@Brass-Man said in Vintage Challenge - 7/8/2017:
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Challenge - 7/8/2017:
Can a drunk @Brass-Man and a drunker Stefan successfully pilot Gifts Ungiven to a Daily 4-0? Tune in next week...
Spoiler Alert: no.
But an Atog just did. The Gifts deck is good.
@Hrishi said in Ethical Dilemma: Scooping on MTGO:
This was a depressing read. I understand that people will either favor conceding or never conceding, but that is their own choice to make. Calling someone an asshole for favoring one position over the other is idiotic.
I will never hold it against someone for not conceding to me. Similarly, I will usually always concede to the person I am playing against in such a circumstance, unless there is specific reason to not do so.
To cut a long story short, it's idiotic to compare this to e-sports or anything of the sort. I am not being paid to play Magic. This is my leisure time and I can choose to spend it however I like, as long as it is within the rules. It is not my obligation to play every single round. I can choose to concede for any reason whatsoever, whether it's because I'm hungry, or because I would rather go home early, or because I simply do not want to play.
Stop confusing professional sports and our Vintage events. When I'm paid to play Vintage, then I'll take a different approach. Until then, I'll do whatever brings me the most personal satisfaction because, once again, it is my free time to do with as I choose.
Good god, I really feel sorry for @ChubbyRain because he does a lot of additional work in bringing metagame information every week, and streaming because it is helpful to bring newer players into the format. His reward is being called an asshole for conceding, an action which is perfectly legal by the rules of Magic, blamed for manipulating metagame information because of concessions and worse. I'm disappointed.
Well said, Hrishi. This whole thread seems like a great argument for a newcomer never to step foot in this community.
@Smmenen I think some prople are conflating laws and game rules.
You can concede at any time during a match. This includes at the very start, or with a lethal spell on the stack. Nothing dishonest about that.
Dishonest? No. It is Matt's right. It put me in 9th place. But it was legal. I am not upset about it. It was simply following the rules. Not cheating, not deception, not angle shooting. Clearly permitted.
Harmful, Bobby? Matt followed the rules. If you are unhappy with the rules that is one thing. But Matt did what the rules give him an explicit right to do.
@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 last deck that won a Vintage Challenge was Mentor with one Gush and three Night's Whisper. Basically, the Turbo Xerox engine is so powerful that it can win events, even with Gush restricted.
Should Mentor be restricted? Maybe. But hitting Gush was the right first step. Whatever else happens next, Wizards made the right decision by hitting Gush.
@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.
If anyone should be unhappy about Matt scooping, it should be I. I missed top 8 on it and got 9th. But I'm not unhappy. I'd have done the same thing as Matt. Andy did nothing wrong. Matt did nothing wrong.