|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:42PM
#1
|
|
|
Some players are having a discussion with our local Judge about this rule, he says its not considered bribery if two players decide to end on a tie or give the other player a win if they just want to get to the next round of a friday night, pre-release or just a sanctioned tournament.
We say that they get the points and the possibility of being top 8 and getting their hands on boosters (and specially since they almost always do this between team members giving their team an advantage to qualify for boosters.
Any help will be most apreciated.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:44PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
predetermining the result of a match is against the rules
however, any player can concede at any time, so you have to somehow prove the intent of the player
for example he can concede because he already made Top8 and wants more off-time to prepare for those matches
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:56PM
#3
|
|
|
let me correct myself, what I ment when I said "they just want to get to the next round of a friday night, pre-release or just a sanctioned tournament" I ment that they dont want to have 2-0 or 2-1 against so they either go for a draw of give the win to the player who's won the most.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:56PM
#4
|
|
|
Players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in any game or match. Either player may concede a match to 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.
Players may not agree to a concession or draw in exchange for any reward or incentive. Doing so will be considered Bribery.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:57PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
sure, that's legal
they can concede for any reason
what would not be legal is "I'll let you win if you give me a booster"
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 2:59PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
what would not be legal is "I'll let you win if you give me a booster"
Yes, such is the rule.
But I have to admit I don't understand the reason for such a rule to exist.
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 3:23PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
what would not be legal is "I'll let you win if you give me a booster"
Yes, such is the rule.
But I have to admit I don't understand the reason for such a rule to exist.
You - in other contexts, the big champion of (what you see as) fairness - don't understand why bribery isn't okay?
If that's really what you're saying, the only reply I can give is the one Louis Armstrong gave when asked what jazz was, which was to shake his head sadly and say "man, if you have to ask, you'll never know".
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:04PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
I have proven to be able to understand... when explained simply and clearly. -and with lots of patience  Evading answer by quoting successful music performers seems like an easy way out. Maybe I will never know. A sure thing if I don't try. I'm willing to try. Are you?
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:05PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2010
|
that rule is there because otherwise it would create a tournament atmosphere where it is more about trading wins than actually playing the game
proud member of the 2011 community team
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:24PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
Bribery is used to make someone do what they should not; players may wish to try & win a game, but I don't think we can pretend that they should. What has been demanded from the player is to cease trying to win, which he may or may not wish for, but which it cannot be said that he shouldn't. Therefore, the act in question is not «bribery». (even though that is the word used by those who wrote that rule) Of course, if the player has engaged himself into tring to win, then he should. Then again, I guess the by default assumption is that anyone entering the game should try & win, and anyone else should not play. Ah! Under such an assumption it does become bribery. Which is bad. (for all of those who don't realize it) that rule is there because otherwise it would create a tournament atmosphere where it is more about trading wins than actually playing the game
Thank you.
I would deduce that the motive is enjoyment; to preserve the atmosphere.
As a «champion of fairness», I feel relieved: since I tried evaluating the rule under Good/Bad paradigms, I could not find justification, unless under specific assumptions pertaining to the gaming environment.
But having fun is OK, so if this rule actually(?) improves game enjoyment, I'll buy it!
«Dystocracy : A system of government in which corrupt leadership colludes with dishonest bankers and greedy elites in order to ensure that productive members of society –people who actually do useful work- bear the greatest share of taxes while gaining the least benefit possible.»
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
