Originally posted by Zach Robinson:

I follow “concessions are legal”, but I stop at “the match results can be manipulated if someone is a likable person that deserves a better tournament record than other players.”

Not sure I follow how you got to point B from point A here. If 2 players are playing, and player A says to player N, “y'know, I think you're a really cool guy, here, take this match win” and proceeds to sign the slip for a win for player N, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't see the problem here. Of course, that would never happen, but…

^– But if you decided that X is “a really cool guy”, you would follow the rules of concessions or intentionally drawing matches in MTR 2.4, as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, the statement in MTR 2.4:

Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1.

seemingly indicates that if Nate does win a game then we do not want the match reported as 2-0. And that thought is backed up by the April 2014 Judge blog discussion I quoted: “We don't want that match reported 2-0.”

Now, I don't know how to weigh “don't want” relative to rules. But I don't see anything in the rules saying you can dismiss all your won games, and I do see in the rules that you should report a won game as a won game in all (most?) instances. I do not find a backing in the rules for Andy's request. Is there some rules backing for this change of results? I looked up and into rules surrounding match slips, but this area does not appear to be well-covered. Perhaps it is legitimate to create the final results out of whole cloth - that would best align with allowing for accidentally misstated results - but … it seems a gray area and I'm curious what the Correct answer and backing data are.

I don't like IDaW here, because there was no ‘method outside the current game’ other than Nate's current standings. If using current standings would count as ‘method outside the current game’ a lot of IDs would be IDaW. The only thing violated here in my opinion is the MTR and we have no way I'm aware of to punish this error if the players didn't know it was illegal, because there really is no specific error in the TE-section of the IPG for this.

Therefore I would have a short talk with Andy to verify he didn't know the relevant part of the MTR. If he didn't know I would just educate him and correct the result. Otherwise I would issue UC-Cheating for breaking the MTR knowingly, because not knowing the penalty does not protect from getting the penalty. In both cases I would educate Nate about the problem to make sure he doesn't make the same mistake again.

Edited Markus Dietrich (June 21, 2014 04:47:52 AM)

Can you think of a reason why the MTR might require that 2-1 result if the conceding player won a game?

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Can you think of a reason why the MTR might require that 2-1 result if the conceding player won a game?

I think to not distort tiebreakers to much (not only of the two players in the match but everyone who played against them)

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

Can you think of a reason why the MTR might require that 2-1 result if the conceding player won a game?

I would say much similar to the reason, mattress manufacturers have a tag on them that say “do not remove” - even though everyone does.

The MTR says that a conceding player that has won a match should report the loss as a 2-1 because that's the guideline (as not removing the mattress tag is) but as long as you aren't trying to do anything shady and everyone walks away happy - why are we going to pursue this?

No damage to the tournament.

No player screaming foul.

No anything detrimental, overtly or otherwise.

We have a completed match slip that both players have agreed to.

We should not be the mattress police here. ;)

Edited Darren Horve (June 21, 2014 09:21:22 AM)

Reporting the match 2-1 does matter in determining Andy's tiebreakers; game win % is used to break omw% ties. (Nate's opponents' ogw% is also affected). So it's not the case that there is no damage to the tournament.

Edited Bradley Morin (June 21, 2014 03:13:38 PM)

Thank you everyone for your participation. The answer to this week’s scenario is…

To find our answer, let's take a look at MTR 2.4.
MTR 2.4 If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1. Intentional draws are always reported as 0-0-3.
While Andy has done something wrong in asking for a result that violates MTR 2.4, our investigation determined he wasn't aware what he was doing was illegal. As such, we will inform him that this is not an allowable action and fix the result with the scorekeeper.


Some people were saying USC –Minor

A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants. It may effect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.
That is not the proper use of the infraction. This is neither disruptive to the event nor its participants. Sure it caused us some time for investigation and to fix it. The event was not dramatically affected. So we are not issuing USC-Minor.

Cheating was tossed around a bit. This also not cheating because Andy failed to meet all of the requirements. A rule was broken, advantage was gained, he was NOT aware that it was bad. Since all three requirements were not met we will not be removing Andy from the event with disqualification. It is important to understand that all three requirements must be met to disqualify someone for cheating.

We should not penalize this person for something that is general behavior we do not want. Please remember that because there is no penalty associated with this doesn't mean you get to deviate from the policy and make one up in order to penalize unwanted behavior. We remind the player that its bad and not to do it again. If they choose to do it again we now can apply the IPG and appropriate fix which is grounds for USC-Cheating. Most of the time a stern talking to will be more effective at stopping players from unwanted actions.

Thank you again and come back later this week for an all new scenario.

Is it all right for me to ask a related question here? If not please feel free to delete.

But in a similar vein, I have heard players, at the start of a match, say something along the lines of “Would you like to agree that whoever wins the loser will give them the win 2-0? for tiebreakers purposes” Would this fall in the same category of the previous question? What actions would you take if you heard this at the beginning of the match?

Jeff, the best place for that question is the Competitive Forums. That said, the quick answer here is that if games of magic were played, the DCI wants them reported, so winning 2-1 and reporting 2-0 is not something we allow. No penalty, but educate the players and fix the result.

Edited Patrick Vorbroker (July 10, 2014 11:40:04 AM)