|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 6:43PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2007
|
Hey everyone, I just wanted to let you know that we have posted a prize sharing (or splitting) clarification on the MTGO Group page. We hope this clarification helps players who want to share prizes do so without violating the Terms of Service or the Code of Conduct. Please note that without an automated way to handle this process, Magic Online cannot recommend or endorse prize sharing and any prize negotiations made are at your own risk. Thank you for your patience and have fun.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 6:48PM
#2
|
|
|
I'm still a bit unclear...you can negotiate qps and which prizes go to first and which to second but not a concession. Yet the only way to negotiate the qp is for it to go to first so to negotiate a qp you're deciding who takes first no?
Edit: Here's my problem with this. While it's much better than before, why can't wotc just say "in the last round of an event you can discuss one of the players conceding as part of the prize split". It seems like thats' basically what they're saying we can do but can't say the word concede if I'm interpretting this correctly.
In this case if the other person doesn't know these somewhat ambiguous rules or is trying to be a jerk(and we all know they're on mtgo) then a conversation could go like this:
Me: Hi would you like to split? I'd prefer 3 boosters and a qp
Opp: Yes I would like to split, and I'd rather have 4 boosters
Me: Ok sounds good
....
....
*opponent just sits there with my clock running and I can't tell him to concede or i get banned*
*i pass priority because i don't want to time out*
*we end up playign and I win*
Opp: Ok you got the qp so now give me one booster so you end up with 3 and qp and I get 4 like we discussed
Me: But I just won the match
Opp: But we agreed on a split
If I say that he was supposed to concede if we were splitting then I get banned
If I don't give him the pack then it's "KIKIIJIKI IS A SCAMMER NOBODY SPLIT WITH HIM" everywhere and anywhere he can say it
If I do give him the pack I just won a match for no reason..
I heard we're supposed to post in green if we don't like the new forums.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 7:24PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 30, 2004
|
You can decide the first place person gets X packs and the QP and the second place person gets X packs. Then play out the match (at which point anyone can concede at any time). You cannot say I'll take X packs and the QP so you concede and get X packs.
Basically a concession cannot be part of the discussion.
edit: and if you played out the match and won and didn't give him the packs there is no way anyone can tell if you did or did not give him the packs (well besides wotc). So whats it matter if he screams your a scammer, you can just reply he's a sore loser and is lying.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 7:58PM
#4
|
|
|
Blog Post...for the lazy peoples
Show
In general, Magic Online falls under the same basic Collusion and Bribery rules as paper: Altering the outcome of any Magic Online event in exchange for or influenced by the offer of reward or other incentive is not allowed and violates the Terms of Service.
Players who wish to share prizes in an event may only do so in the FINAL ROUND of that event. Any prize sharing negotiation or offer to change or alter the result of a match in any round that is not the final round of an event can be considered Collusion or Bribery and is a violation of the Code of Conduct. When negotiating to share prizes in the final round of the event, ONLY THE TOTAL PRIZES ALLOTTED for first and second place (including Qualifier Points) may be discussed. While match concessions CANNOT be a part of this negotiation, players may discuss which place gets which prizes and which prizes they prefer. Any offers to 'sweeten the pot' by adding something extra, either within Magic Online or outside of the game system, is a violation of the Code of Conduct and may result in administrative action being taken against the players involved and their Magic Online accounts, up to and including account termination. Magic Online does not currently recommend, endorse, or support prize sharing in any way. Any prize sharing negotiation is made at each player's own risk. Players should never negotiate a prize share unless they know and trust the player they are negotiating with. Please note that offering a prize share more than once in any match may be considered harassment and a violation of the Terms of Service. Magic Onlinealso reserves the right to evaluate any prize share negotiation and take administrative action on a case-by-case basis.
First readthrough it sounds really good. On the second glance...it's kinda contradictory. "Any prize sharing negotiation or offer to change or alter the result of a match in any round that is not the final round of an event can be considered Collusion or Bribery and is a violation of the Code of Conduct" Reads as: No 'splitting' in non-final rounds, but that final round we can do whatever, including "altering the result of the match" (as what I feel WotC considers discussion of someone conceding). Then... "match concessions CANNOT be a part of this negotiation" So...you can't decide who concedes Compounded by the fact that a QP is considered to be part of the prize pool and allowed to be split, but you can discuss which place gets which prizes....when you can only get the QP when your opponent concedes!? I was so happy at first, this is so close, but the language isn't quite clear enough. Honestly, I expected a much longer post about this. At the very least some examples of OK and NOT Ok things could have been included, with the caveat that not all situations are covered by the given examples (obv)... It's like teaching a dog to stay. I know you can do it, WotC! You're so close! Edit: I suppose this makes it completely acceptable to do this: Me: "Ok, I get 3 packs and the QP, you get 4 Packs - OK?" Opponent: "Sure" nothing happens Me: "Well...go ahead and give me the QP already." Seems silly in that we still have the same problem with disciplinary action if someone uses the word "concede"...maybe, as of now the only real way to find out is through experimentation by some poor/brave souls.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 8:31PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2008
|
Seems silly in that we still have the same problem with disciplinary action if someone uses the word "concede"...maybe, as of now the only real way to find out is through experimentation by some poor/brave souls.
That's the whole problem, who is going to want to test this when they include "Magic Onlinealso reserves the right to evaluate any prize share negotiation and take administrative action on a case-by-case basis."?
We all know that you are implying you want a concession "Well...go ahead and give me the QP already." We know it, WotC knows it, but what this announcement says is that's fine as long as you use sneaky wording. This misses the entire point of what we were complaining about before. In paper you can split something like a QP but there is a mechanism to do so - one player drops from the event, no match played, therefore no alteration of match. Fine and dandy. In MTGO we cannot do this due to software limitations. The necessary adaptation for the online version of splitting to work at this point with the current software is to explicitly say "If you come to an agreement between the two of you that one person will get the QP and a portion of the prizes and the other person gets a portion of the prizes, the person not getting the QP is agreeing to concede." Is it ideal? No. But it's the best we can get without the prize splitting code we had in V.2 (with an option included for uneven splits).
All this has done is make the sneaky wording issue even more important. Actually, it does more than that. It makes something that is illegal in paper (veiled attempts at earning a concession from your opponent) and makes it the desired behavior in a splitting situation. Bribery and "inferred bribery" get the same penalty in paper. Online, one is legal and the other bans your account?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 9:59PM
#6
|
- St Z, Patron Saint of the 99 Post Club aka Th
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
A big improvement is that a player can state his preference of prizes without it being considered a bribe. For example, saying "I'm willing to split if I get the QP's" or "I want the QP's" seems to be okay. I think this was the issue in one of the banning cases I read about during the previous discussion.
I guess it's just too big a line to cross for Wizards to allow the discussion of concession. Maybe it's some sort of legal issue? Or not? Shrug.
The ideal would be a split system where prizes could be assigned to each player and then once each agrees the split occurs (using the same principles as the trade interface I suppose).
Also, I would have liked to hear that disciplinary penalties would start with a warning, in regards to inadvertent bribing while negotiating a split.
Despite what it's lacking, it's closer to what I want.
I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy
I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi
Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue
But ask me, and I'll do anything for you
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 10:11PM
#7
|
- Aww it's a cute OH MY GOD
- the bear goes RAWR!
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
A: I get 3 packs and the QP, you get 4 packs, ok?
B: Sure.
A: ...
B: ...
B: So I concede?
A: :facepalm:
What happens in this scenario? Someone blurts out the Word That Shall Not Be Mentioned, even AFTER the negotiations are completed...
* Has either player irrevocably crossed over into bribery territory at this point if A doesn't acknowledge B?
* If B ends up conceding "unilaterally", is A still at risk even though he didn't mention concession at all?
* If they then cancel the split and play it out because B moronically said the taboo word, does that cover their behinds?
* If they "cancel" the split and "play it out" (A: Since you said "concede", we can no longer legally split... so let's "play it out", nudge nudge wink wink, say no more... B: OHHH I SEE *mulligans to zero*), does that cover their behinds?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2010 - 11:29PM
#8
|
- St Z, Patron Saint of the 99 Post Club aka Th
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2004
|
A: I get 3 packs and the QP, you get 4 packs, ok?
B: Sure.
A: ...
B: ...
B: So I concede?
A: :facepalm:
In my opinion, at that point the split has already been offered and accepted, without mention of concession. Player B asking for direction on how to proceed does not seem unreasonable, since he actually may not understand the entire process.
Also, to my purely constructionist way of looking at things, this in no way violates:
" While match concessions CANNOT be a part of this negotiation, players may discuss which place gets which prizes and which prizes they prefer."
since who concedes was NOT part of the negotiation, but an issue that comes up after the negotiation has ended.
Maybe that's what Wizards intends... the players decide the details of the split, without mentioning concession. The negotiation is now over. Feel free to work out who concedes with regard to the already negotiated split.
Or maybe not... probably need a comment from WotC in this case, but I think I have the right of it from a purely constructionist viewpoint.
I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy
I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi
Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue
But ask me, and I'll do anything for you
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 1:14AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2006
|
So basically almost no changes were made just an official statement that says splitting in finals is legal... STILL. Just don't mention conceding or you'll get another 30 day ban or worse perma banned!
I'm just glad I won't get banned again for saying I would prefer the QP. Still doesn't make me feel comfotable knowing someone at WOTC has thier finger ready to lay a ban hammer down on my account for a second time.
Love to play in PRE's? Click Here to learn more about Clan Yawgmoth's new event! Build Your Own Standard!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2010 - 2:40AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
By saying "ONLY THE TOTAL PRIZES ALLOTTED for first and second place (including Qualifier Points)" it seems as clear and open as WotC could be about this issue. This announcement is exactly what I was hoping for (short of some sample wording that we could use). I plan to offer splitting finals again (after not doing so lately)... assuming I can make it to the finals! 
|
|
|
