If the split has already been agreed to, I have no problem with any of the
four questions. At this point, they're talking about how to maximize their
returns for something they've already agreed to do. However, there is a
line that can be crossed over which is more along the lines of badgering or
bullying the opponent into the concession.

We can't make people play Magic when it's not in their best interests, though, especially when it's so hard for us to enforce ‘thrown’ games (which would be commonplace if concessions weren't allowed). After the split, a concession by the X-2 player is the best outcome from his perspective - he doesn't even want to win the match, because it would lower his prize. Perhaps he knows this, perhaps he doesn't, but why would we make it illegal for the opponent to help him maximize his prizes?

As currently worded, you can (very carefully) combine match results and prize splits, but - as George and others have noted - you can't make either dependent on the other.

This gets really tricky, though, and Richard's advice to players, and his philosophy, is the best way to avoid any trouble.

d:^D

It would be best for us all though, if we could work out what is allowed
and what isn't. Otherwise a player risks being DQ'd by me while another
judge let them continue about their business while doing/saying the exact
same thing.
Op 11 mrt. 2015 15:18 schreef “Scott Marshall” <

Originally posted by Richard Drijvers:

And that's exactly why I don't believe any of it should be/is okay.

We want people to play Magic, not buy games/matches.

What I am about to say is going to sound very cynical… I think what the policy ensures is that there isn't the appearance that money/prizes are being used to influence the outcome of a match.

I think there are two ways to view this:

(1) A negotiation about prizes can be discrete from a negotiation about results. If that is true, then the order of these negotiations cannot be relevant as the negotiations are treated as discrete. (In order to violate policy the discussions would need to be intermixed.) Otherwise, policy would need to dictate that such negotiations have to occur in a specific order to avoid the appearance of such influence on the results.

(2) A negotiation about prizes can never be discrete from a negotiation about results. If this is true, then the order of these negotiations cannot be relevant, as the one always influences the other. (You could never negotiation these separately in any circumstances.) However, that has not been the practice from my recent observations nor my reading of policy.

Now, there's obviously huge grey area on this issue and policy has morphed over time, let alone actual practice. Especially given that comparable situations can result in different outcomes, as some people could think they are within policy and yet do one “small” thing to violate policy.

We talked about this a lot on the way to GP Liverpool and it's one of those things that there's unlikely to be judge consensus on - personally I'm fine with the situation in the OP but I definitely know judges who would DQ for that.

Originally posted by Matt Crocker:

We talked about this a lot on the way to GP Liverpool and it's one of those things that there's unlikely to be judge consensus on - personally I'm fine with the situation in the OP but I definitely know judges who would DQ for that.

This is the main crux of the issue, though: the lack of judge consensus.

Richard Drijvers
It would be best for us all though, if we could work out what is allowed
and what isn't. Otherwise a player risks being DQ'd by me while another
judge let them continue about their business while doing/saying the exact
same thing.

This is the exact point I wanted to make, but is far more concise than I was going to be. I would like to emphasize the point, however, as I do not believe a situation where a player can learn a specific sequence of linguistic hoops to jump through to achieve their objective from one judge only to get a DQ from another judge for that same sequence is tenable.

As I understand it, the policy exists because we do not want players giving other players things in exchange for match results. But we do want to allow players to agree on splitting their prizes. And players are generally going to take whatever set of actions yields optimal gain. If I cannot even offer to split prizes with my opponent because that offer informs their decision to concede, we aren't allowing players to agree on splitting their prizes. If all players understand that, after the offer of such a prize split, a concession is met with a DQ, why wouldn't every player in that situation just shuffle up and intentionally play suboptimally, something we have no rule against as I understand it, to achieve the exact same result for them without penalty? I do not think that should be necessary, nor does it make sense.

Edited Jacob Milicic (March 11, 2015 10:00:31 AM)

+1 to Richard

Any discussion of prize split that is contingent upon who wins, loses, or draws is bad.

Prize sharing:
“Do you want to reduce both our risks, and simply split whatever prizes we get 50/50?”
“Sure, sounds fine to me”
“Ok, then if we draw we can both get food before the top 8. Sound good?”
“Excellent plan”

Bribery:
“You know if I win, I get more prizes than you?”
“Really how interesting.”
“So how about we prize split where I get 20 boosters and you get 16, because if I win we get a display, but if I lose between us we only get 24 total.”
“Can’t debate that logic.”





And that's exactly why I don't believe any of it should be/is okay.

We want people to play Magic, not buy games/matches.
-R.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/107989/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

It is important when you try to educate about bribery that you don’t try to educate about how close to the line someone can come; but about the core philosophy and the need to stay far away from the line at all.



From: Andrew Heckt
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:33 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: UC - Bribery and Collusion, splitting and conceeding into top8 (Competitive REL)


+1 to Richard

Any discussion of prize split that is contingent upon who wins, loses, or draws is bad.

Prize sharing:
“Do you want to reduce both our risks, and simply split whatever prizes we get 50/50?”
“Sure, sounds fine to me”
“Ok, then if we draw we can both get food before the top 8. Sound good?”
“Excellent plan”

Bribery:
“You know if I win, I get more prizes than you?”
“Really how interesting.”
“So how about we prize split where I get 20 boosters and you get 16, because if I win we get a display, but if I lose between us we only get 24 total.”
“Can’t debate that logic.”





And that's exactly why I don't believe any of it should be/is okay.

We want people to play Magic, not buy games/matches.
-R.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/107989/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/108044/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

So is conceding to an opponent who offers an even prize split that is not contingent on any match result a case of bribery or not? Does it matter if the conceding player knows the total prize payout to the two players in question is higher when they concede than when they don't? Is the offer of an unconditional and even prize split considered an incentive to influence the match result when one match result clearly results in a greater reward than another?

Edited Jacob Milicic (March 11, 2015 12:40:05 PM)

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

So is conceding to an opponent who offers an even prize split that is not contingent on any match result a case of bribery or not?

If the prize split is agreed upon before a concession is offered or asked of, then no, it is not Bribery.

There are a few key words that always come up: “if”, “then”, and “and”. Players are allowed to ask for a concession and to concede. Players are also allowed to offer a prize split. Neither of these are mutually exclusive in the rules. Where it becomes wrong is when one is dependent on the other. Looking at the situation from the OP:

Originally posted by Espen Skarsbø Olsen:

Anna: “Do you want to split prices”
Niels: “Yes”
Anna: “Do you want to concede to me?”
Niels: “Yes”

Anna asks for a prize split. Completely legal action. Niels responds yes or no. Still legal. First interaction is over and a decision is made. Afterwards at any point in the round Anna asks for a concession. This is a legal action and Niels responds.

Things go wrong when the above situation introduces the key words. “Do you want to split prizes AND concede to me?”, “IF you concede to me….”, “you don't want to concede? THEN I don't want to split anymore.”. To us and players all of this is obvious. Players then find ways to mix in conversation about prizes for certain positions and what may be most beneficial. This is where the gray area is. You could argue that this is a nice way of bullying the other player in to conceding. As judges we need to try and eliminate the gray area and you can see that we have different strategies with varying levels of success. One strategy that I've seen used and like is limiting players conversations around the topic. You can do this in a few ways such as requiring any concessions or draws immediately and if they try deliberating then asking directly if they are going to play their match. Normally this only gives them enough time to ask for the concession or prize split giving no room for the gray area to be introduced.

Communication in general is a huge gray area. Wizards has tried to reduce that by as much as they can with rules, but there will always be a way around them. That is why we exist. It's our job to take the rules given us and apply them to situations. Any time there's a situation in the gray area a ruling either way is acceptable as long as there is sound reasoning behind it. I feel our best option to keep everyone happy is to try and reduce the gray area around the topic rather than mince words and situations. We know what is clearly bribery and what is clearly legal. I would suggest trying to restrict players as much as possible to those two scenarios. Beyond that it's your decision how to rule one way or the other. Just make sure that you have sound reasoning and can explain your reasoning to the players so that they understand and can make better decisions in the future.

This topic reminds me of the 2012 Olympic Badminton Scandal…

Originally posted by Richard Drijvers:

We want people to play Magic, not buy games/matches.
-R.

Sure, but we also acknowledge that people play Magic for different reasons. Some play to test themselves or demonstrate their skill, some play for fun, some play for prizes, etc. We don't have any restrictions on the reasons why people play Magic, and I certainly don't believe we should. Taken to an extreme, this philosophy comes off as almost elitist in the sense of “there's only one pure and proper way to play Magic”.

That said, I do agree that the goal of a tournament is for people to play Magic (instead of buying games), but we do so through prize incentives and punishments for bribery. So practically speaking, it makes sense to encourage the desired behavior by aligning incentives accordingly.

Andy, I'm confused by your post.
On the one hand, you +1 Richard, who said that any concession after a split is bribery.
On the other hand, you give an example that's supposed to be ok, where the players agree on a split and then agree on a draw.

Agreeing on a draw is really no different from agreeing on a concession, as the situation where a draw puts one player into top 8 exists quite often (and in that situation, a draw nets the same result as a concession in other situations).

I also understand the notion of saying ‘Don’t show the players how close they can get to the line, instead steer them away from that line'. I just don't think it's too usefull of advice to give in a discussion on what is allowed or not among those who need to decide what is allowed or not. The difference here is between DQ and no infraction, where there should be consistency.

If we want players to not be able to split and then concede, because it provides better value, the only solution is going Richards way and saying agreeing on any result post-split is forbidden, but also going further and saying so is any split post-concession. As Brian rightfully pointed out, order should not matter, no matter how you look at it.

That is not what policy reflects at the moment. As long as I keep result and split independant of each other, we can agree on both.
Worded differently: As long as both players have the chance to accept one and deny the other, they are good to go. No matter the order, or which person asks the questions.

Examplewise:
A:concede?
B:sure
B:split?
A:sure
is ok.

A:concede?
B:sure
A:split?
B:sure
is ok.

A:split?
B:sure
A:concede?
B:sure
is ok.

A:concede and split?
B:sure
not ok.

The difference beeing that in the last scenario, the players cannot have a split without a concession (or a concession without a split), where in the first ones, they can if one player is unwillig to split/concede.
At least that is how I understand current policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Preston May’s post goes better to where education for the line is.

My point is not about where the line is. My point is that when we educate we shouldn’t try to figure out where the line is; we should tell them stay far away from it.

Andy


From: Philip Körte
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: UC - Bribery and Collusion, splitting and conceeding into top8 (Competitive REL)


Andy, I'm confused by your post.
On the one hand, you +1 Richard, who said that any concession after a split is bribery.
On the other hand, you give an example that's supposed to be ok, where the players agree on a split and then agree on a draw.

Agreeing on a draw is really no different from agreeing on a concession, as the situation where a draw puts one player into top 8 exists quite often (and in that situation, a draw nets the same result as a concession in other situations).

I also understand the notion of saying ‘Don’t show the players how close they can get to the line, instead steer them away from that line'. I just don't think it's too usefull of advice to give in a discussion on what is allowed or not among those who need to decide what is allowed or not. The difference here is between DQ and no infraction, where there should be consistency.

If we want players to not be able to split and then concede, because it provides better value, the only solution is going Richards way and saying agreeing on any result post-split is forbidden, but also going further and saying so is any split post-concession. As Brian rightfully pointed out, order should not matter, no matter how you look at it.

That is not what policy reflects at the moment. As long as I keep result and split independant of each other, we can agree on both.
Worded differently: As long as both players have the chance to accept one and deny the other, they are good to go. No matter the order, or which person asks the questions.

Examplewise:
A:concede?
B:sure
B:split?
A:sure
is ok.

A:concede?
B:sure
A:split?
B:sure
is ok.

A:split?
B:sure
A:concede?
B:sure
is ok.

A:concede and split?
B:sure
not ok.

The difference beeing that in the last scenario, the players cannot have a split without a concession (or a concession without a split), where in the first ones, they can if one player is unwillig to split/concede.
At least that is how I understand current policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.


——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/108114/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16796/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/