Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Not to pick on you, Philip, but will German players really not play at all if they can't split single-based prizes?

I believe the suggestion here is that it is easier for a store to choose not to sanction an event such as a “Legacy for Duals” type tournament instead of having to drop this hammer on their players for doing what any logical group of gamers would do: find a way to come out ahead. Not that players wouldn't play in them, but why would a store bother to sanction their tournament if it is becoming a substantial burden on their players with more disadvantage than advantage.

I don't think this is the tipping point, but it is another peg in the argument against running bigger store level event as sanctioned tournaments.

Edited Marc DeArmond (July 31, 2015 11:33:26 AM)

Could someone explain to me where:

“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.”

implies in any way that 3 (or you know, the relevant number) players may not agree to share prizes they haven't received as they wish so long as they are prizes available for splitting.

It's worth noting that that shouldn't have any bearing (and vice-versa) on:

Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly. The players may end the tournament at that point, or continue to play. All players still in the tournament must agree to the arrangement.

Which is an entirely different mechanism that ends an event. It sounds like a conflation of the two.
———-

I think in order to say it is illegal for top 4 of a $1k PPTQ to agree to a cash-split, you have to make the 4-person carpool split illegal. And I've never heard of the 4 person carpool split being illegal. Can anyone think of a logically coherent reason why one 4 person split is illegal while another isn't given that neither of them influence match outcome?

I have to agree with Will here. The incentive is still there to play Magic, as the players are still there for whatever non-splittable prize there is. We already know that we, as judges, cannot regulate what happens to the product once it's been given out. Is it correct for us to turn a blind eye as the top 4 or 8 players step outside for a cigarette break prior to the continuation of the event to decide if they want to split? Will creative players find a solution to the “problem” of splits not being offered in the same way that they have for virtually every competitive event I've been a part of for over a year?

The first section that Will quoted seems to support prize splits being fine, so long as the split is not occurring in exchange for a game or match result.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Philip Körte
To be more specific: Should this be the official stance, that would probably mean that we will decide to not sanction any of the major german tournament weekends aside from the WMCQ/PPTQs in order to not inconvenience ourselves or our players.

Not to pick on you, Philip, but will German players really not play at all if they can't split single-based prizes? This seems a little extreme - alternatives include:

– Just playing the tournament and players who win receive more prizes
– Deciding that product isn't so bad after all - you can draft with it, or sell it to friends to draft with it.
– Holding more Standard or Limited events where players won't mind sealed product
– Paying prizes based on swiss standing, with the unsplittable stuff in the playoffs
– Edit: If they always split anyway, just make all Top 8 (or 1-4/5-8) prizes the same

I know that there are a lot of folks who feel that this interpretation of policy is problematic - I fully expect to get complained at this weekend at my PPTQ when I tell players that they've got to play Magic to figure out who gets how much cash. But let's not by hyperbolic about our reactions - tournament organizers are smart folks, and I'm sure they'll find a way to attract players to events even if players can't split non-cash, non-booster prizes in events with an unsplittable component.

Player will play when the prizes are not splittable.
There is just no reason for them not to be, and that's the whole point.

Your points really don't make much sense from a TO point of view, either.
In order: Giving out more prizes means making less money. This is a possibility, but I feel our prizes are pretty good to start with.
Product IS that bad. These are Legacyplayers we are talk about. Winning 2 boxes or Origins is not at all interesting.
We can hold more Standard/Limited Tournaments, but if our players want to play Legacy, it makes no sense to not offer Legacy and to tell them ‘go play Limited instead’. That just does not work, as you will agree.

The point I was trying to raise is not that this is preventing us from holding Legacy/Modern Tournaments. The point is that we will just decide to not sanction them anymore, because why would we decide to do that if the main thing it does is taking away choices from the players for no reasonable reason (As you might have noticed, I do not find it reasonable that money is splittable, and that 4 boosters are considered splittable, but store credit vouchers are not, and neither are e.g. 4 bloodstained mires).
The downside of not sanctioning is that players do not get PWPs, and that the tournament does not show up in the event locator. The upsides are layed out in this thread.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (July 31, 2015 07:41:58 PM)

If being able to have prize splits in the top 8 will really be the difference between sanctioning the event or not can you not preempt it and offer a flat prize structure in the top 8?

My locals just posed a question to me that I feel they can do, but wanted to make sure:

PPTQ has forty people and 40 boxes in the prize pool. BEFORE the first round of Swiss, can they have a vote about whether the top 8 prizes will be 20-10-3-3-1-1-1-1 or 5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5 ?

I see this plausibly not being okay, since it's basically forty people agreeing to a prize split, but my gut says it should be fine.

Before swiss, it's just the TO polling players to see what a good prize structure for his event would be. The MTR doesn't even enter into it yet from what I can see.

So if I'm head judging a GPT, say, do I just announce that prizes can not be split, explain the MTR reasoning behind it, and leave it at that? Because I can think of a ton of players who would be pissed that splitting isn't an option, and I'd like to know how to preempt any aggression/annoyance/riots/etc.

> So if I'm head judging a GPT, say, do I just announce that prizes can not be split, explain the MTR reasoning behind it, and leave it at that? Because I can think of a ton of players who would be pissed that splitting isn't an option, and I'd like to know how to preempt any aggression/annoyance/riots/etc.
>


Realistically this shouldn't be a problem at stores already adhering to the MTR. If that's the case, no announcement is necessary. If it's done intermittently, maybe a quick word at the start of the top 8. If someone asks if they can split, just say “no, it's not permitted”

If it's an expectation of the majority of players, make an announcement before the event.
Acknowledge the change and that events have been run improperly in the past, and while they have created expectations, the TO cannot offer a split now that you are aware of the correct way, and events will be run according to the MTR, and any complaints should be directed to wizards.
If you hedge your language with “I know this sucks guys…” then you are validating any anger they might be feeling and could lead to more fussing. A calm, firm, *polite* “this is the way it is”, works wonders.


If it's deeply seated in the players mind that not being able to split the packs and play for the invite is a violation of their basic civil liberties, just make all the cash/pack prizes for 1-8 the same prior to the event.

-bryan

———————————————
This space intentionally left blank

I have not read all of the reddit thread. If this was covered there, please forgive me.

Reading thr MTR, we are given this example:
“Example: In the finals of a 1-slot Pro Tour Qualifier that offers a travel award and an invitation to the winner, the two finalists may agree to split the tournament prizes, but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the tournament, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop from the tournament. That player is then free to split the remainder of the prizes as agreed upon. The travel award and invitation are a single item and may not be split.”

Doesn't this imply that the packs/cash can be split, and that the invite can be played for?

There are different rules regarding the last round of playoffs:

As an exception, players in the announced last
round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In
that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament.

The point is not that players always want to split. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Maybe swiss took way longer than expected and everyone wants to go home.
The point is that the distinction between money and vouchers, and between sealed boosters and e.g. fetch lands seems completely arbitrary. If asked, I couldn't come up with any reasoning for it besides ‘wotc said so’. We also have standard tournaments with boosters as prizes, and it is just completelying mind boggling to me why the tournament with 8 boxes can split, but the one with 8 bayou cannot. If anyone can come up with a good reason for it, I'm all ears, but so far, I have not seen any, tbh.

Booster boxes of the same set (along with unopened product, cash, credit, etc) are fungible. Bayous are not.

That actually kind of makes sense. It doesn't explain why store credit is considered unsplittable though.

I could see treating store credit differently to cash as a way to
ensure they aren't endorsing a currency. There are also good arguments
for it being different as it isn't portable, you can't take your store
credit to another store.

As for a reason why this is the way it is: WotC's lawyers believe it
is very important to maintain an appearance of zero gambling and
bribery, this is towards avoiding sanctions in various legal
jurisdictions. It also protects TOs from crossing such legal
boundaries in most places.

All that said I'm a bit sad about this, it does limit the stores I'm
willing to work with as those stores aren't willing to follow this
rule.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Philip Körte
<forum-20090-2ea8@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> That actually kind of makes sense. It doesn't explain why store credit is
> considered unsplittable though.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/131340/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/20090/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/20090/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”