If a player commits outside assistance in the last round of swiss after they have already completed their match, then the IPG says that the match loss will be applied to the next match. So, hypothetically, the player may draft? then immediately lose and be eliminated. Just seems like a very feel bad situation. Im wondering what you all can think of as possible alternatives in the the current IPG and if you think the IPG should be changed.

Despite this recent trend in eliminating game losses, we aren't trying to eliminate “feel bads”. Penalties in general feel bad. That's the whole point of their existence. And we want the penalties for certain actions to feel worse than others.
OA is one of the more serious infractions and should not be taken lightly and the penalty should have an impact on the rest of your day.
With regard to your specific scenario, if the player had committed it earlier in the day, the match loss may have knocked him out of top 8 contention, and that probably feels even worse than getting a free draft and the 5-8 prizes.
Or maybe it would feel even worse going into the finals with a match loss looming.

It helps to remember that you aren't some sadistic Santa Claus giving infractions to the good boys and girls. Players *earn* infractions through their actions.

Another point/question, is “do you think a match loss is warranted for OA in general?” If yes, then my follow up is “do you think infractions should have different penalties based on when they occur in the tournament?”

Finally consider the real impact of the OA. In your scenario, the OA was committed the last round of Swiss. did the OA cause someone to lose that shouldn't have? Is that person now knocked out of the top 8 or miss the payout for top 16 or just have a lower seed when applying the play draw rule during the top 8

-bryan

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

As having a player who knows they are dead in the draft is pretty
damaging to the top 8 and can make the other 7 players feel that they
outcome of the tournament is damaged (sitting next to that player can
be a huge boon as they pass limited bombs to pick value rares), I'd
really like to have such a player encouraged to drop before the top 8.

But even offering them the 3 packs they were about to open as
incentive to drop before the top8 cut would feel much too much like
having the TO bribe the player. Thus I suspect the best the TO should
do is encourage them to do it out of the goodness of their heart. But
someone who has just been crushed isn't always going to be in the
right mood to do something good for other people.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Bryan Prillaman
<forum-20198-aef2@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Despite this recent trend in eliminating game losses, we aren't trying to
> eliminate “feel bads”. Penalties in general feel bad. That's the whole point
> of their existence. And we want the penalties for certain actions to feel
> worse than others.
> OA is one of the more serious infractions and should not be taken lightly
> and the penalty should have an impact on the rest of your day.
> With regard to your specific scenario, if the player had committed it
> earlier in the day, the match loss may have knocked him out of top 8
> contention, and that probably feels even worse than getting a free draft and
> the 5-8 prizes.
> Or maybe it would feel even worse going into the finals with a match loss
> looming.
>
> It helps to remember that you aren't some sadistic Santa Claus giving
> infractions to the good boys and girls. Players *earn* infractions through
> their actions.
>
> Another point/question, is “do you think a match loss is warranted for OA in
> general?” If yes, then my follow up is “do you think infractions should have
> different penalties based on when they occur in the tournament?”
>
> Finally consider the real impact of the OA. In your scenario, the OA was
> committed the last round of Swiss. did the OA cause someone to lose that
> shouldn't have? Is that person now knocked out of the top 8 or miss the
> payout for top 16 or just have a lower seed when applying the play draw rule
> during the top 8
>
> -bryan
>
> ———————————————
> This space intentionally left blank
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/131488/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/20198/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/20198/?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”

To my knowledge, the OA wasn't that damaging to the game or the match. I just feel, regarding OA specifically, that the IPG is very strict. I really didn't feel like ML was warranted in the specific situation. I didn't want to give him a ML but I also didn't want to deviate, when the IPG didn't spell it out as an option, and the circumstances weren't significant or exceptional.

Edited Caitlyn Hebert (Aug. 3, 2015 02:07:25 AM)

It will be a very weird draft. But the player will want to play it, for sure. In fact, his EV doing that is higher than getting three packs and dropping. He's able to value-pick everything, and get a chance of picking his own high value cards along with other players' high value ones, which are worthless in Limited play.

So yes, it seems it's a corner-case that leads to an undesirable flaw in the system, when a player can ruin the experience of seven more people for a few more dollars or whatsoever…

This is a situation where a deviation might be warranted. Technically, the match loss penalty should be applied to the next match, but by doing so your actively damaging the integrity of the tournament.

I would not want to ecourage the player to drop before the top 8. I'm the HJ, and I don't want to put myself at the mercy of a player. You could either drop the player before the top 8 or you could “do him a favor” and apply the match loss to the current round that's still running.

Neither solution is optimal, though. Force-dropping the player before the top 8 feels like a dq-light, but applying the match loss to the current round makes little to no sense if the player lost that round anyway. Remember that top 8 players don't always ID their last round. Sometimes they actually play and lose, and are still in the top 8.

Applying the match loss to the first round of the top 8 is what the IPG tells us to do, but let's be honest: You're actively endangering the integrity of the remaining portion of the tournament.

I'd love to hear some opinions of some L4s/L5s on this. We should always try to avoid any deviation, but do you want to be the HJ who “warped” the top 8 of a PPTQ, or RPTQ, or GP, or whatever?

Edited Jasper König (Aug. 3, 2015 10:23:59 AM)

I understand the reason the IPG tells us to apply the penalty to the next match. Changing past results based on an action that did not affect that specific match is very arbitrary and could present opportunities to attempt to abuse it. I also agree that having a player in a draft who ultimately will not be playing presents a great risk to damage the integrity of the event. That player could block or feed a player next to him or could just value draft.

I would actually be tempted to deviate in another direction. I would draft with 7. I'm not sure if there is any policy in place to support this temptation but it seems like the best choice.

This would remove the risk of blocking/feeding/value drafting. This would also remove the pressure of trying to get a player to drop before the cut. He would still get top 8 prizes and 3 packs for the draft. The penalty would still be getting applied to the next match. As Bryan mentioned, this is a penalty that was earned so we do not need to feel obligated to completely bend over backwards. Drafting with 7 is not the most optimal, but the other options seem worse.

I hadn't thought of that solution, but I actually think that's totally viable. One player get's an effective bye anyway, so you can draft with 7 players.

I (vaguely!) recall a discussion, several years ago (back when we only had a mailing list), about a player removed from an event prior to the Top 8 draft, and/or during the Top 8 draft. That one was a bit easier, because he or she was no longer able (or allowed) to draft.

In this example, you have a player who is physically present and able to draft - but should we allow that?

Policy does not deal with this (nor should it; it's such an odd circumstance), but - IN MY OPINION - the best way to protect the integrity of the event, is to give the player the 3 packs they'd have opened for the draft, and let the other 7 players draft.

d:^D