Originally posted by Isaac King:

Originally posted by Carlos Ho:

The problem is that as soon as you say that, you're basically giving an incentive for your opponent to concede.

Sure, but how is that different from agreeing to split prizes 40%/60% in favor of the loser for example? That's a very common prize structure that provides an incentive to concede if you don't care about the invite, and we've historically had no problem allowing that.

I think your arguments mix up “finals” and “non-finals” situations.
It is very common for the second place to receive more (perhaps much more) boosters when invites are involved. On the other hand the only possible situation where players are in a position to share any prizes but without invites I can see is the last round of some kind of a Swiss tournament. I cannot fathom what would move players to offer more boosters to the loser so I would try and investigate the situation. But I am inclined to predict that this is 90% likely to be a Bribery situation.

The phrase “If I win I will refuse my prizes” is a clear proposition with minimal disguise. Therefore it is only permissible in the finals.

Arman, this isn't quite accurate:

Originally posted by Arman Gabbasov:

On the other hand the only possible situation where players are in a position to share any prizes but without invites I can see is the last round of some kind of a Swiss tournament.

Originally posted by MTR 5.2:

It is not bribery when players share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament and they may agree to 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.

Players are allowed to share prizes prior to the finals, but it must not influence the outcome of the match.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Are you saying that outside the finals, a split that favors the loser is automatically bribery?

Nope - Isaac asked very much the same question above, and I (thought I) answered that.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

You've implied that a split that favors the loser might be Bribery in those cases

Yes, I have made that implication.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

you haven't gone into any detail about what specific circumstances make it Bribery and what circumstances make it not Bribery.

Fair enough, and you're right - mostly because it's highly variable, and a lot depends on what I believe after I investigate.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Are you saying we should investigate, and DQ if we believe the conceding player was directly motivated by the split? Or do you simply mean that we should look closely at such a split offer since it was likely accompanied by other conversation topics that crossed the line?

I see that as an “AND”, not an “OR” - but yeah, that's kind of what I was saying.

The problem with being more explicit, is that these situations are difficult to define. I mentioned in another recent thread, that Andy Heckt's advice - still very wise - is that we should not help players understand how to tiptoe on the line of Bribery, but rather steer them far away from that line. Also, defining that line only serves to create more “what-if??!” ideas - which, essentially, is just attempts at tiptoeing that line.

If an uneven split is combined with an unnatural conclusion to the match - i.e., a split is discussed, then one player concedes - we need to investigate. If we believe that an offer was made with the intent of influencing the outcome, then we DQ. If the offer was understood as intending to influence the outcome, and it wasn't reported to a judge, then that's also a DQ.

Originally posted by IPG 4.4:

A player offers an incentive to entice an opponent into conceding, drawing, or changing the results of a match, or accepts such an offer.
…
A player who receives an offer and does not immediately contact a tournament official is considered complicit in the offer and will receive the same penalty.

Taking that even further, it's possible that an even split could be Bribery, but that's unlikely, and I don't want to skew this audience's perspective! After all, the most common occurrence is something like this:
Tammy: hey, want to split prizes?
Vic: sure!
Tammy: OK, I concede - I really want to go eat instead.
Vic: Oh, so I win? Cool!

That's fine, even though Tammy made the offer knowing that she'd concede if Vic agreed.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Taking that even further, it's possible that an even split could be Bribery, but that's unlikely, and I don't want to skew this audience's perspective! After all, the most common occurrence is something like this:
Tammy: hey, want to split prizes?
Vic: sure!
Tammy: OK, I concede - I really want to go eat instead.
Vic: Oh, so I win? Cool!

But for clarity:

Tammy: Hey, want to split prizes?
Vic: Sure!
Tammy: Okay I concede–your breakers are better than mine, so you're more likely to make the cut to top 8.

Would not be okay? Again, I understand that blanket statements are unwise, but could you point me towards the questions I should be asking to investigate this conversation? (which is, unfortunately, not purely hypothetical–something very similar ended up happening in sides at my very first GP)

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Tammy: Hey, want to split prizes?
Vic: Sure!
Tammy: Okay I concede–your breakers are better than mine, so you're more likely to make the cut to top 8.

Would not be okay? Again, I understand that blanket statements are unwise, but could you point me towards the questions I should be asking to investigate this conversation? (which is, unfortunately, not purely hypothetical–something very similar ended up happening in sides at my very first GP)

This is fine. Tammy isn't trying to motivate Vic to concede with prizes (“You can have all the boosters if you concede”). Tammy also isn't trying to motivate Vic to a redistribution of prizes with a concession (“I'll concede if I can have all the boosters”). If you believe there is elbow nudging or winking then the answer changes. Which is exactly why Scott can't be explicit about when something is bribery or not; it is incredibly situational and can't be codified into “If they wink twice, DQ them”.

Originally posted by Sophie Hughes:

This is fine.

That was my initial impression of the conversation, because that's how I was taught as an L1. However, it superficially checks all the boxes that Scott has identified as red flags–the player was motivated to concede because of a split that paid her much more for losing than for winning. If it matters that Tammy both made the offer and conceded, then fine, we can flip the script: have Vic concede after the split offer due to Tammy's better breakers. Now, again, we are in the red zone as Scott describes: a split is offered that pays Vic more money for losing than for winning, and Vic concedes immediately as a result of the offer. This type of negotiation is standard in the last round of GPs, and I know that it's supposed to be okay (as long as that is the *entirety* of the discussion and there is nothing else fishy about it), but I'm having trouble meshing that general practice with the specific guidance Scott offers in this thread. Is it because the split is ostensibly 50/50, even though the players and the judges all know that it's not just a wash?

Red flags are just that - red flags. They are reasons to investigate for eye winking and elbow nudging. You need to be there and use your judgement as to whether or not this happened. My take-away from Scott isn't that these are reasons to DQ someone, rather that they are reasons I might think something is awry and step in to talk to the players and find out what was said between the lines. I might then DQ them depending on how that talk goes.

Edited Winter (July 31, 2018 03:05:21 PM)