Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO

@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.

last edited by spook

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.

@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:

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'll give you the answer I gave 10 years ago in Introduction of Philosophy.

There is a difference, in my opinion and morality, between the direct and indirect results of various options. It's like pushing the fat man onto the tracks to save one person. I don't think I'm obligated to do that or that it's even ethical. Even in a utilitarian sense, it's an equivalent exchange between the harms and benefits.

@EmoPizza I made a slight alteration to make it more accurate.

0_1499383754480_upload-f4025fc5-ce14-44cc-9592-7ab28ab3da67

@Khahan said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances?

Yes, it is more sportsmanlike towards the person sitting across from you who has a chance to advance if you have absolutely no chance to advance. Who would want to sit for an hour across from someone with such hostile intentions? "I have nothing to gain by winning here, but it will at least allow me to ruin your chance of success." To me that would be a "dick move," which is the opposite of sportsmanship.

We can't take responsibility for the effects of our matches on third parties, only what is before us. It's not unethical to beat your Shops opponent because the person she beat two rounds ago needs her to win in order to have better breakers.

I would have to look up the correct defintion of sportsmanship, but how is giving up without playing good sport? Not playing sounds like uhm being not good sports.

@brianpk80 said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@Khahan said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances?

Yes, it is more sportsmanlike towards the person sitting across from you who has a chance to advance if you have absolutely no chance to advance. Who would want to sit for an hour across from someone with such hostile intentions? "I have nothing to gain by winning here, but it will at least allow me to ruin your chance of success." To me that would be a "dick move," which is the opposite of sportsmanship.

We can't take responsibility for the effects of our matches on third parties, only what is before us. It's not unethical to beat your Shops opponent because the person she beat two rounds ago needs her to win in order to have better breakers.

I don't see how playing to win in a tournament setting can ever be considered a "dick move". The person that can no longer make top 8 came to play and win just the same as the person that can. That person may not have a chance to make top 8 in this scenario, but I don't see why it would be considered a "dick move" to not hand a top 8 spot to the other person.

It would be much better if the tournament structure provided and incentive for this not to happen. Does an NBA team have an ethical responsibility to not dump games for a better draft pick? If you answer yes, then don't the rulemakers also have the responsibility of disincentivising that behavior?

In this case, why not just incentivise winning all the way down. People sometimes collude to get some hidden gain outside of the game, like the Blacksox scandal. That is tough to police. It's also not at all like this situation where a sort of game-dumping reciprocity is baked in to a pretty poorly drawn up "top 8" focused prize structure for only arbitrary reasons so far as I can tell. Just change the pay out structure.

@brianpk80 said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@Khahan said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances?

Yes, it is more sportsmanlike towards the person sitting across from you who has a chance to advance if you have absolutely no chance to advance. Who would want to sit for an hour across from someone with such hostile intentions? "I have nothing to gain by winning here, but it will at least allow me to ruin your chance of success." To me that would be a "dick move," which is the opposite of sportsmanship.

We can't take responsibility for the effects of our matches on third parties, only what is before us. It's not unethical to beat your Shops opponent because the person she beat two rounds ago needs her to win in order to have better breakers.

I don't think forcing somebody to play the same number of rounds of magic as everybody else to earn his way in is a dick move. With that said, I've been on both sides of the situation and it almost always ends with a scoop. Even if we play it out for fun - its still a scoop. The only time I can think of it hasn't been a scoop is when I was facing somebody's teammate - if I won, I'm in. If I lose my opponents teammate is in. This is honestly where I have a greater ethical issue.

Going back to an earlier post from me, the idea of scooping in this situation should be unhindered by other considerations. Once you start putting caveats on the scoop you are closer to or simply over the line of what is ethical.

@brianpk80 said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@Khahan said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances?

Who would want to sit for an hour across from someone with such hostile intentions? "I have nothing to gain by winning here, but it will at least allow me to ruin your chance of success." To me that would be a "dick move," which is the opposite of sportsmanship.

Some people like to play Magic, even after getting two losses.

@spook said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@brianpk80 said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

@Khahan said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:

More sportsmanlike for whom? The person who gets a free win and advances?

Who would want to sit for an hour across from someone with such hostile intentions? "I have nothing to gain by winning here, but it will at least allow me to ruin your chance of success." To me that would be a "dick move," which is the opposite of sportsmanship.

Some people like to play Magic, even after getting two losses.

I played Magic, then scooped. One does not necessarily preclude the other.

  • 92
    Posts
  • 42457
    Views