Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO
This post is deleted!
@ChubbyRain said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:
@spook I agree. The 5th seed should be playing against another high seed, where both players have a shot at making top 8 and every reason to play. Regardless of the ethical ramifications, the tournament system for MTGO is poorly executed. If only that was the only thing flawed on MTGO...
This is so confusing to me. Paper magic DCI reporter usually tries to pair people with similar opponent match win percentage, no? The idea that someone in like 29th place could be paired against a 5th seed makes no sense to me.
Is MTGO programming really that different from the DCI reporter? Crazy.
Also, I am glad Bobby apologized. There may be legitimate ethical concerns here, but it undermines the legitimacy of any points made when people insult other people or call other people names. That doesn't help.
@Smmenen The DCI reporter tries to pair by standings as much as possible. 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, ... In effect, this means that OMW% is the determining factor for most pairings since it is the primary tiebreaker. It also means that the lowest X-1 should play the highest ranked X-2, both players should be live for top 8, and that there is no real incentive for either player to scoop (though draws in paper magic muddy this).
Randomized pairings make sense in Daily events without top 8's. Tiebreakers are irrelevant as standings don't matter and records dictate prizes. This method really doesn't make sense in events with top 8's. You want each match to clearly matter for each participant. Creating potential prize disparities creates this type of ethical dilemma. If I played against either opponent, while similarly ranked, I would not have conceded. Out of what has been at times a contentious thread, I think the key point of agreement at the end is that steps should be taken to minimize situations such as this. For the same reason that trolleys don't use a guy with a lever as their primary safety mechanism - you really don't want such a situation to occur.
@lhc Can you quote me which part is objectively misleading and false? My post was about my opinion so i'm not sure what you are specifically referring to.
I feel most of your post is addressing me in a manner inconsistent with what i'm trying to put out here. Like, obviously we all know what the black and white rules are. Restating is not helping any case (or even building one).
I can read the MTR just like anyone else, and while it is written in black and white what the rules are, it is not written why they are the way they are. I stated an opinion on their origin, which is "concessions (do not) exist to match fix and screw players". Do you disagree with my opinion? Do you believe concessions and IDs are written with the intention to screw players? Do you believe they worded concessions and IDs specifically so that every single tournament it isn't technically the 8 best performing players in the top 8?
Most of your arguments are more along the lines of what you consider ethical within an event, not about how the rules work.
This is because this actual post is about ethics, not about rules clarification.
My argument is that the rules may allow for something, but that is it not the specific design or intent to allow players to meta-game the standings. Assuming i am correct about the spirit of the rule (i think i am, but not claiming with certainty), it is notable that the rules could not be rewritten to 'function better'. You can't make a fair and reasonable rule that forbids IDs to affect standings even if they wanted to try. There will be corner cases in either case.
Simply stating "well there's the rules black and white, you see, so obviously obviously obviously etc" is not the end of line for ethical inquiry. Being 'within your rights' is not in and of itself an answer or the end-all be-all.
What's really interesting to me is that "it's within the rules" is a good enough reason for people to accept that players who are otherwise performing in the top 8 do not make the cut to top 8. Yes, and some crappy things you can do to people are not illegal, but it doesn't make it okay on the grounds of "well it's not illegal to be this awful of a person" (not implying Matt is an awful person, only an example).
Of course it's highly unethical. Imagine a soccer team losing on purpose to another team that they are friends with at the World Cup.
@Griselbrother what is this thing called soccer? It is not known to us Americans.
@KingLeovold It's not known as soccer to us, only Americans use that term : ) Football is the correct term.
@kistrand I'm pretty sure football is the game where people almost exclusively use their hands to throw the ball.
@KingLeovold yup, because that's logical
T1DarkRit last edited by
I'm sorry for necro-ing an old thread but your statement just made me remember something. Long story short in the World Cup back in '82 a similar thing happened; if Germany beat Austria by 1-2 goals both teams would advance to the next round of the WC, whereas any other result would cause one of the two teams to be eliminated.
Germany scored a goal about 10 minutes in, and then both teams just piddled around since "playing to win" would be stupid in a Game Theory sense, neither team gaining any advantage by eliminating the other but gaining much by cooperatively refusing to compete. This caused UEFA to decide that in future World Cup events both of the last games in the Group Stage for each group would be played at the same time. I've linked the relevant Wikipedia article below.
Log last edited by
And let's not forget Denmark and Sweden drawing 2-2 at Euro 2004 to knock Italy out!
@Log Yeah, that was precisely the one score that got both teams through as well. A 1-1 draw would have left them with to few goals scored and Italy would have advanced. Good thing they "happened" to play a 2-2 draw then.... The Italian press was furious about it if I remember correctly.