | Balduran I makes a good point. If we make ID's illegal, then what about conceding a match? If a guy has a medical emergency, he has to be allowed to concede. But one could also fake a medical emergency in order to achieve a desired "team" result. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
Avatar of the Tank
Newtoncain
Commander
2985 Posts
Land of 10,000 taxes
| | 06/06/2005 12:02 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Shadow_Fox
I
It is obvious that everyone thinks that the intentional draw Doug Lee and I took was cheating. Doug and I come from a strong Magic: The Gathering background (around 7 years) and draws were common place and happened in every tournement. Due to our familliarity with intentional draws, and knowing it was legal as according to the DCI floor rules we didnt think anything of this action. It certainly was not our intent to "cheat" or "rob" anyone of anything but many people certainly feel that it was exactly that.
I don't think EVERYONE thinks you and Doug Cheated, I know I've never seen either of you cheat in the matches I've had vs either of you.
I do think that some are upset that an unknown rule to the DDM comunity was exposed at a high level event (MN qualifier).
I'm sure I would have been upset if I was there and lost out of the final 4 via a ID. But you 2 had the rule correct.
What you did was good 4 the DDM community, everyone now knows about this rule.
BTW-Try to make it down to the MD if you can btwn now and the AF pre-release. Now that you have both qualified, maybe you can come to play for "Fun". Your ranking really doesn't matter until after GenCon and the next tourney season begins. Plus the Meta game will change a little after AF is on the sceen.
If you do come, lets do a match or 2 before/after tourney. Sinse I don't play when I judge, unless there is a bye. | |
They just don't know what's good in life...Conan, tell them what is good in life.
To rip the boosters. To count the minis spilled out before you, and to hear the indifference of the women... | |
|
Thespian
Sergeant
442 Posts
Lethbridge, Alberta
| | 06/06/2005 12:07 PM |
| [quote]Originally posted by Shadow_Fox
I feel horible that it has turned into what it has. If I could go back in time and tell myself not to do it I would without a second thought.quote]
I was not there, nor do I know anyone on these boards. I don't know who you are and I certainly do not condone anyone calling a persons reputation on such a forum as this. This person should have done this in person instead of making it a pubilc opinion case out of it.
That said, if you feel so bad for exploiting a loop-hole, give up your spot to the next highest ranking person that you took.
I doubt you will do that. Obviously.
If you are not going to give up that spot, then please stop trying to defend your actions. It sounds hollow and insincere. I read these boards to catch up on warbands and tourney reports, not to read about someone who finds a backdoor through a qualifier and then throws up their arms and says "its not my fault". You made the call, you knew how it was going to pan out. Play the game or stay at home. | |
A wand of silence means never having to say you're sorry.
CHAMPION OF THE ANNIS HAG!!! | |
| 2004 D&D Miniatures Champion
Kiddoc
Underboss
1797 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 12:19 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Shadow_Fox
Im sorry, I did say everyone saw it as cheating but I know thta there are those that didnt see it as such and supported us and for that I am very grateful.
I agree this rule needs to be changed NOW so no one else makes the same blunder as we did.
Yeah, no question that I don't believe it was cheating. But I think to protect the integrity and reputation of the game and of any "team" then situations like this need to be rectified to avoid things unintentionally looking like collusion. I have no idea how to do it in practice, but I'm sure somebody will come up with something.
I hope you don't feel the need to defend yourself. I'm glad you took the opportunity to explain the situation. In a sense, and to add a little humor, you'll pardon my pun if I say that the two of you "took one for the team." [)] You've brought a problem to our attention before it could get out of hand, and I think we're all appreciative to get a look at it before the Championships.
I'm disappointed at what the thread devolved to on the WoTC forums as well, but hey, we know what to expect there. I'm quite happy with the level of civility that's surrounded the discussion here, and I hope that it will continue. This issue needs to be discussed (though not beaten to death), and flaming and needless invective are counterproductive to getting things accomplished. What should be discussed are the facts and the issues, not the people (or the character/reputation of the people) involved. Nobody can comment on a locked thread.
I'm looking foward to seeing how O.P. and the Dev team respond to the issue, because I think it's a really tough one. | |
POST DISCLAIMER: Above post may contain humor. Now with micro scrubbing bubbles. Do not operate heavy machinery. Take with food. Use only as directed. Contents may settle during shipping. No user-servicable parts inside. Void where prohibited. Beware of dog. This side up. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. No salt, MSG, or artificial coloring or flavoring added. Actual cash value of this post is 1/100th of a cent. Avoid contact with skin... | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 12:21 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by kaiserluger
For competitive tournaments, I don't think there is anything wrong about the intentional draw. In large fields, you are going to need to win the bulk of your matches anyhow.
Besides, what the difference if two people decide to "play it out" and just turtle for an hour. Accomplishes the same end no?
I just think its a legitimate strategic move, and should be part of the overall strategy.
The problem is that a draw distributes the risk differently than a loss. With the game not being a team sport, and where collusion is to be discouraged at least, having more tools with which to collude is a bad thing. Reducing the number of tools is a good thing.
It doesn't acomplish the same end because conceding means that *someone* on the "team" gets zero points. | |
| |
|
Zenako
Commander
3472 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 12:33 PM |
| Any sport or competition which by its rules offers any encouragement to less than full effort will face these problems. It does require a good deal of info to make it work, and independant success against other foes to make it pay off. The same sort of problem could exist in a game sport like Competitive Scrabble. There the final seedings are based on records and point differential. Depending on the size of the field, the next to last round might pit two people/teams that with a draw could meet in the finals, while a split would put one in the finals and team from the second or third table would then make the finals. That is because the first ranking criteria is record, then sorted by point differential. So at the time of the 5th round for example, you might have a couple of undefeated teams (playing each other in the swiss format) and a bunch of teams with only one loss on the books. If the two undefeated teams end up 4-0-1, then they would finish ahead of all the 4-1 teams, regardless of points scored. That is a result that benefits both sides since they are now ensured of playing in the championship match, although the loser may well finish back in the pack behind a few 5-1 teams with his 4-1-1 record, it does ensure that only those two get to play for the chance to win the tournement. That is why the top matches at a scrabble tournement have multiple judges watching them in the last few rounds, to look for this kind of system gaming that could alter the outcomes of the tournement. With top prizes in the thousands of dollars to the winners, that is something to be careful of.
The risk I see is if the DDM gaming gets bigger, and the tournements start offering bigger and more tempting prizes, the lure of trying to find ways to game the system to win those prizes will become all the greater.
As for Intentional Draws and Concessions, two thoughts. ID's should probably not be allowed, however an actual draw should still be on the books since it could in theory happen, but is extremely hard to get to. Concessions should remain. There are many legitimate reasons why someone may choose to concede. They could be hopelessly behind in the game and see no point in rolling it out, they could be sick, or have other problems. Think about chess, I can recall a few times where the top players in a best of X tourney just showed up and conceded a match as a tactical move to recover strength and mental focus. (Kind of like the Miami Heat punting on Game 6 the other night in the hopes that they will be healthy enough to actually win Game 7.) To remove some of the advantage of concessions, the rule could be written to permit concessions only have X rounds, or a certain amount of time has elasped in the round. For a 60 minute round, perhaps a minimum time of 30 minutes elasped or something like 4 rounds of play, before a concession can be offered in the match? That would reduce some of the tactical advantage of getting a break, but still allow it as tactic.
The other issue of stalling is one of sportsmanship, however that too could be handled in a timed tournement by including a time clock, not unlike a chess clock. Scrabble tournements use one (each side gets something like 22 minutes to play and hits the clock each time the turn is passed). If you run over your time allowed, then points are subtracted from your score for determining the winner of the match. Well perhaps in a 60 minute match each side gets 30 minutes of clock time. At the conclusion of play, assuming neither side has completed a total victory yet the time on the clocks is factored in. For every minute left on your clock you get a point (or something like that) and for every minute over 30 that you took, you subtract a point. So lets assume in a match where one side decides to stall and ends up using 45 minutes of the hour on their turns. They would get a point adjustment of -15, while thier foe would get a +15 point adjustment. | |
Built the addition for this addiction, now on to the "gaming table" project....
http://www.maxminis.com/hw_list.asp?user=Zenako last updated 29 May 2006
Set Status: in a nutshell = all of all
In Process trades 0), (Sig last updated 05/29/06) 300 plus Completed Trades -
If I seem scarce at times...blame DDO - Sarlona | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 12:36 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Thenameless
Balduran I makes a good point. If we make ID's illegal, then what about conceding a match? If a guy has a medical emergency, he has to be allowed to concede. But one could also fake a medical emergency in order to achieve a desired "team" result.
IMO trying to make giving up illegal is like outlawing the sunrise. It just makes the king look delusional. So it shouldn't be done.
As well, having a rule that your butt has to be in the chair for 50 minutes is petty. If I'm getting hammered, and at the 35 minute mark have 50 points to his 120, and no prospects of killing anything else, I want to be able to say "Good game" and end it.
What *can* be done is:
1) Make the culture one in which every game is played. As simple as that - if you're not up to playing every round, don't enter.
2) Anyone who does concede or otherwise throw games to collude is labled a ####### ****er. Totally subjective, of course, but that comes with the territory in any community.
3) If someone is arrogant enough to do it and admit it, or make it blatant, they're punished under the rules against collusion.
4) Make there be no possiblity of a tie. Someone always wins (3 points) and someone always loses (0 points). | |
| |
|
YRM_DM
Sergeant
905 Posts
| | 06/06/2005 1:54 PM |
| Shadow_fox, I don't know you, but, you sound like a reasonable guy.
While intentionally drawing may not have been against the rules, I do believe that it was the wrong thing to do. Something can be legal, but still be wrong. (think about what people do with free speech)
I live in Pittsburgh. Last year, in the final game of the season, Pittsburgh played Buffalo. If Buffalo won, they were in the playoffs. If Pittsburgh won, I believe it was either Denver or the Ravens that made the playoffs (Denver did).
We had a chance, by losing, to make sure that the only team to beat us in the regular season did not advance into the playoffs... but Pittsburgh rested some key guys, went out and won that game. (only to lose a few rounds later to New England)
The NFL made it very clear to Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and other teams already set for the playoffs, that they must field a competitive team (resting star players is ok) and that the game must be played competitively under threat of fine or worse.
By that standard, it'd be ok if a top player didn't put his longest or best effort into winning his final, meaningless match... but, going through the motions does something to stir people's competitive juices anyway.
Even if a person is going to play lazy, they should still play.
There are actually times in football where two teams are playing the last game of the season.
Team A - Win or tie and they're in.
Team B - Win or tie and they're in.
Both teams could clearly agree to "tie" and try to make it look good, but they'd have to put so much effort into making it look good, and it'd leave a bad taste in so many people's mouths, that it just doesn't happen.
No matter what the DDM rules say, good sportsmanship should not allow:
1 - Borderline intentional stalling that can't be called.
2 - Tossing a game to a friend in any way.
3 - Intentionally Drawing to give yourself or a friend any kind of advantage.
Believe me, this isn't personal because I don't know any of the parties involved, but, sportsmanship isn't just for the people who lose and it doesn't just apply to taunting or losing one's temper.
You can almost understand how a person can get frustrated and have an outburst, even though it's wrong, but, isn't a planned action to aid a fellow player to tightrope the rules even worse?
This time, it may not have been done with that intent, but, any other time, from here on out, isn't it inexecusable? Even if people get away with it? | |
Completed good trades with Demagogue, PigSnot, DoB, and Alepulp.
I know you can hear MY thoughts... Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow, Meow... | |
|
Mook_Farchings
Sneak
172 Posts
Salt Lake City
| | 06/06/2005 2:09 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kiddoc
No.
There can be no double standard.
Here's a little snip from the DCI floor rules on just such a subject:
quote:
25. Conceding Games or Matches
Players may concede a game or match at any time within the following guidelines. The conceded game or match is recorded as a loss for the conceding player. If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she concedes the match.
The following actions are prohibited:
§ Offering or accepting a bribe or prize split in exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop, or draw of a match
Players who engage in these actions will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have won as they wish, such as with teammates, as long as any such sharing does not occur as an exchange for the win, loss, concession, drop or draw of a game or match.
EXCEPTION: Players in the final match of the single-elimination portion of a tournament have the option not to play their match. If both players of the final match agree not to play, one of them must agree to drop from the event (in order for prizes to be awarded). The DCI ratings of the players will not be affected because no match will have been played. The dropping player receives the second-place prize, and the other finalist receives the first-place prize.
Question: I remember a post where, in a qualifier, the two finalists "split" the prize money.:
quote:
There was no finals—we split, he dropped, but it was the same Beholder band I previously didn’t play, and favorable had we not split, being low on activations. It was a match where tile points would become an issue, as speed 4 doesn’t get anywhere quickly—even with Beholder performing an electric slide.
http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3720
Is this an illegal split of prizes for a win, or a legal drop to second place and a subsequent sharing of prizes? | |
Champion of Human Glaiver
(Royal Guard doesn't count! ;P )
Har 80/80, Drag 60/60, Arch 60/60, GoL 72/72, Aber 60/60, DK 58/60, AngF 59/60, UD 60/60, WD 60/60, WotDQ 60/60, BW 58/60 Icons 2/5My Trade List | |
|
|
|
|
|