BlippyTheSlug's picture
By: BlippyTheSlug, Volker Kirstein
Nov 19 2012 11:53am
5
Login to post comments
3368 views


Tournament Etiquette

As a TO (Tournament Organizer), I "see" a great many people every weekend, from all parts of the world. This is one of the wonderful things about MTGO, it's transparency to the world. Sometimes this is a drawback, too, as non-English speakers struggle to converse and compete in an English speaking world. I also see quite a bit of, for lack of a better word, buttcrackery. 

It's all fun and games until someone gets poked in the eye. Which seems to happen quite often.

Here are some basic, common sense, “rules” that you should be aware of when playing in tournaments. Be it FNM, a GP, a PTQ, a PRE, or whatever. These "rules" are things that apply to both paper and online play, so don't gloss over this just because you only play paper, or only play online.

You will rarely see these things written down in “official” documentation for events. These are presented more as guidelines to polite behavior, and are not really "rules", per se. Remember, even though they're usually not actually written down, violating them can potentially get you removed from an event!

 

Be well on time. This includes enough time to submit your decklist and register. Just because the sign says “registration open until such and such time” does not mean that you can show up with a binder full of cards, no deck built, with three seconds to spare, and still get in. 

When the TO signals for attention, please pipe down. The people running the event aren't talking to hear themselves speak, they're trying to pass on pertinent information to you, the player.

Don't interrupt the TO during the Player Meeting. This is not the time for playing games. If the TO is going over event rules, and there's something you're not clear about, don't just shout out “What about...?”, wait until the announcements are over. Chance are there will be a Q&A. If you see your buddy across the room, don't shout out “Hey, Joe!”, wait until the announcements are over. 

Keep quiet while watching games. When you're done with your match, and just wandering around, don't butt in on other player's games. Even if players are already chatting with other observers. No matter how awesome, or silly, the play may be, keep it to yourself. Same with smart cracks. 

Don't just walk away. If you decide to drop from an event, please let someone know. Nothing irritates a TO more than having someone leave without telling anybody, and then getting paired. This causes severe headaches for all parties concerned. Don't rage quit.

Don't assume you're still in the event if you were a no-show for a round. Many tournaments will automatically drop someone who doesn't show up for a round. If you have a valid reason, and let the judge or TO know what happened, you will usually be told “I can put you back in.” This is not the same as “I will put you back in.” You have to request to be “undropped”.

The TO is sole judge, jury, and executioner with regards to event related judgment calls. Period.

The Riot Act. Bullying, mobbing, foul language, & general rudeness will not be tolerated. This includes "snide remarks" about decks/playing ability, personal attacks, racial slurs, etc. Nobody wants to read it aloud. Nobody wants to have it read to them. Nobody wants to have to put it into tournament rules. But there it is. Don't make us do it.

 

 
 
 

Friday Night Standard

In conjunction with Alphabot, I am pleased to announce a new event premiering this upcoming Friday, November 23 at 8:30PM Eastern: Friday Night Standard! This is a free-to-enter limited (up to 24 players) seating event structured just like the daily Scheduled Events on MTGO: 4 rounds of Swiss pairings, with prizes going to all 4-0 and 3-1 players.

When is it?
Friday Night Standard happens every Friday at 830PM Eastern/530PM Pacific.

Where is it?
Games will be played in the Play > Casual Play > Anything Goes/Getting Serious room.

Game chat, registration, & instructions happen in the Friday Night Standard room. Type /join FNS in your chat window (v3 client), or join channel #FNS (beta client).

Does it cost anything? 
Friday Night Standard is free to enter! There is absolutely no cost - other than your time - to play.

How do I register?
You may register for an upcoming event at any time on Gatherling. Registration closes at 830PM Eastern, or when 24 players have joined, whichever comes first. Registration for the premiere event will open Friday morning at 830AM Eastern.

Simply log onto Gatherling, go to your "Player CP", and in the list of events, click "Register" for the event you want to play in. This will take you to a screen where you enter your decklist. Paste your decklist in here. 

Gatherling registration does close sharply at 830PM Eastern! Once the train leaves the station, it's too late to jump on.

What can I win?
Prizes are bot credits on Alphabot. Prize pool will consist of one ticket credit per player who enters the event (up to 24) distributed as follows:

  • 40% of pool split between all 12 point (undefeated) players.
  • 60% of pool split between all 9 point (one loss) players. 

How do I collect my prizes?
Your credits will be automatically added to Alphabot. No action from you is required.

Fine print

  • 24 seats will be available. Seats are filled on a first come, first served basis.
  • Event will be 4 rounds of Swiss pairing. There will be no Top (x) playoff.
  • Players receive 3 points for a match win, 1 point for a match draw.
  • All pairings and standings will be generated via Gatherling.
  • Deck changes between games are not allowed.
  • Games are played in the Play > Casual Play > Anything Goes/Getting Serious room. Games must be set as Standard, watchable, best 2 of 3, and be marked "FNS Round x".
  • First person listed makes table. Players have 10 minutes to make and join tables from time of pairings announcement.
  • Bullying, mobbing, foul language, & general rudeness will not be tolerated. This includes "snide remarks" about decks/playing ability, personal attacks, racial slurs, etc. A player will get 1 warning, then be ejected from event. Further violations after ejection may be cause for suspension from Friday Night Standard play.
  • Talking during other players games is not allowed. You may chat - within the guidelines above - within your own game. Violations by non event participants may be screenshot & reported to WotC for harassment.
  • Results must be posted in the /join FNSCOM room, or via Gatherling, before intermission. Results posted in the FNS chat room or in PM will be ignored. Results not posted before intermission will be declared a 0-0 draw.
  • WotC employees are welcome to play, but are ineligible for any prizes. We request no "shop talk", unless prior arrangements are made. 

 

 

Censorship and the Solving of Constructed Formats

Censor /sensər/ Verb

  1. to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
  2. to suppress or delete as objectionable 

This definition is per Merriam-Webster, not pulled out of my own brain. So when I say WotC is censoring the published results of the daily Scheduled Events, I do mean exactly that. It is not rhetoric. The word itself brings up it's own associations in many people's minds. I am using it here in a strictly factual sense. Someone at WotC is examining the results, and suppressing many of them. This meets the criteria for both definitions 1 and 2 of the verb censor.

We can now proceed to the rhetoric.

Their claims for the reasoning behind this decision to censor are two-fold: 1) "we feel that publishing every deck list leads to solving constructed formats far too efficiently", and 2) "we don’t want metagame development to become purely a function of data analysis".

Solving Constructed Formats

This claim is a bit difficult to answer. While I agree that some formats, especially those with limited card pools, do tend to get "solved" rather quickly, formats with deeper card pools, where all results have been published and analyzed for years, cannot be considered "solved" at all. Legacy has had event results coming out it's ears since 2005. Yet no one could conceivably call Legacy "solved". Modern (my format of choice) has also been published daily for over a year, and I don't believe anyone could call Modern "solved". Nor Classic. Nor Pauper.

I think the culprits here are Block and Standard. Withholding information for all formats may slow down the "solving" of these two formats to some extent, I don't believe that this slow down will be as great as R&D had hoped. Only time will tell.

Perhaps the problem here isn't the players, or the people poring over the results. Perhaps the problem here lies in the card pool itself? Let's keep using the pool analogy. Is the pool shallow, with crystal clear water? Or is the pool deep and murky, with who knows what lurking below? In this sense, the last few blocks have (IMO) been crystal clear pools of medium depth. When you can make out the date on the coin at the bottom of the pool, that pool will become "solved" rather quickly, whether we have blinders on or not.

Perhaps instead of putting blinders on us, R&D could make deep, murky pools that are more difficult to "solve". 

Metagame Development

The word "metagame" does not exist in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language. It may in some future edition, but currently, we can make that word mean whatever we want. Our own individual definitions may vary, but I think we can agree that the word metagame generally refers to the current state of the overall playing environment in a particular game. 

Metagames evolve as players look at what's being played, see how it fares, and adjust their builds accordingly. That sounds pretty accurate and reasonable to me. Let's rephrase that just a touch. Metagames evolve as players look at data, analyze it, and adjust their builds accordingly. I don't know about you, but in my eyes, that hits the nail spot on as being "data analysis". Which in turn means metagame development is data analysis. Which in turn often involves "number crunching".

If metagame development is not data analysis, what is it? Put another way: how can we play fantasy football if up to roughly two thirds of the scores and stats aren't released in a given week? Should we be consulting tarot cards, ouija boards, and making blind stabs in the dark? Perhaps we could read the metagame in goat entrails or tea leaves. 

 

 

22 Comments

You can only censor a 2nd by mihahitlor at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 14:00
mihahitlor's picture

You can only censor a 2nd party, you can't censor yourself, since censoring implies forceful editing of someone's content, or editing that is done with author's consent but is against what he would ideally want, to the point that it compromises his vision. The definition doesn't explicitly say so, but that's why there are examples to show the context in which the word is used.

Examples from Mirriam-Webster:
The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
His report was heavily censored.

It's kind of annoying that you keep using this word.

See this is actually by Paul Leicht at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 16:05
Paul Leicht's picture

See this is actually incorrect. You can censor yourself. It is called Self-Censorship. Now I understand why people are annoyed by Blippy's usage but does that really change the underlying point? Argue the point/context and leave the semantics for the trolls eh?

Semantics by BlippyTheSlug at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 16:58
BlippyTheSlug's picture

I can see how people are getting tired of me shouting "censored!", even though it happens to apply (quite accurately IMO). The emotional baggage attached to that word is apparently too heavy.

Tell ya what. I'll use "redacted" in future censures.

But this fight, futile though it may be, is far from over.

I am among those that do not by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 04:40
Alphi's picture

I am among those that do not believe this can be called censorship, but rather than talking about the emotional baggage attached to that word, I would rather say that having so many arguments as to whether it is censorship or not is diluting the argument for the return of the full results. Even if it was bonafide censorship, I think the main interest of the majority would still be whether the changes are good for the players and/or the game.

As you stated, the argument from WotC that the formats are getting solved too fast apply not to Modern. Worst, I think it can be argued that the lack of data can be detrimental to new players joining the format. It will also not help the general attitude of a lot of pro players (if I can't figure out the format, I'll just play Jund. I'll even add Lingering Souls and call it a revolution.), and pro players' innovation is necessary for a format's development in competitive play. Finally, it can be argued that this is a format that actually needs to be solved if we want it to generate more interest. A wide variety of non-interractive decks that have little advantage over each other except requiring a different hate card does not make for a healthy format over the long term. Modern currently has a lot to offer, but it also has ways to go, and a proper metagame can only help in this regard.

Oh, and also, I hate it when people take things away from me without telling! (yeah, I'm still mad over that)

I am surprised that metagame by Rerepete at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 14:33
Rerepete's picture

I am surprised that metagame is not defined in Mirriam-Webster. The wikipedia reference to metagame even uses MtG as an example of metagame, although I first heard the term in the early eighties in reference to the game Diplomacy. In a general sense, metagaming is gaming the game. By knowing the field, MtG becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors-dynamite (dynamite doesn't care about any opponent, it blows everything up).

WotC, by reducing the amount of tourney results posted, is making top tier play more elitist - those with large playtest groups will end up with faster maturing tech, than the average person, something the results posting can alleviate. Will it slow the overall maturation of new tech? Yes, to a small degree, as Wizo's are not the only source of information and decklists

You hint at something I sense by blandestk at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 18:29
blandestk's picture
5

You hint at something I sense to be correct, but few have talked about it in the areas I have visited. The information release is not the actual problem to quick "solving." The true culprit is the extreme power level of recent sets. Your statement about crystal clear bodies of water being easy to "solve" is on the right track. How hard is it to realize you should include a card with just one color requirement, has flash, is a 3/4 flier, AND includes an ability just begging to be abused? How hard is it to realize you should include a card that has just a solitary color requirement, gains you five life upon entering, has five power, AND gives you a creature if your opponent manages to deal with it? Add planeswalkers to the table. Add a slew of dual lands. How hard is it to "solve" these metagames when I can tell from looking at a card in 5 seconds and know it needs to go in my deck?

That is the true problem of quick solution, not information.

Censorship... by Fred1160 at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 18:50
Fred1160's picture

Oh yes, Paul is 100% correct. Self-censorship is a real thing. (The history of World War II is full of examples of self-censorship, just as an example.)
Am I happy that WOTC is censoring the information they are putting out? No, but I suspect that this, like most or all of the decisions they make, is based on what they think is right and not on the wishes of the community.
Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!
Will this fix the underlying problems of solved formats and nerfing people's attempts at data analysis?
Probably not.
I appreciate that Blippy has spoken out on the subject. There are too many WOTC apologists out there.
Remember, don't make excuses for Wizards. They pay flunkies good money to do that.
Don't put a flunkie out of work!

A key difference between by xger at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 20:09
xger's picture

A key difference between "metagaming" and "data analysis" is that one is probability and the other statistics. Metagaming involves (at least at a high level) estimating the rate of appearance for decks, the odds of winning said match-ups where is the analysis is what actually happened. Hence the metagame is ahead of data analysis.

For instance, the eggs deck that won pro tour RTR was a great meta game decision - it's a fragile deck but powerful when the field is unprepared. Data analysis would not have lead to that conclusion, some logic, assumptions, and a essentially a hunch lead to.

I think this change has the potential to decrease the variety of net decks, which I think could have some of the impact they want.

As for "censorship", my biggest qualm with that title is simply that the information they are supposedly censoring isn't information we have a gurantee or right too, it was something they were giving extra

But how did people know the by blandestk at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 20:19
blandestk's picture

But how did people know the eggs deck was a great decision? Did they psychically know which decks were likely to be there? No, they looked at the data to come up with that notion...

Further, we really don't have a RIGHT to any information, Magic or otherwise.

Censorship... by Fred1160 at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 20:31
Fred1160's picture

No one is saying we have a "right" to that information.
What people are saying is that we were getting that information and Wizards arbitrarily
decided to take away a sizable chunk of it. No discussion, no vote, no nothing.

Did we have a right to the by AJ_Impy at Mon, 11/19/2012 - 21:09
AJ_Impy's picture

Did we have a right to the information about them deciding we had no right to the information?

I'd say yes, on the grounds that the player base has a stakehold in the service no longer being provided.

I'd go a step further and say by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 04:45
Alphi's picture

I'd go a step further and say we naturally expected the results to remain available according to comments made by Maro in the past. It does not mean that WotC cannot change their mind, but it does mean that they should properly address why they are doing that when they have stated so clearly in the past that access to information promotes a healthy metagame.

Did that player base have a by greyes3 at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 04:45
greyes3's picture

Did that player base have a right to that service in the first place though? I would argue no, seeing as it was freely provided to us.

As someone who actually plays in quite a few events a year online, I am really looking forward to the changes this will bring to the tournament scene. Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting.

It would make things by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 04:48
Alphi's picture

It would make things interesting as long as you belong or do not face people who belong to quality testing groups. Players like you (and I) who only play a few events every year would get properly trounced by anyone who has the means of preparing properly. I'm not sure it would be much fun for very long.

That's a hefty assumption. by greyes3 at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 05:24
greyes3's picture

That's a hefty assumption. You should probably reread what I wrote.

"Heck, I would prefer if by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 05:36
Alphi's picture

"Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting."

I stand by what I said. The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us.

I don't agree with what you by greyes3 at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 06:00
greyes3's picture

I don't agree with what you are saying for a second, but for the sake of argument lets just assume you are correct. Would you agree that if decklists are readily available to everyone, people belonging to testing groups still have an advantage over people not belonging to testing groups?

Yes I do. I completely agree by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 06:25
Alphi's picture

Yes I do. I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. However, when decklists are not available, as things were in the mid-nineties, you seriously limit the ability of new players or those who practice competitive play on an irregular basis to even have a chance to compete. And it's not as if this was just my personal thoughts on the matter: we've seen exactly what the game looked like without a metagame, and no, it was not interesting for a majority of us.

"The less decklists are by greyes3 at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 07:02
greyes3's picture

"The less decklists are published, the more the advantage goes to those belonging to testing groups. That's interesting to those individuals, a lot less to the rest of us."

You want decklists published in order for testing groups not to have a competitive advantage?

"I completely agree that rigorous testing with a group of good players will give you a well deserved edge, no matter what, as will people with excellent deck building skills or just very smart people. "

Testing groups deserve a competitive advantage?

Seriously, I'm starting to by Alphi at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 07:59
Alphi's picture

Seriously, I'm starting to believe you're not understanding any of this on purpose. Testing groups will always have an advantage and that is well deserved. Publishing decklists limits that advantage but facilitates the participation of new and occasional players, which is good for both the game and the players. It's not new, it's not a revolutionary concept, and you might do well to study Magic's history and its evolution pre- and post-decklists publishing if you're still amazed.

I agree with Alphi by Rerepete at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 08:57
Rerepete's picture

I agree with Alphi here.

Publishing the results allows everyone an even playing field with regards to the knowledge of what has gone before. Testing groups still have a sizable advantage in that they develop new tech at a faster pace, as well as knowledge of the intricacies of their own deck of choice. Even given decklists, a new player would be competitive, but still would be disadvantaged (and rightly so) by lack of knowledge of sideboarding options vs other decks.

Not publishing all the pertinent results skews perception of the format, gives more advantages to the testing groups and acts as a barrier to entry for the newer player of a format, who without proper knowledge, would be more loathe to enter (and invest) into an unknown.

Ya I'm of the same view, all by Xaoslegend at Tue, 11/20/2012 - 15:06
Xaoslegend's picture
5

Ya I'm of the same view, all this does is advantage playtest groups and hardcore grinders over the more casual or individual player, who is already disadvantaged enough. Easily accessible information is critical to fair competition.