Per the discussion here the onus is on Marcus/Pete etc to explain why a player should explain himself when doing two legal things. Because the onus isnt there, it is on the judges to explain why their DQs were correct.
The case is that the judges worldwide have agreen/been instructed to have the possibility to misuse their authority when this happens in tourneys.
I am certain that some judges absolutely like powertrips like this, but I can assure you that Judges would have fewer bad experiences at tournament scenes (made by sour players) if this "policy" wasnt in place.
You can't ask for both because that implies that you're wanting the concession and in return you'll give them something.
If you wanted to split prizes and just that, then there's no reason to ask for a concession if you both were going to get a prize no matter what. If one of you needed to be someplace, then the person who was leaving would concede since that's more important than a win.
If the concession was the only important thing to you, then you would either ask for it alone or try to win if they decline.
If you ask for a concession then for a prize split or do it in reverse order, there's a nonzero chance that the person conceding is doing so because they will think something out of it and at that point someone could rule that you committed bribery.
I dont know how it is with the newest version mtgo (because I still have it shut off) but I know that in previous version when you had foils on the foil feature ate so much memory that the mtgo programme lagged (a lot).
I simply have it off now too, and I also dislike foils in paper (because of in game concentration). They are prettier to hang on the wall I agree though =).
(An annoying thing when you have foils shut off is that it isnt always easy to see that a card you enlarge actually is a foil (for trade reasons). Imo the small text box that pops up when you mouseover the card and hold still should simply say "premium" or "foil", but it does not.)
Agree,
...but over to this;
"...not illegal - you can ask for a concession, and you can offer a prize split. You cannot do them together."
How do a player go about bringing up that he wants both of the above for separate reasons ?
You cannot possibly mean that one legal action invalidates the other when wotc and judges have specifically stated that both are legal, right ?
When you say that "You cannot do them together." do you mean "You cannot do them both." - ???? If so I find the statements from you, judges and wotc misleading.
Hi there. Sorry I don't know what FFTR is, where can I learn more please.
Has anything been said about wifi improvement? Wifi always seems to be a major contributor to lag, but honestly cables are so impractical.
I checked with MTGOTraders.com folks. The prices are less for foils than non-foils. It is supply and demand.
In my case, I don't like the way foils look. I also don't like playing non-matching cards in my deck in a format with often-played ways of looking at my hand (Duress, Thought-Knot Seer, etc.) That means I don' want to own three regular and one foil Hangarback Walkers, but I do. The only reason that I do is that, back when I bought my fourth, the foil was about $13 and the non-foil closer to $15. I even asked Traders about that, but they were having trouble keeping regular copies in stock, but not foils, at those prices. I even offered to trade my non-foil versions for foil versions, straight up, but no takers.
It doesn't help that most people turn off foil animations, but most of us don't have a good enough computer to run everything we want to run at that high a resolution.
I would DQ you. Clear intent is to offer value for a concession. It does not matter if you make it two sentences, or say the second sentence in Greek, or stand on your head for the second one - if I understand what you say as conveying the offer of something of value for a match outcome, I believe you have committed bribery.
The problem is that either have of that combination is not illegal - you can ask for a concession, and you can offer a prize split. You cannot do them together. I don't know what your particular "high-level judge" said, but I know most of the current and former L5s and many of the L4s. I have talked to many of them about this. Odds are that the "high-level" judge's explanation was a bit more nuanced than your summary.
In thee finals, you are allowed to make a deal. Anywhere else, making an offer, even in two sentences, is bribery. The one area where it gets problematic is when you leave one half of the combo unsaid, but try to hint at it. For example: "You should concede to me because I am a very generous person." That is a judgment call, but I would likely DQ. I did last time someone tried this - and repeated it even when I told him not to go there. My logic - other than implying that the player would compensate for a concession would anyone start a Magic match by saying "I'm a generous person?"
Yes, this is about all rounds and stages of tournaments, even 3 round fnm regular rel.
I agree that you cannot bargain, and I also know that this is not allowed in finals. To bargain I mean "I give you this if you give me that." That is bringing two things together in same sentence, one relies on the other. (what togethertalking implies)
But if you do as I said earlier "Blablabla.... and I stop my sentence here. Now I begin a new sentence and ask... ." This is clearly two sentences (no togethertalking that the judges say is illegal) - this should be good, or not ... ?
If you bargain with your opponent outside of the finals of a tournament you are colluding. There is no grey area there.
This is true online as well as in paper.
If you feel it is ambiguous because asking does not always signal intent, assume in this case it does because that is what anyone listening will assume. Not asking "is this (x) legal?" but "would you?" even a hypothetical is probably grounds for a DQ. And I believe that's true online as well as on paper (though I admit I am a little fuzzy on where the line gets drawn online because there have been some flip flopping announcements concerning this. As it stands I believe you can offer to split the finals of a tournament, offering any portion of what you could win and anything else is considered collusion and bribery.)
You are cornering the discussion on two points here;
1) Please do not assume that this is a question for finals only, mind the general approach that it can happen at any stage in the tournament.
2) Also, please do not assume that this is only about answering questions/suggestions regarding prizes and the premeditated match outcome, it is also about the bringing up of one or both of these questions/suggestions with the opposing player.
The paper side is what interests me most, but I am sure many also like to hear about online.
Historically foils were problematic for bot owners to sell despite sometimes being really high in demand. Because their supplies were so low that they'd be caught guessing wrong on which ones were going to be flying out the door (and thus leaving them always out of stock) vs the ones that were going to be hot once and then never again (and then always be in stock at a bad price.) Thus many bot owners opted to not even buy foils at all. Even the really nice ones.
Now that the "premium" process is a pale yellow akin to dog pee on the fine collectables, foils have become less enticing, in fact, though the people I know who did not panic sell last year still collect them even as they hate their appearance. And I know some few who actually like the effect. So it is mixed but yeah demand is much lower for them.
Not to mention, when a FTV set comes out it does not have a non-foiled version so all those cards go for lower because of print runs and not being part of a redeemable set.
To be perfectly clear I am not a fan of any type of quid pro quo for conceding/drawing. I think it entails a sort of sportsmanship that is unethical and screws over others who would benefit if you did not do that. But usually conceding for prizes is done in the finals where it isn't screwing anyone over and I believe THAT is the situation we are referring to here.
OK so that said, there is a reason why this is not a DQ offense. The reason has to do with phrasing and also intent as far as the judges can suss it (bearing in mind that they aren't psychic and can't bring that to table). The right thing to do if you aren't sure is to decline and then ask a judge, being very clear that you already declined.
But most judges aren't draconian enough to punish someone for asking the question in the hypothetical. Especially since it helps them if you know the rules to not break them unintentionally. In fact I would ask a high level judge (preferably one involved in Tournament Organization) outside of a tournament setting if you are worried about being (wrongly imho) punished for asking for knowledge's sake.
Just met a WotC_XXXX in the limited Leagues, lost 0-2 to him/her. But the the sideboard pops up and I ask "sideboard/bug ?". To this he/she replied "I thought it would be nice with a 3d game =)." To which I replied "yea =)".
It shows two things;
1) they can compute the computers.
2) they have spent time computing stuff that isnt useful for mtgo.
- I too know about many differences between paper and online magic.
- I too think Paul is wrong about that.
- when intent is what matters I really dont agree that the way you ask should matter for anything, and certainly not for something as important as a DQ.
It's important to note that the rules for paper magic and MTGO do *not* always perfectly line up.
In paper, I believe that asking this question directly might be against the rules, and could get you disqualified by a judge.
You are allowed to split prizes, even in paper magic, but asking someone to do it the wrong way can easily get you both DQd for Bribery/Collusion if a judge gets involved.
"You can agree to concede/draw for pay if that pay is within the bounds of the tournament."
Can you elaborate on this ?
To me this reads that you say I am allowed to offer my opponent prize boosters for the return favor that he concedes/draws. I thought that was a clear cut DQ in the judge book, is it not ?
The key part is WHAT is offered/agreed upon. Prizes from the event are acceptable. From outside the event not so much. And imho this isn't a great thing ethically/morally but I suspect it cuts short a lot of the "grey area" arguments when there is an investigation. It is a shortcut to happiness for everyone: A clear cut rule. You can agree to concede/draw for pay if that pay is within the bounds of the tournament. You can't offer/accept excessive stuff as remuneration. It is clear. The hard part is proving it.
Common sense should be able to determine intent. It is very likely if you said it that way your opponent would correct assume it was a bribe. And then if they were at all smart would report it to a judge. Because accepting a bribe is just as damning as offering one.
The way you can legally phrase it without showing intent to bribe is as follows: "The prizes are x if I win. I will give that to you if you concede/draw." Anything over and beyond that is bribery.
If you see 0 in stock that USUALLY means the price has not been updated to reflect current changes in the market since that counter reached 0. Pay those ask/sell prices little mind.
Per the discussion here the onus is on Marcus/Pete etc to explain why a player should explain himself when doing two legal things. Because the onus isnt there, it is on the judges to explain why their DQs were correct.
The case is that the judges worldwide have agreen/been instructed to have the possibility to misuse their authority when this happens in tourneys.
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/legacy-weapon-getting-dqd-in-ohio/
I am certain that some judges absolutely like powertrips like this, but I can assure you that Judges would have fewer bad experiences at tournament scenes (made by sour players) if this "policy" wasnt in place.
Why would you want to do both?
You can't ask for both because that implies that you're wanting the concession and in return you'll give them something.
If you wanted to split prizes and just that, then there's no reason to ask for a concession if you both were going to get a prize no matter what. If one of you needed to be someplace, then the person who was leaving would concede since that's more important than a win.
If the concession was the only important thing to you, then you would either ask for it alone or try to win if they decline.
If you ask for a concession then for a prize split or do it in reverse order, there's a nonzero chance that the person conceding is doing so because they will think something out of it and at that point someone could rule that you committed bribery.
What Pete said. :)
I dont know how it is with the newest version mtgo (because I still have it shut off) but I know that in previous version when you had foils on the foil feature ate so much memory that the mtgo programme lagged (a lot).
I simply have it off now too, and I also dislike foils in paper (because of in game concentration). They are prettier to hang on the wall I agree though =).
(An annoying thing when you have foils shut off is that it isnt always easy to see that a card you enlarge actually is a foil (for trade reasons). Imo the small text box that pops up when you mouseover the card and hold still should simply say "premium" or "foil", but it does not.)
Agree,
...but over to this;
"...not illegal - you can ask for a concession, and you can offer a prize split. You cannot do them together."
How do a player go about bringing up that he wants both of the above for separate reasons ?
You cannot possibly mean that one legal action invalidates the other when wotc and judges have specifically stated that both are legal, right ?
When you say that "You cannot do them together." do you mean "You cannot do them both." - ???? If so I find the statements from you, judges and wotc misleading.
Freed From the Real is PureMTGO's podcast, released on Fridays.
Hi there. Sorry I don't know what FFTR is, where can I learn more please.
Has anything been said about wifi improvement? Wifi always seems to be a major contributor to lag, but honestly cables are so impractical.
I checked with MTGOTraders.com folks. The prices are less for foils than non-foils. It is supply and demand.
In my case, I don't like the way foils look. I also don't like playing non-matching cards in my deck in a format with often-played ways of looking at my hand (Duress, Thought-Knot Seer, etc.) That means I don' want to own three regular and one foil Hangarback Walkers, but I do. The only reason that I do is that, back when I bought my fourth, the foil was about $13 and the non-foil closer to $15. I even asked Traders about that, but they were having trouble keeping regular copies in stock, but not foils, at those prices. I even offered to trade my non-foil versions for foil versions, straight up, but no takers.
It doesn't help that most people turn off foil animations, but most of us don't have a good enough computer to run everything we want to run at that high a resolution.
I would DQ you. Clear intent is to offer value for a concession. It does not matter if you make it two sentences, or say the second sentence in Greek, or stand on your head for the second one - if I understand what you say as conveying the offer of something of value for a match outcome, I believe you have committed bribery.
The problem is that either have of that combination is not illegal - you can ask for a concession, and you can offer a prize split. You cannot do them together. I don't know what your particular "high-level judge" said, but I know most of the current and former L5s and many of the L4s. I have talked to many of them about this. Odds are that the "high-level" judge's explanation was a bit more nuanced than your summary.
In thee finals, you are allowed to make a deal. Anywhere else, making an offer, even in two sentences, is bribery. The one area where it gets problematic is when you leave one half of the combo unsaid, but try to hint at it. For example: "You should concede to me because I am a very generous person." That is a judgment call, but I would likely DQ. I did last time someone tried this - and repeated it even when I told him not to go there. My logic - other than implying that the player would compensate for a concession would anyone start a Magic match by saying "I'm a generous person?"
Yes, this is about all rounds and stages of tournaments, even 3 round fnm regular rel.
I agree that you cannot bargain, and I also know that this is not allowed in finals. To bargain I mean "I give you this if you give me that." That is bringing two things together in same sentence, one relies on the other. (what togethertalking implies)
But if you do as I said earlier "Blablabla.... and I stop my sentence here. Now I begin a new sentence and ask... ." This is clearly two sentences (no togethertalking that the judges say is illegal) - this should be good, or not ... ?
Maybe Pete Jahn can elaborate better ???
I am merely responding to what has been written.
If you bargain with your opponent outside of the finals of a tournament you are colluding. There is no grey area there.
This is true online as well as in paper.
If you feel it is ambiguous because asking does not always signal intent, assume in this case it does because that is what anyone listening will assume. Not asking "is this (x) legal?" but "would you?" even a hypothetical is probably grounds for a DQ. And I believe that's true online as well as on paper (though I admit I am a little fuzzy on where the line gets drawn online because there have been some flip flopping announcements concerning this. As it stands I believe you can offer to split the finals of a tournament, offering any portion of what you could win and anything else is considered collusion and bribery.)
Hope that helps.
You are cornering the discussion on two points here;
1) Please do not assume that this is a question for finals only, mind the general approach that it can happen at any stage in the tournament.
2) Also, please do not assume that this is only about answering questions/suggestions regarding prizes and the premeditated match outcome, it is also about the bringing up of one or both of these questions/suggestions with the opposing player.
The paper side is what interests me most, but I am sure many also like to hear about online.
Historically foils were problematic for bot owners to sell despite sometimes being really high in demand. Because their supplies were so low that they'd be caught guessing wrong on which ones were going to be flying out the door (and thus leaving them always out of stock) vs the ones that were going to be hot once and then never again (and then always be in stock at a bad price.) Thus many bot owners opted to not even buy foils at all. Even the really nice ones.
Now that the "premium" process is a pale yellow akin to dog pee on the fine collectables, foils have become less enticing, in fact, though the people I know who did not panic sell last year still collect them even as they hate their appearance. And I know some few who actually like the effect. So it is mixed but yeah demand is much lower for them.
Not to mention, when a FTV set comes out it does not have a non-foiled version so all those cards go for lower because of print runs and not being part of a redeemable set.
To be perfectly clear I am not a fan of any type of quid pro quo for conceding/drawing. I think it entails a sort of sportsmanship that is unethical and screws over others who would benefit if you did not do that. But usually conceding for prizes is done in the finals where it isn't screwing anyone over and I believe THAT is the situation we are referring to here.
OK so that said, there is a reason why this is not a DQ offense. The reason has to do with phrasing and also intent as far as the judges can suss it (bearing in mind that they aren't psychic and can't bring that to table). The right thing to do if you aren't sure is to decline and then ask a judge, being very clear that you already declined.
But most judges aren't draconian enough to punish someone for asking the question in the hypothetical. Especially since it helps them if you know the rules to not break them unintentionally. In fact I would ask a high level judge (preferably one involved in Tournament Organization) outside of a tournament setting if you are worried about being (wrongly imho) punished for asking for knowledge's sake.
Just met a WotC_XXXX in the limited Leagues, lost 0-2 to him/her. But the the sideboard pops up and I ask "sideboard/bug ?". To this he/she replied "I thought it would be nice with a 3d game =)." To which I replied "yea =)".
It shows two things;
1) they can compute the computers.
2) they have spent time computing stuff that isnt useful for mtgo.
- I too know about many differences between paper and online magic.
- I too think Paul is wrong about that.
- when intent is what matters I really dont agree that the way you ask should matter for anything, and certainly not for something as important as a DQ.
The fact that they aren't is a pretty clear indicator that buyers aren't willing to pay as much for them as non foils.
It's important to note that the rules for paper magic and MTGO do *not* always perfectly line up.
In paper, I believe that asking this question directly might be against the rules, and could get you disqualified by a judge.
You are allowed to split prizes, even in paper magic, but asking someone to do it the wrong way can easily get you both DQd for Bribery/Collusion if a judge gets involved.
"You can agree to concede/draw for pay if that pay is within the bounds of the tournament."
Can you elaborate on this ?
To me this reads that you say I am allowed to offer my opponent prize boosters for the return favor that he concedes/draws. I thought that was a clear cut DQ in the judge book, is it not ?
The key part is WHAT is offered/agreed upon. Prizes from the event are acceptable. From outside the event not so much. And imho this isn't a great thing ethically/morally but I suspect it cuts short a lot of the "grey area" arguments when there is an investigation. It is a shortcut to happiness for everyone: A clear cut rule. You can agree to concede/draw for pay if that pay is within the bounds of the tournament. You can't offer/accept excessive stuff as remuneration. It is clear. The hard part is proving it.
Does it matter what opponent(s) think/assume regarding this ?
"I will give that to you" (prizes) + "if you concede/draw" (matchoutcome). Isnt that same sentence in voice and will get me DQ'ed ?
It would be nice if they would be remotely sellable to bots for the same prices as regulars.
Common sense should be able to determine intent. It is very likely if you said it that way your opponent would correct assume it was a bribe. And then if they were at all smart would report it to a judge. Because accepting a bribe is just as damning as offering one.
The way you can legally phrase it without showing intent to bribe is as follows: "The prizes are x if I win. I will give that to you if you concede/draw." Anything over and beyond that is bribery.
But I can say; "I give you 20 packs and stop this sentence here. Now I begin a new sentence and ask if you give me the invite ?" ?
That is two different sentences and should be valid right ?
If you see 0 in stock that USUALLY means the price has not been updated to reflect current changes in the market since that counter reached 0. Pay those ask/sell prices little mind.