Take the same scenario as the OP, where one player is locked out of top 8, and the other player can make it with a win.
What if the locked out player doesn't just scoop or concede at the outset of the match, but actually plays the match, "wins" the match, and then scoops? Does that make a difference?

Chubby Rain scooped Jazza into the 6/17 top 8, after he beat him, and then Jazza went on to win a tournament he otherwise would not have won. That's not just harmful to the person who was left out of the top 8, but all of the other players Jazza beat.

I don't know that I have an answer here, but I do think that those comparing MTGO to paper magic are making a mistake. The rules of paper tournament magic and MTGO are different. The fact that you can't ID on MTGO and you have a clock fundamentally changes the game. People are able to manipulate the tournament structure to their advantage by drawing intentionally, but can't do that on MTGO. To me, that makes MTGO a different beast.

In a Pro Tour, you can ID in the last round so that both players make Top 8. You can'd do that on MTGO.

I don't think you can legislate players not to scoop in friends of teammates into a top 8, especially if they are locked out. But I don't think that ends the matter. If there is an implicit expectation of reciprocity down the line, that could be an ethical problem. " I scoop to you this time, and you scoop to me next time," even if there is no definite guarantee that will happen. That could an ethical problem, even if it's not a rule violation.

Not all ethical rules are legislated.

I see this more as a gray area than a bright line rule, because there are different circumstances that warrant different ethical analysis. But there are real ethical concerns here that shouldn't be papered over.

If you can't top 8, and you don't want to play why didn't you drop. This isn't an FNM.

@benjamin_berry Prizes extend to top 32 (out of 59 players). Granted, I really don't care much about these prizes, but that's the justification many players used for staying in the event to the end. I was more than willing to play out my match but not at the cost of knocking other players out of the top 8 when I'm basically playing for my entry back.

@Smmenen I would have scooped to Jazza at the beginning of the match if I knew his record. As it was, you and two other players had a fair chance at beating Jazza, so I don't think you can make an argument that you were harmed by this. It isn't like he marked his Lotus and proceeded to draw it every game in the top 8 of an NYSE, winning a presumably unmarked Black Lotus for his efforts...

@ChubbyRain said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@benjamin_berry Prizes extend to top 32 (out of 59 players). Granted, I really don't care much about these prizes, but that's the justification many players used for staying in the event to the end. I was more than willing to play out my match but not at the cost of knocking other players out of the top 8 when I'm basically playing for my entry back.

@Smmenen I would have scooped to Jazza at the beginning of the match if I knew his record. As it was, you and two other players had a fair chance at beating Jazza, so I don't think you can make an argument that you were harmed by this. It isn't like he marked his Lotus and proceeded to draw it every game in the top 8 of an NYSE, winning a presumably unmarked Black Lotus for his efforts...

You just can't help yourself from making personal attacks can you?

If Paul had a marked Lotus, a judge would've been able to detect that. Otherwise, that's just slander.

The issue isn't whether someone had a fair chance. I didn't say what you did was unfair. I said what you did was harmful. Not all harm is unfair.

You played him, beat him, and then you scooped. It may have been fair, it may have been legal, but that doesn't mean it was entirely unproblematic.

@ChubbyRain said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@benjamin_berry not at the cost of knocking other players out of the top 8 ..

You knocked someone out of the top 8. Rich is not upset, but he isn't the person in 9th place every time.

The other members of the top 8 won and earned their position, Jazza didn't. Why should he be in single elimination rounds, and why should you get to decide?

@ChubbyRain said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@benjamin_berry Prizes extend to top 32 (out of 59 players). Granted, I really don't care much about these prizes, but that's the justification many players used for staying in the event to the end. I was more than willing to play out my match but not at the cost of knocking other players out of the top 8 when I'm basically playing for my entry back.

I've never cashed a large event. How much prize difference is there between 9th and 32rd? If the prize money was the reason for not dropping then it's in you're best interest fight for every position on the ranking. A draw may allow you to avoid the risk of a loss out of proportion to the loss in prizes.

My local FNM pays out to x/1 so conceding when your x/2 last round against an x/1 opponent dilutes the payout to the winners but it's usually $7 vs $8.

Since these events pay out on place not ranking means you're playing kingmaker by not letting the game choose the winner.

A player can concede any game at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. When one player has no chance of advancement and another has a chance contingent on winning that match, the "reward" for the lower ranked person to strive for is nothing more than mutually assured destruction. It strikes me as more sportsmanlike to concede. The counterargument that the lower ranked player has an obligation to do X or Y to maintain third party breakers is undercut by the fact that the probative value breakers are already undercut by elements beyond players' control. It's not my fault, for instance, if my Round 3 Opponent loses to Dredge in Round 5, yet I would be "punished" for that. Since breakers are already defective, there can be no responsibility to try to uphold their integrity; they lack integrity by their very nature.

Secondly, complaining about the technical and difficult to ascertain results of sportsmanlike/amicable concessions on third parties' standings suggests things are being taken far too seriously.

@ChubbyRain said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

It isn't like he marked his Lotus and proceeded to draw it every game in the top 8 of an NYSE, winning a presumably unmarked Black Lotus for his efforts...

Not helpful!

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

why should you get to decide?

Quite simply because the rules of the game allow him to decide that. Matt had the right to decide to concede, the same as a player who wins a die roll has the right to decide to go first in the Swiss.

@The-Atog-Lord said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

why should you get to decide?

Quite simply because the rules of the game allow him to decide that. Matt had the right to decide to concede, the same as a player who wins a die roll has the right to decide to go first in the Swiss.

But the question in the OP wasn't whether the rules permit this. The question was whether scooping was ethical.

That's a classic example of substitution, along the lines Daniel Kahneman famously wrote about, where someone substitutes the answer to a hard question with the answer to an easy one.

Unless you believe the law/rules are the sum total of ethics, then pointing that the rules permit such action is not the end of the ethical inquiry.

@brianpk80 said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

When one player has no chance of advancement and another has a chance contingent on winning that match, the "reward" for the lower ranked person to strive for is nothing more than mutually assured destruction. It strikes me as more sportsmanlike to concede.

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances? Or the person in another match who has to play the game, only to have its results nullified because another player got a free win simply due to match ups?

Again, I think concessions under the right circumstances are ok. I just dont like having them couched in terms of being 'sportsmanlike,' because from the perspective of other people in the tournament a given concession could be anything but sportsmanlike.

@Khahan Thanks for your post. I completely agree. I would obviously conceed in a daily where it I was 1-2 and my opponent is 2-1. All I am doing is helping someone reach payout without affecting anyone else. Like you said there is a time and a place for it. However, I personally would never do it in a tournament that cuts to top 8. I actually find it very problematic when there is a concession to a friend or teammate because it assumes that there will be a reciprocal in the future should be situation be reversed. That at least isn't the case with a stranger.

@The-Atog-Lord said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

why should you get to decide?

Quite simply because the rules of the game allow him to decide that. Matt had the right to decide to concede, the same as a player who wins a die roll has the right to decide to go first in the Swiss.

Matt has the right to scoop his match. But I want him to articulate why does he get to determine who is knocked out of the single elimination and who isn't. He has said he doesn't want to knock a random stranger out, but his actions result in that happening.

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@The-Atog-Lord said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

why should you get to decide?

Quite simply because the rules of the game allow him to decide that. Matt had the right to decide to concede, the same as a player who wins a die roll has the right to decide to go first in the Swiss.

Matt has the right to scoop his match. But I want him to articulate why does he get to determine who is knocked out of the single elimination and who isn't. He has said he doesn't want to knock a random stranger out, but his actions result in that happening.

Hence my vote that this is a grey area. However I don't think Matt or anybody else owes an explanation in a situation like this. Even if the person asking is honestly just curious by Matt putting an explanation out there he's opening himself up to somebody else giving him an "AHAA!" moment.

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

Matt has the right to scoop his match. But I want him to articulate why does he get to determine who is knocked out of the single elimination and who isn't.

Matt has the right because the rules of the game give him that right. The rules of the game and the tournament structure are such that a player in Matt's position, paired up before the top 8, can choose to concede in order to let his opponent advance to the top eight. Matt has the same right to make this decision that any of us have when we make any decision in a Magic tournament. If you disagree with the rules themselves, that is a different matter. But as for what gives Matt this right, it's the very same thing that gives you the right to do anything in Magic -- the rules.

@The-Atog-Lord said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

Matt has the right to scoop his match. But I want him to articulate why does he get to determine who is knocked out of the single elimination and who isn't.

Matt has the right because the rules of the game give him that right. The rules of the game and the tournament structure are such that a player in Matt's position, paired up before the top 8, can choose to concede in order to let his opponent advance to the top eight. Matt has the same right to make this decision that any of us have when we make any decision in a Magic tournament. If you disagree with the rules themselves, that is a different matter. But as for what gives Matt this right, it's the very same thing that gives you the right to do anything in Magic -- the rules.

I want him to articulate. It's a trolley problem. Once he starts his match and wins, deciding to scoop is flipping the switch on the trolley to put someone in the top eight who hasn't earned it like his opponent. I would like him to articulate that he knows he is knocking out other people (plural) by scooping after he has played and won and why he does this for an unknown person.

You are not him.

I feel like the question could be simplified to: is it acceptable to concede?

My answer to this is yes - the rules allow this.

What I do not like to see are reasons for a concession. The justification behind a concession are completely the responsibility of the person who made said decisions. Talking about inputs and reasons into why said decision was made introduce unnecessary complexity that can raise ethical concerns. Concessions should not require justification. Personally, I think of this a little like a no-fault divorce. One partner makes a decision; the reasoning behind the decision is irrelevant, all that matters is that the decision has been made.

Do whatever you want wrt conceding to your opponents, just don't feel entitled to a concession (like certain names do) from your opponents for any reason.

You certainly pay for the right to scoop to every opponent if thats what you wish to do. I see no ethical problems with this.

Would I personally scoop? Honestly, it would depend on who Im playing. I retain the right to make that decision. I certainly dont expect any of my opponents to do it for me.

@spook You should probably send a PM if only he is allowed to answer. When you post it in public, everyone can see it and respond.

Also, he doesn't owe you anything; he can legally concede if he wants. If those other people are mad, they should have played better and lost less matches.