I wanted to just chime in that in the history of my playing and judging at PPTQs, we've always allowed players to split in top 8 or top 4 and just play for the invite. I distinctly remember this happening at SCG Opens and PTQs (before PPTQs).

I don't think anyone is adhering to this rule at the moment and it doesn't sound like many people are going to continue to follow it either.

Originally posted by Brad Brown:

I don't think anyone is adhering to this rule at the moment and it doesn't sound like many people are going to continue to follow it either.

Brad - I ran a PPTQ at my home store today. Given Toby and Scott's statements regarding enforcement of this portion of the MTR, I didn't offer my players the option to split at Top 8, explaining that a recent MTR clarification prohibited the usual anonymous vote, and noting that if a player had questions, they should ask me away from the table.

No one did.

I again told the players at Top 4 that they wouldn't be able to split - eliminated players would receive $75, winners would advance to the finals.

No one complained.

We paid out the prizes that were advertised, and players were fine with having to play it out to determine who got what.

I suspect that the drama surrounding this is mostly sound, without much fury. When we explain that this is the policy that Wizards (and Hasbro lawyers) have asked us to follow so that we can still have Magic events at gambling-averse places, I suspect that most players will behave as the good people of Victory Comics (the largest gaming space inside the DC beltway!) did and follow the rules.

I also suspect that players will take their cues from judges here. As Bryan said, if you express disapproval of policy, players will be more apt to complain about it or try to circumvent it. If you sell it as, “This is the way policy works,” players will probably just shrug and say, “Welp, gambling laws gotta gambling law” and play their matches.

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 11:28 PM, Brad Brown <forum-20090-e59c@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is adhering to this rule at the moment and it doesn't sound like many people are going to continue to follow it either.

Point of the matter is: it's the rules. You can not like it. You can try to change it. But until it's changed, it is the rules.

What other rules can we not trust you to follow because you don't like them?

I'd agree that the majority of complaints I hear from players are of the “so and so allowed us to do it before” variety. This comes in all forms such as having 90 minute timed Quarter and Semi-final rounds (apparently this is incredibly uncommon in my player's experience). But it also extends to things like splitting, downgrades, and permitted alters.

If judges everywhere make this change, explain that it is a clarification, and move forward consistently, then it likely won't be a problem. If some people permit it and some don't, there will continue to be confusion among players. I already sent out an email to the stores I run Comp REL events at and explained that this is how things will be done moving forward saying this is to protect them more than it is to protect me.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

Point of the matter is: it's the rules. You can not like it. You can try to change it. But until it's changed, it is the rules.

What other rules can we not trust you to follow because you don't like them?

I think this is the wrong argument to make. There are tons of “rules” that very few people follow. Things like only using lands provided by the TOs and not adequately shuffling your opponent's deck (when they fetch) are a few of the most common examples. These are also rules, but I assume you don't enforce them.

The reason you need to adhere to a specific splitting rules set are multiple. Here are a few:
There is a threat of your event looking like gambling and bribery which does have possible consequences (both from Wizards and the Law).
There is the likelihood of people getting DQed from other's events by taking an action you allow at your event.
Players are likely to gather a perception of you as a loose judge and may try to get away with other shady maneuvers.
Other experienced players may be pushed away from your store by your lack of following the rules.
Newer players may get the perception that the rules don't matter if you're friends with the judge because they see a specific rule not being enforced on players they perceive as the judge's friends.

I think it's important to note that this is a change from how people are currently doing it. But if it's a change that is being made, it's a change we have to make together.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Aug. 3, 2015 01:52:01 PM)

Okay, so we've determined that Top 8 and Top 4 can't prize split in situations with invites/byes. Excellent, less headache for me. I have another question however.

Let's say two friends are in a win it in situation for Top 8. They know that only the winner will make it in, so to reduce hard feelings between them, they agree to split whatever prize the winner receives, and then play to determine who makes it to Top 8.

I don't have the MTR in front of me, but I recall a passage that players are allowed to split prizes they have not yet received provided such an agreement is not in exchange for a match result. Would this particular situation be allowed, or is this something we want to discourage as well?

EDIT: This may have already been answered but I didn't see an explicit yea or nay. Store credit. If a tournament is offering a cash prize to 1st, and store credit based on attendance to the rest of the Top 8. Can prizes be split in that situation? I'm leaning towards no, since it doesn't fit the “only cash or unopened product” clause, but I could be wrong.

Edited Hank Wiest (Aug. 3, 2015 06:55:54 PM)

I've never offered the prize split secret ballot at a PPTQ I've HJed. No player has ever questioned my not doing so.

So, SOMEBODY is adhering to the rule.
—– Original Message —–
From: Brad Brown
To: wcc3@oberlin.net
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Splitting in Top 8 of GPT or PPTQ (Competitive REL)


I wanted to just chime in that in the history of my playing and judging at PPTQs, we've always allowed players to split in top 8 or top 4 and just play for the invite. I distinctly remember this happening at SCG Opens and PTQs (before PPTQs).

I don't think anyone is adhering to this rule at the moment and it doesn't sound like many people are going to continue to follow it either.

——————————————————————————–
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/131520/

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/

> I think this is the wrong argument to make. There are tons of “rules” that very few people follow. Things like only using lands provided by the TOs and not adequately shuffling your opponent's deck (when they fetch) are a few of the most common examples. These are also rules, but I assume you don't enforce them.

First off “tons” is a gross exaggeration. Even the “shuffling your opponents deck” rule you sited is a “may” rule. (See 3.9). Even “announcing life totals” is a “should” vs a “must”.

So that leaves“TO providing land in a limited event”. Which it has been stated in the archives of this forum why the rule exists and why it's ok to waive it. It's the exception. Please do not extend reasoning to “well it's ok to hand wave over these other rules because we hand wave over this one.

That leads to people not being DQed for improperly determining a winner , comp rel events without decklists, and proxies being allowed because ”what's the big deal“

The question was raised ”do we really have to follow this rule“, the answer came back ”yes, for now“. To continue to say ”well I'm still not gonna enforce it" becomes a matter to be taken up with your Regional Coordinator.

Thanks guys, I'm certainly going to follow this rule now that I'm aware of it, it just took me and many players I know by surprise.

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

First off “tons” is a gross exaggeration. Even the “shuffling your opponents deck” rule you sited is a “may” rule. (See 3.9). Even “announcing life totals” is a “should” vs a “must”.

IPG 3.9
At Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, players are required to shuffle their opponents’ decks after their owners have shuffled them.

I hardly consider the above to be a “may”.

I agree that “tons” is an exaggeration. But there are several. I also agree that this is not one of those exceptional cases. I just prefer providing some exposition as to what will happen if some people do and some people don't follow the rule. I also feel that people treating it as anything other than a new clarification and reinterpretation of the rules are doing a serious disservice to the hundreds or possibly thousands of judges that have been allowing these sorts of splits in an honest attempt to follow the rules.

I believe that the vast majority of judges will change how they handle these kinds of splits and within six to nine months this will be a problem that we've overcome and player's minds will be changed. But in the mean time there's a lot of reeducation of both judges, players, and TOs that is going to need to take place.

After reading most of the things posted, I'm very, very confused.

Can we get an response, using small words and examples, on exactly what's allowed and not allowed?

Olivier - during the Top 8 (i.e., single-elimination rounds), if only cash and/or unopened product prizes are at stake, the remaining players may agree to an equal split and end the tournament. If other prizes are at stake, this is not allowed.

As noted elsewhere - esp. in the MTR - the two players (teams, in a team event) in the final round have more leeway in what is allowed.

d:^D

This seems to be a sore point for multiple people here. I love the comraderee of splitting;“we have battled all day, let's be friends and competitors who were the best 8 players today” but I seldom actually see it happen anyway. It just seems counterintuitive to dissuade splits when working towards a community.

As much as we might agree or disagree with the current rules, these are the ones that are in effect right now. Further discussion in this forum is not going to change the rules. If you need any other clarification, that's fine, but voicing any more disagreement is just going to flood inboxes all around the world. We do understand how you feel about the issue, but there's nothing more than can be done in this forum about this.

A BPrill said:

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

The question was raised ”do we really have to follow this rule“, the answer came back ”yes, for now“.

I have to agree with Carlos' post … and thus, I will lock this thread.