Justin, the MTR says the following:

As an exception, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes according to their resulting ranking.

The part of that situation is against policy is the part where they play and the winner gets the prize, as policy says that one player must agree to drop.

My interpretation of that statement would be that they were agreeing to a
win-by-drop and were playing an unofficial match as their way to
determining the prize split. Certainly if they play, there is no way for
the winner to not receive the PPTQ invite, so the other player must, by
necessity of this statement, be volunteering to drop.

I do see how I'm assuming a bit in terms of what the players know and are
suggesting by their statements, and yes, technically, you're correct that
what they're suggesting they do is not technically permitted. I would,
however, suggest that my interpretation, as explained above, is a
reasonable extrapolation of what the players are permitted to do via the
MTR. After all, if we're going to be strict constructionists, any player
who says, at any time, “I'm not going to the RPTQ, I'll scoop so you get
the invite as long as I get more packs” has run afoul of Improperly
Determining a Winner, since, although the MTR includes the exception for
the finals, it specifies the player must drop, not concede. I'm sure it's
clear how such an interpretation is ludicrously pedantic. In my
experience, players often don't care about the specifics of how it has to
be recorded in WER or how it might affect their PWP world rankings or
whatnot. They care about what they are allowed to offer in such a
situation, which is what we're getting at here.

Originally posted by Elias Chountalas:

Thanks everyone for the insight and Scott for the official summary and clarification. Now, this is a rule I know I will never forget!
I am also in the hopes that this might kindle some productive conversation on optimizing the relevant wording, like Dustin said.

So if I understand correctly: what's unclear is that players may talk about who drops while discussing prize splits, rather than talking about drops only after a prize split is agreed?

As an exception, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish in exchange for one of the players at each table dropping from the tournament.

As an exception, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may ask for or offer the win in exchange for an altered division of tournament prizes. In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament.

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. As an exception where players are allowed to ask for a result in exchange, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament.”

Changes underlined.
That's what I could come up with at the moment. The problem is that you have to be careful not to give the impression that the players must use the term ‘drop’ and can't use ‘concede’.

Edited Toby Hazes (July 21, 2017 06:42:51 PM)

Justin, what they do with the prizes *after* the tournament is up to them - so if they want to go off a play somewhere to decide how they split? None of our concern.

What they can't do, is play a sanctioned match and have the result recorded, in combination with that prize arrangement; the only option is “win-by-drop” for the player receiving the invite, no match recorded.

d:^D

Scott, that was my understanding and how I've executed said “win-by-drops” anytime I've had them occur. I suppose my concern is making sure we're clear on how we're communicating with the finals players once they're in position to start discussing a split. I've never been overly concerned that players use the term “concede” or “scoop” or some synonym rather than “drop.” I do remind them not to offer anything outside the tournament prizes, and I do tell them that one of them may drop which will make the other the winner by default, but I've never felt it worthwhile to police the specific terminology in use in the finals discussions. Am I wrong to be so lax?

Sent from my iPhone

I think that this topic confuses a lot of people because of the very usual situation where the finalists both want the invite, but prefer to change the prizes so that the loser gets all the boosters.

Prizes split are allowed in general, but we would not accept such an offer during the Swiss rounds as it would quite clearly be “an incentive to entice an opponent into conceding”.

It is also not something that is allowed by the specific rules about finals, since neither player actually wants to drop.

The reason why it is acceptable in this setting is that we know that it is not a clever way to ask for a concession, because the players can openly ask for a concession (in the form of a drop).

There is not a specific provision in the IPG that allows the players to offer (and accept) these splits. Nonetheless, they are allowed because the rules of the IPG have penumbras, formed by emanations from those rules, that help give them life and substance.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I think that this topic confuses a lot of people because of the very usual situation where the finalists both want the invite, but prefer to change the prizes so that the loser gets all the boosters.

Prizes split are allowed in general, but we would not accept such an offer during the Swiss rounds as it would quite clearly be “an incentive to entice an opponent into conceding”.

Usually but not always depending on the same context. If the winner gets in the top8 or gets pro points, “loser gets the boosters/money” can still be an agreement where both want to win but soften the blow of losing. Just like with your first scenario.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

If the winner gets in the top8 or gets pro points, “loser gets the boosters/money” can still be an agreement

The operative word is can. Maybe it is a way of “softening the blow”. Maybe it is a way of saying “I want the Pro points and I'm ready to let you get the money”. There is no way for us (or for the other player) to know what was the intend behind the words. As this is the kind of offer that cannot be unmade, and we cannot ensure that the players play to the best of their ability, we have to forbid it.

In the finals, we know for sure that it is not a bribe in disguise. If the player meant to say “I want the invite, I'm ready to let you get the boosters”, they would say it. Likewise, if the opponent prefers the booster, they can say so.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

There is no way for us (or for the other player) to know what was the intend behind the words. As this is the kind of offer that cannot be unmade, and we cannot ensure that the players play to the best of their ability, we have to forbid it.

Where does it say that we forbid that?

Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as 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.

They are allowed to split prizes as they wish as long as that's not in exchange for a match result.
It is up to us to determine the intent.

I'm not saying your line of thinking isn't valid (“it's hard to determine intent in these cases so we should always forbid it”) but I don't believe that's current policy.

Edited Toby Hazes (July 21, 2017 06:44:27 PM)

I think that “Do you want to split the prizes such that the loser gets all the money / the boosters?” is always a DQ, except in the finals of an event.

Regardless of the intent, it is an incentive which could “entice an opponent into conceding the results of a match”.

Couldn't that be said about any kind of prize split? “Wanna split 50/50?” could also be an incentive. Then we should disallow them all.

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

I think that this topic confuses a lot of people

Florian, you are correct - as demonstrated by your own misunderstandings of policy. You're not alone, a lot of people get this wrong; the lead of the Player Investigation Committee (PIC) mentioned that the PIC has recently reviewed several incorrect DQs that occurred in the (single elimination) finals.

Ex 1: “If I concede, will you give me all the boosters?” –> DQ for Bribery
Ex 2: “Agree that loser gets all the boosters? … OK, I concede.” –> not a DQ

While that may seem like a fine line, or simply semantics (and I admit, it may rely a great deal on English syntax that won't translate as well as I'd hope?), the distinction is actually very absolute, and - I hope! - fairly clear.
In Example 1, the outcome of the match is very clearly dependent on the prize arrangement. In Example 2, there is no connection stated (or even implied) between the prize “split” and the result.

That's the key - when a prize split is proposed, there can be no statement of how it might affect the outcome of the match. If the outcome is then agreed to, separate from the split, it's not Bribery.

d:^D

I remember discussion a while ago where the ‘O’ stance (iirc) was that an
offer of “Loser gets all the boosters?” implies the offer strongly enough
for the DQ.

Are you referring strictly to the finals, where the implication isn't as
strong, or is this a general interpretation of policy?

If needed, after the GP weekend, I can go through my usual hefty gmail
search for the relevant thread(s).

2017-07-21 10:15 GMT-04:00 Scott Marshall <

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Ex 1: “If I concede, will you give me all the boosters?” –> DQ for Bribery
Ex 2: “Agree that loser gets all the boosters? … OK, I concede.” –> not a DQ

Is this about the finals, or for a Swiss round?

Originally posted by Florian Horn:

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Ex 1: “If I concede, will you give me all the boosters?” –> DQ for Bribery
Ex 2: “Agree that loser gets all the boosters? … OK, I concede.” –> not a DQ

Is this about the finals, or for a Swiss round?

Florian (who Scott is posting) is referring to NOT the finals. Scott is also referring to NOT the finals in this context (or correct me if I'm wrong d:^)