Player A: “I'd like to draw this round?”
Player B: “We can draw, but only if you'll play it out for fun.”

This conversations happens fairly regularly at FNMs, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it. On one hand, I have absolutely no problem with a split and a game, and I want to encourage it. A game has no actual value, so it's really a stretch to count this as bribery.

On the other hand, I really, really don't like any sentence that begins with “We can draw, but only if…”

Should I discourage this kind of thing, or just not worry about it?

The occasional reminder that what they are saying is dangerous is
good. Getting them to report the result before playing would be
optimal. But discouraging them from playing magic would be bad :)

This seems kosher to me.

If I may ask a related question: What if the question is concerning splitting, rather than drawing?

A: “I'd like to split”
B: “We can split, but only if we play it out as well”

This seems equally kosher to me, but I'd like other opinions as well. The match will still be played, and will still be reported as played, and will still be reported correctly, but there is a condition on a splitting of prizes contingent on…well, not a match /RESULT/, per se, but…

Eli, I understand the discomfort you feel when players try to tie a result to some condition - and it's reasonable for you to chat with those players, to make sure they understand that it's best to just avoid conversations like that entirely.

However, there's really nothing wrong with that scenario - except for how squishy it makes us feel. (heh)

d:^D

I mean, my question would be: why are these players asking to draw but still play it out in the first place? Maybe your prize structure could use some adjusting to discourage players wanting to ID.

Its a pretty common practice - one that I dont see any reason to really stop people from ID'ing and then playing it out.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Maybe your prize structure could use some adjusting to discourage players wanting to ID.

Discouraging IDing encourages Bribery/Collusion/IDaW, at least in any method that I can envision.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

Aric Parkinson
Maybe your prize structure could use some adjusting to discourage players wanting to ID.

Discouraging IDing encourages Bribery/Collusion/IDaW, at least in any method that I can envision.

Hmm?

I mean, I don't know what prize structure Eli is using, but if players are willing to draw for a split prize, it seems likely there is a sharp divide between winning and losing (e.g. a win-a-box). Easy fix is to just flatten the prize payout a bit so the incentive is much less prevalent. Obviously not gone, but probably not going to happen frequently at FNM, like described in the original post.

Wider payout structures shouldn't provide incentive for Bribery / IDaW either, for the same reason: if gains are fewer, you may as well just play it out. For Regular REL, that feels right to me.

Just my two cents, of course. I agree that this scenario doesn't really seem like a problem. But if it does bother you, I'd guess prize structure is the place to make adjustments.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Easy fix is to just flatten the prize payout

I was wrong. Your alternative (flatter prizes) is fine. I thought you meant making, in a 5 round tournament, 12 points + 15 points give out more prizes than 13+13.

I will say that at my local FNM it is normal (although uncommon) for players to draw in the last round despite there only being 1 pack difference. (Win = 6, loss = 4, draw = 5). IDs will happen, almost no matter what (unless something bad like 12+15>13+13).

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

I mean, my question would be: why are these players asking to draw but still play it out in the first place?

Sometimes players actually want to play Magic for the fun of playing Magic, without there being any kind of prizes on the line.

I do it all the time. ID/split, then ask to play anyway because I love playing the game.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Aric Parkinson
<forum-26023-b254@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> I mean, I don't know what prize structure Eli is using, but if players are
> willing to draw for a split prize, it seems likely there is a sharp divide
> between winning and losing (e.g. a win-a-box).


I saw something like 60% round 1 IDs at a prerelease where the prize
structure was 2 boosters/win. That doesn't strike me as a unduly top
heavy prize structure.

–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

Hmm?

I mean, I don't know what prize structure Eli is using, but if players are willing to draw for a split prize, it seems likely there is a sharp divide between winning and losing (e.g. a win-a-box). Easy fix is to just flatten the prize payout a bit so the incentive is much less prevalent. Obviously not gone, but probably not going to happen frequently at FNM, like described in the original post.

The local store uses swiss pairings for drafts and awards prizes to the top two spots in each draft. Split is a guaranteed $20/person. Play means winner gets $25 and loser probably gets $15, but tie-breakers happen.

Note that single-elim isn't an option, since it's FNM and we're regularly ending up with pods of 6, 7, 9, or 10–plus we really don't want FNM to be a “lose and go home” experience.

That just sounds like reason to give prize to First and the player who
lost to First in the final round.

Although I'm not sure how you don't have greater problems with the 8
player pod wanting to finish after 3 rounds and the 10 player pod
sometimes needing a 4th round.

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

Although I'm not sure how you don't have greater problems with the 8
player pod wanting to finish after 3 rounds and the 10 player pod
sometimes needing a 4th round.

It's awkward, I'll admit.

Note that even the “person who loses to first” thing can fail sometimes. Draws can screw up brackets badly; likewise, enough players dropping from the event can force both 2-0 players to get paired down.

Is dropping all players in 8 player pods at the end of the 3rd round supported?