Hi, I wanted to start a discussion about this article that was posted in the player experience.
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/playerexperience/2016/08/02/intentional-drawing-conceding-and-splitting-prizes/

Although I think the article is well written and is informative, it has something that bothers me. In several post in the forum, there has been a discussion about how judges should confornt questions regarding Bribery. Normally, the conclusion is something like (I'm quoting Uncle Scotton this one): “Best to just guide them away from the precipice entirely. Don't try to help them edge too close to the line, where an otherwise innocent misstep might push them (and/or the opponent) over the edge.”

In this context, I'm not sure if articles like this ones, focused on players, are good for the community in general; and I would like to hear some opinions about it.

A reference regarding this:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/19740/

Hello Joaquín!

I somehow agree with you. I understand that such articles are good to help us fight with ignorance of some players. I have written a simple educational article for Czech players myself. However, when I was reading this one, I had an unpleasant feeling back in my head sometimes. For example, in the situation No. 1, I do not like the sentence “The judge would suggest something like this…”. I will never tell players which are the “proper” words. On the other hand, there are many important points in the article and I hope that it will prevent at least one ignorant DQ.

BTW, the translation could maybe use one more look to clean it into perfection, but I should probably leave that to native speakers.

As I have heard in the past, there are the two extreme ways to deal with this situation, save the players or don't interfere if you can catch both of them.
My question is, we should follow a straight line of behavior or act due the situation that we face?

Save the players if possible - i.e., be proactive, it's better service for everyone - but some players act too fast to be saved, or just don't want to be saved. Then, in those cases, we do what we have to do.

d:^D

Hi all and thank you for your feedback! The article aims at going proactive in avoiding ignorant players falling into DQ. We do not want to incentive the practice nor to offer tools for tricking the policies, but we think a clear statement of what players can and cannot do is of help for players, and avoids possible misunderstandings and heterogeneous interpretations among judges at the same time. Previous similar attempts had been done with success in Italy and Spain (linked at the end of the article).
Finally, I think that removing the examples from the “situations” would instead fill the comments with something like “what should I hence say?” and speculations.
Still, any discussion and suggestion for improvement and editing are welcome!

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

BTW, the translation could maybe use one more look to clean it into perfection, but I should probably leave that to native speakers.

As welcome is any native volunteer for proofreading (we aim at publishing about two articles por month at most).

Nice article!

The only other thing I've found myself saying to judges when discussing and teaching the topic is to encourage players who need guidance from a judge on what specifically they can and can't offer to ask in a conversation away from the table. This way you avoid:

Annabel: “Judge! If I offer my opponent £50 to concede, is that legal?”
Jessie: “No, you would be disqualified”
Annabel: “Oh, never mind then, let's play some Magic”
Niche: “I'll concede”
*both players walk outside the venue together*

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

Nice article!

The only other thing I've found myself saying to judges when discussing and teaching the topic is to encourage players who need guidance from a judge on what specifically they can and can't offer to ask in a conversation away from the table. This way you avoid:

Annabel: “Judge! If I offer my opponent £50 to concede, is that legal?”
Jessie: “No, you would be disqualified”
Annabel: “Oh, never mind then, let's play some Magic”
Niche: “I'll concede”
*both players walk outside the venue together*

Thank you! This clarification was missing indeed. It has been integrated in the article :)

Yes, my problem is that I'm afraid this is actually teaching players how to walk at the edge of the precipice. And I don't think this is something we should encourage.

Cristóbal Vigar shared the link of the article on facebook. I would like to share some coments from players (not judges):

“I understand the article as ”guys, this is the way the judges will react“”.
“I understand ”guide to arrange prizes without falling into cheating“”.

The last one afraids me.

I have another issue, although it is not an issue with the article itself but rather with the way that policy is applied currently. I'm talking about the “no splitting invitation and promo for RPTQs”.

Although it is abundantly clear to me that if we allowed sharing prizes in the top2 that are NOT part of the tournament itself, it would give a lot of space for abuse. However, seeing the promo as “not part of the prizes for the tournament” is just one possible point of view. PPTQ offer invitation to RPTQs and the promo is inherently tied to the invitation and as such I could see it as part of the prizes for PPTQ.

This would also be very beneficial for players as splitting promo and invitation is in my opinion quite natural. It is in my opinion completely different from splitting invitation and travel ticket, because it does not put any additional strain on the organizer - it's just an agreement between two players.

This one's bugging me (actually been bugging me for a while):

Player B: Do you want to share any prizes that we may get?
Player A: Sure
Player B: Then I concede this match. It is better for both of us, you have more chances of winning a prize.

How can this be ok, as it is clear to both players and the judge that the concession would not have happened if the answer to the “want to split?” question would have been “no”? Unless the player has informed a judge beforehand that he is actually going to concede anyways, I just have to see this as a concession because of prize split.

The concession wasn't given in return of the prize split, since the prize split was already agreed on. If I ask you if you want to give me all your prizes at the beginning of a match and you agree, that doesn't make it bribery, I didn't offer you any results in return for those boosters. It's only once I attach the concession (I'll concede to you if you give me all your boosters) that it becomes bribery. The example you quote is just a less skewed version of this (with the prizes being split in stead of all of them going to me).

The bad thing in Bribery is not the conceding itself, it is the offering that concession in return for something else, so it does not matter that the concession would only happen if player A agreed to the split, player B didn't offer it in this scenario.

This is ok, because player B did not say “I'll concede if you share your winnings with me”. Nobody asked for a concession, and nobody offered a concession. That's the line that has been defined by policy, because that's a line that is enforceable.

In your example, if we replace the concession with “plays poorly and loses”, it's clearly impossible to do anything about. Or take it less far - they play into game 3 but time on the round runs out. Player B concedes because he/she is behind on board. Could we do anything? Not really. If Player A well and truly beats Player B after a prize split, how could we punish player B? And given that the difference between all these alternative outcomes is massively grey based on player skill, luck, deck choice, tiredness etc, and the fact that we can neither watch the entire match or fully and fairly decide the difference between lost and ‘lost’, we end up with policy where it is - you can not offer something in exchange for a match result.

> On Aug 5, 2016, at 3:10 AM, Krzysztof Ciesielka <forum-29094-6e29@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> PPTQ offer invitation to RPTQs and the promo is inherently tied to the invitation and as such I could see it as part of the prizes for PPTQ.


The promo is inherently tied to showing up for the RPTQ, not winning a PPTQ. It's purpose is to add excitement to the RPTQ and to add incentivize for people to travel potentially long distances to yet another event.

And we know this at a gut level. To help illustrate this, imagine this scenario.
A player wins an PPTQ, but work interferes and they have to work the RPTQ weekend. Can they call up an RPTQ location and ask them to mail them their promo? If it's their prize from a pptq, the answer should be ‘yes’. But it's not. We know it's not. The reaction is “of course not, you have to show up.” That reaction is your gut backing up my assertion.

Winning a PPTQ doesn't give you a voucher for a promo. The Promo is an attendance award.

-bryan

Also it saddens me that no one is trying to consider the RPTQ deck box as a prize. Poor forgotten deck box :(

Originally posted by Bryan Prillaman:

And we know this at a gut level. To help illustrate this, imagine this scenario.
A player wins an PPTQ, but work interferes and they have to work the RPTQ weekend. Can they call up an RPTQ location and ask them to mail them their promo? If it's their prize from a pptq, the answer should be ‘yes’. But it's not. We know it's not. The reaction is “of course not, you have to show up.” That reaction is your gut backing up my assertion.

This is some people's “gut reaction”, but not everyone's, and certainly not all players' - I have seen a number of people asking on forums and facebook whether their friend can pick up “their” promo, or whether they can get it if they show up at the site in the morning but don't actually register for/play in the event, etc.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Aug. 9, 2016 09:44:13 PM)

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

This is some people's “gut reaction”, but not everyone's, and certainly not all players' - I have seen a number of people asking on forums and facebook whether their friend can pick up “their” promo, or whether they can get it if they show up at the site in the morning but don't actually register for/play in the event, etc.

Sure, sure, #notallplayers, but generally the questions are either the result of the TO incorrectly advertising the promo as part of the PPTQ prize, or wishful thinking of the “don't want to leave value on the table” variety.