Originally posted by Andrew Heckt:

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

I'll chime in a bit with a sort of IC philosophy that falls right in line with this idea. Some players who get DQ'ed will say that they KNEW that they were walking a fine line and they THOUGHT they were just barely on the right side of the line. IC might still suspend these guys (if the infraction otherwise indicates for a suspension).

The point is this: if you KNOW you are walking close to a line and you have thought about how to probe across it without actually going across it, then you are aware at least that your behavior is problematic. And you should then also be aware that if you miscalculate or misunderstand something by just a small amount - or if you succumb to just a small temptation, you are going to be on the hook when stuff comes crashing down.

So, like Andy says, just stay away from it :)

Eric Shukan
Investigations

It is simply better for everyone if we do not try to assist players in trying to buy a match through semantics, and instead educate them to just stay well clear of the danger zone.

From: Eric Shukan
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:10 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: UC - Bribery and Collusion, splitting and conceeding into top8 (Competitive REL)

Andrew Heckt
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

I'll chime in a bit with a sort of IC philosophy that falls right in line with this idea. Some players who get DQ'ed will say that they KNEW that they were walking a fine line and they THOUGHT they were just barely on the right side of the line. IC might still suspend these guys (if the infraction otherwise indicates for a suspension).

The point is this: if you KNOW you are walking close to a line and you have thought about how to probe across it without actually going across it, then you are aware at least that your behavior is problematic. And you should then also be aware that if you miscalculate or misunderstand something by just a small amount - or if you succumb to just a small temptation, you are going to be on the hook when stuff comes crashing down.

So, like Andy says, just stay away from it :)

Eric Shukan
Investigations

——————————————————————————–
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/108120/

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/

Originally posted by Preston May:

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.

So. As long as the players aren't iffing or anding or in any way connecting the decicions to split and concede it's OK. This means that after agreeing on a split Anna could say “We'll maximize our combined price pot if you concede now, Do you concede?” as long as she doesn't in any way imply or say that the split is gone if Niels doesn't concede? Or would you consider that bullying Niels? Bribing Niels?

I'm writing an article for Norwegian players about this, and my main agenda is going to be: “Don't walk the line, don't touch the line, stay the .. away from the line”. If you're thinking “how can I communicate to my opponent that I'll bribe him for a match win, but how can I communicate it to him within the rules?” then you're way past the line and should just play the game. But if you genuinly want to split prices and you know that it's in the best interest for both of you with a concession after a split, you're allowed to at least ask for the concession.

Is this ok?
Player A: “When I win, I will give my prizes to you”.

Finals of a comp rel event, if it changes anything.

Regards
Tomas Sukaitis

It's only really a finals if it is Single Elimination.
In which case that would be fine.

In Swiss rounds, I would DQ for Bribery.
But by the sound of it I would DQ many more people for Bribery than most…

-R.

2015-03-12 12:38 GMT+01:00 Tomas Sukaitis <

Espen, Tomas, please re-read Andy's message again - instead of trying to tiptoe around the line ourselves.

Also, be aware that we (L4+) know that these rules are difficult to fully comprehend and explain, and that we are working on that - but that's also one of the more complex areas of policy, and change is glacially slow.

d:^D

I agree with Richards philosophy.

- Player’s should be allowed to ask their opponent, if he/she is willing to concede or to go for a draw.
- Player’s should be allowed to offer a price split.
But any conversation that contains both statements is not OK.

There shouldn't be a line where anyone can walk close to.

We can’t prevent things like:
A: Do you wanna concede/draw
B: Yes
A+B: Sign -> handing in the result
A+B: walking away -> talking about whatever

Originally posted by Ralph Glätsch:

We can’t prevent things like:
A: Do you wanna concede/draw
B: Yes
A+B: Sign -> handing in the result
A+B: walking away -> talking about whatever

We can certainly try to prevent things like this, simply by keeping an eye on the players for a little time afterwards, be that obviously (to deny the opportunity to collude) or subtly (to catch them if they do).

Certainly we can't succeed in preventing this every time, but we should still be trying to.

Honestly, if you are not trying to define the line, the concept of bribery is easy to instruct players about.

You can agree to a prize split before any mention of match outcome occurs.
When a match has ended and you have received your prizes, they are yours.

Should you do anything to raise a suspicion that one agreement was contingent upon the other; you are too close to the line.
If you are thinking, how can I get my opponent to concede to me by offering a prize split; you are far too close to the line.

As a judge you should NOT be trying to assist players to get close to the line. As a judge you should be educating them to keep far away from the line. Far, far, away.

So STOP trying to find how close to a line you can get or how and what language to use to get to it and get in line with your role.


Andy


From: Scott Marshall
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 5:50 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: UC - Bribery and Collusion, splitting and conceeding into top8 (Competitive REL)


Espen, Tomas, please re-read Andy's message again - instead of trying to tiptoe around the line ourselves.

Also, be aware that we (L4+) know that these rules are difficult to fully comprehend and explain, and that we are working on that - but that's also one of the more complex areas of policy, and change is glacially slow.

d:^D

——————————————————————————–
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/108223/

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/

I agree with Andy, we should not encourage this kind of situations. But the problem is that players want to do legal things, and want to maximize their prize, so we are most likely gonna find ourselves in such predicaments, and even if we instruct them to be far away from the line, we not to be able to define which is the line in order to do our job.

Honestly, I had an interpretation on this until this summer (winter in the north xD), and after an article that I won't comment (do not talk about investigations), the subsequent discussion, and the “wink post”, I think I improved my understanding on the issue.

Before, I thought the problem was linguistic. If they say one before, and the other after, then is not bribery; backwards, it was. Nowadays I think that's a pretty cynical approach, and we can (and should) be able to analyze the situation better. What we are looking for is an intention to exchange something for a concession:

The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive. Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an offer calls for a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament.

Some interesting things to point out:
“in exchange for an influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive”
Note that this involves not only the presence of the reward or incentive, but the offer of such.
as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result
“In exchange”, in my opinion, invokes an offer or an agreement (which is why I think that a wink could provoke a DQ)

So, I don't think both of the elements (concession and split) being close to each other are enough for a bribery. There need to be an offer (implicit or explicit) and/or an exchange in order to be bribery. If two players agree to split (50-50) before even discussing anything, and then one of them says “hey, if you concede to me I will get to the top 8, and you can't. That would mean more boosters for you (as they had splitted 50-50) than if you win” both things (concession and split) are present, the concession was caused by an incentive (the will to gain more boosters), but there WASN'T an offer involved. Note that I do think that players trying to use linguistic games in order to legally exchange a concession for a split are in bribery territory, even if they don't technically say it, like: “you know, if you concede to me I could, without obligation, share part of my prizes with you (wink, wink)”.

All good things here.

An important concept I am trying to impart here is this:

Do not help guide players in the gray area or finer details. Keep it simple for them.

Metaphor:
Bribery is a mine-field.
We post a barrier well outside the mine-field telling players, Danger, do not enter!
When a player indicates to you they wish to enter the mine-field anyhow, it is NOT your role to help them.
It is your role to tell them not to enter. It is dangerous to enter. There is no good reason to enter. Stay on this side of the barrier.


Explain the clear and easy of prize splitting
“You can agree to a prize split before any mention of match result occurs.
When a match has ended and you have received your prizes, they are yours.”
Caution them
“Should you do anything to raise a suspicion that one agreement was contingent upon the other; I could conclude you are committing bribery and DQ you.
If you are thinking, but judge, I want you to guide me on how can I get my opponent to concede to me by offering a prize split; then I will be DQing you if you don’t change your thinking.

We need to stop seeing our role is to help players to navigate the nuances so they can cheat properly.
We need to see our role is to exemplify a higher standard, but only penalize if they break the rules.

Andy



From: Joaquín Ossandón
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:56 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: UC - Bribery and Collusion, splitting and conceeding into top8 (Competitive REL)


I agree with Andy, we should not encourage this kind of situations. But the problem is that players want to do legal things, and want to maximize their prize, so we are most likely gonna find ourselves in such predicaments, and even if we instruct them to be far away from the line, we not to be able to define which is the line in order to do our job.

Honestly, I had an interpretation on this until this summer (winter in the north xD), and after an article that I won't comment (do not talk about investigations), the subsequent discussion, and the “wink post”, I think I improved my understanding on the issue.

Before, I thought the problem was linguistic. If they say one before, and the other after, then is not bribery; backwards, it was. Nowadays I think that's a pretty cynical approach, and we can (and should) be able to analyze the situation better. What we are looking for is an intention to exchange something for a concession:
The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive. Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an offer calls for a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament.

Some interesting things to point out:
“in exchange for an influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive”
Note that this involves not only the presence of the reward or incentive, but the offer of such.
as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result
“In exchange”, in my opinion, invokes an offer or an agreement (which is why I think that a wink could provoke a DQ)

So, I don't think both of the elements (concession and split) being close to each other are enough for a bribery. There need to be an offer (implicit or explicit) and/or an exchange in order to be bribery. If two players agree to split (50-50) before even discussing anything, and then one of them says “hey, if you concede to me I will get to the top 8, and you can't. That would mean more boosters for you (as they had splitted 50-50) than if you win” both things (concession and split) are present, the concession was caused by an incentive (the will to gain more boosters), but there WASN'T an offer involved. Note that I do think that players trying to use linguistic games in order to legally exchange a concession for a split are in bribery territory, even if they don't technically say it, like: “you know, if you concede to me I could, without obligation, share part of my prizes with you (wink, wink)”.

——————————————————————————–
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/108437/

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/

Because there are many finding it hard to see the logic of changing our behavior I will give this other example.


If a player were to come to you and ask “Judge, I would like to harass my opponent, can you explain to me how I can do that and not be DQ’d?” your reaction I expect is not to attempt to explain to them how we determine harassment or the policies regarding harassment; I dearly hope your reaction is ‘why would I help you harass someone by explaining the nuances of our rules? Go back to your seat and treat your opponent with respect and inclusiveness.’


We need to stop seeing our role is to help players to navigate the nuances so they can cheat properly.
We need to see our role is to exemplify a higher standard, but only penalize if they break the rules.

This is what I was looking for. Thank you Andy!

Originally posted by Andrew Heckt:

Explain the clear and easy of prize splitting
“You can agree to a prize split before any mention of match result occurs.
When a match has ended and you have received your prizes, they are yours.”
Caution them
“Should you do anything to raise a suspicion that one agreement was contingent upon the other; I could conclude you are committing bribery and DQ you.
If you are thinking, but judge, I want you to guide me on how can I get my opponent to concede to me by offering a prize split; then I will be DQing you if you don’t change your thinking.

It occurs to me that situations like these (I'd like to commit bribery, kinda sorta) almost always occurs with cuts to top-8, and usually on a pair-down, where only one player has a shot at top-8. Is there anything we can do with tournament structure to minimize the occurrence of that pair-down situation? Can we make a more specific policy that takes into account the pair-down situation (or is inspired by it)?

The only way to avoid pairdowns is to have attendance at an exact power of
2 (32, 64, etc.) and no draws. The chances of that happening are nearly
zero. As for specific policy, I would recommend instead looking over the
pairings in the later rounds to identify pairdowns where such problems
could occur and direct additional judge monitoring to those areas.