+1

Jason has been storing up comments for the year to give a golden one.

+2

So your going to DQ someone for something that is legal according to the DCI floor rules? I'm sorry that is just flat out wrong. So where does it stop? Are you going to DQ me for playing a squad that countered things that my fellow local players can't beat. Or wait do I get DQ'd for losing all my attackers and conceding so that my opponent gets a full win that he should get? At what point are you going to stop once this ball gets rolling. Politics are a part of tournaments, such goes life.

As far as professional sports who knows if it happens. Heck with the Heat/Indiana game we could easily make a case that the refs were being nice to the Heat who the NBA wanted to win the round since the Pacers don't have the stars to get people to watch the games.

Actually, you're flat out wrong. This type of behavior is covered in section 5.2 of the DCI guidelines, which have since been relabled Magic as that's all they have now.

It's actually not "legal according to the DCI floor rules." According to Tim's opponent - I have noted that Tim remains mysteriously (or not so mysteriously) silent on the subject of what happened - Tim intentionally played poorly to produce a desirable outcome in the rankings. This a DQ'able offense even in DCI, and has been for years.

Here is the exact section:

5.2 Collusion and Bribery
The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by
the offer of any reward or incentive. Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an offer
calls for a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same manner.
Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may
agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game
or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. As an exception, players in the announced last
round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish. In
that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes
according to their resulting ranking. DCI ratings will not be affected because no match will have been played.
Such an agreement may never include a concession or an intentional draw.
The result of a match or game may not be randomly or arbitrarily determined through any means other than the
normal progress of the game in play. Examples include (but are not limited to) rolling a die, flipping a coin, arm
wrestling, or playing any other game.
Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information
regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats during their
match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.
Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes
may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly. The players may end the
tournament at that point, or continue to play with only ratings points at stake. All players still in the tournament
must agree to the arrangement.
Example: Before the semifinals of a tournament (in which first place gets 12 packs, second place gets 8 packs and
3rd and 4th get 4 packs each) begins, the players may get permission from the Tournament Organizer to end the
tournament, with each player receiving 7 packs.
Example: In the finals of a 1-slot Pro Tour Qualifier that offers a travel award and an invitation to the winner, the
two finalists may agree to split the tournament prizes, but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One
player must drop from the tournament, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop
from the tournament. That player is then free to split the remainder of the prizes as agreed upon. The travel award
and invitation are a single item and may not be split.

Where was the offer? Tim did not discuss this with his opponent. Nor were any prizes discussed or outside bribes brought in. He simply rolled over and played dead. Actually reading through this you can see where players are allowed to make draws and other such options as long as it does not require them to go get information.

As a former Magic player and Judge I can tell you, Tim would not be DQ'd for what he did and if you have attended any major events such as a PTQ you will see concessions and draws all in the upper tables to set themselves up for a top cut.

It is really easy to be disgusted at what happened. It did cost a great player and squad to miss the top four cut. You know though so do many other factors. I played Bastilla the last two rounds of the event. If my friend Shawn had to play either of them odds are he would have lost and not made the top cut. So there we have it, the tournament software rigged the tournament

If we take this to the letter of law like several people here seem to be wanting to do are we going to start DQing people for conceding to make sure the opponent gets a 3 pt win?? Last time I heard that was a pretty classy move but that extra point could cause someone to get knocked out of the top four.

I referenced the wrong section; though Wes clearly states that Tim made him aware.

Here is the section I meant to reference (emphasis mine)

5.4 Unsporting Conduct
Unsporting conduct will not be tolerated at any time. Tournament participants must behave in a polite and
respectful manner. Unsporting conduct includes, but is not limited to:
• Using profanity
• Acting in a threatening manner
• Arguing with, acting belligerently toward, or harassing tournament officials, players or spectators
• Failure to follow the instructions of a tournament official

This in my opinion is the catch all, of the people who seem to dislike this behavior it is always referenced as "unsportsmanlike", so it definately fits here.

The tournament software cant make a conscious decision to stop playing. From reading the replay of the game it sounded as Tim had the game well in hand. Nowhere did it say the dice turned on him or some other misfortune. The other guy said he intentionally let him kill his pieces. Maybe it's covered in the floor rules maybe not.
If that's what really happened it is in my opinion wrong. (Not that anyone cares about my opinion). I feel as you are doing a diservice to everyone involved to throw a game including yourself.

That is a really big stretch of that rule. You would have to clarify what is "Sportsman". Heck with a big stretch we could say that using the same squad you won with or someone else's squad that won is not "Sportsman" because your not taking the time to make a new or your own squad which is clearly the intent of the spirit of the game. We could even make a case that GA Thrawn and activation control is Unsportsman like conduct because they clearly break two of the key rules of the game and can create an unbeatable advantage for the player who plays them.

Of course my examples are a bit to the extreme, but that can become a legitimate case if were willing to run with Unsportsman as an umbrella.

We actually don't know what was discussed, as we only got a one-sided, second-hand account of the exchange between them. Maybe nothing from the section you quoted is spelled out verbatim, but how can you ignore the fact that a player who WON the entire tournament reportedly spent an entire match not going for Gambit or trying to kill enemy pieces in order to score points? It's manipulation of the system and unsportsmanlike conduct, an attitude that IMO, Tim Ballard has never in all the time I've known him playing this game ever had a problem with working to his own advantage whenever it suited him.



Actually, this is supposed to be already covered in the floor rules. I haven't checked recent versions, so I can't say for sure. But your opponent can't concede to give you a 3 pt. win after the 30-minute mark. The best you can hope for is a 2 pt. win. And it is ALWAYS the judge's discretion to award only 2 pts. if he/she believes the system is being manipulated intentionally.

I guess in my case I can because I'm used to seeing it. Not to puff myself up but Ive been playing CCGs and CMGs competitively since 1997. I've seen what happened Saturday countless times and in many different games. It has costed me top cut chances more times then I can count but at the same time Ive gotten into to cuts because of it.

What is wrong with Tim Ballard working things to his own advantage to win? I actually thought winning was the goal of traveling to the regionals and paying all the money in gas, food, and entry. Sure there is the fun and socialazation but come on were all there to win.



Ill have to look that up myself and find out.

Under the collusion part, it never says a straight out bribe. It does say "incentive" which putting the opponent in the Final Four when he may not have legitimately deserved would likely qualify as such an incentive.

Who knows what could have happened if someone else would have ended up in the Final Four.

First off, I want to thank Les and the rest of the Kokomo crew for a great time and a great Regional. And I was only called over by Les once for a rules question .

I went 3-2 with my revamped Sith Disruptive squad, featuring Freedon Nadd and Naga Sadow. I gotta say, I love Figran D'an backed up by Ponda Boba and Dr. E. Annoys the opponents so much. I was happy with it. Made a bit of a mistake in my first game (well, him keeping on making his save 15s for Djem So was also brutal). 2nd loss, well, it's hard to keep up when he got reserves and brought another Storm Commando. 3rd game vs Mando Deathshots was a fun win. One of her Death Watchs betrayed to my side, so it was nice to have a good shooter to use with Nadd's CE for once. My last 2 games were wins, though it was tough, because when you only have 6 figures in your squad, none with Force Points, my squad can be a very big NPE.

As for the issue at hand, it is what it is. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as I feel it is unsportsman like at the very least.

No it isn't and no I don't. The intent or spirit of each game is to play to win, and to win fully, which is embedded into the spirit of the 3 point system. It is up to the judge to clarify it based on his perception of the events. Will that mean that sometimes that clarification will come after the fact, sure does.

The general movement of our competitive game has been to be competitive but not cut throat and any rules changes or updates have reflected that ideal. In fact, if you look at our very first Floor Rules document and compare it to this one you will see that EVERY difference has been to better perpetuate this ideal.

Unfortunately, because of the path of this game with WOTC and that ideal, there are some "gaps" where we fall back on DCI but not with the cut throat ideals of Magic. Those gaps are almost never a problem, but when they are they are addressed. I am addressing it now:

Purposely losing or in other ways manipulating the outcome of an an individual game or tournament is considered unsportsmanlike and will result in an immediate disqualification of the offending player, regardless of how much play has elapsed.

I could go on, but really it is truly sad that this type of heavy handed bullshit rules governing is being forced upon me. Absolutely and truly sad....

1 rotten apple spoils the bunch kind of thing...

As have I. I started playing Magic in the summer of 1996 before hardly anyone really cared that much about the acronym DCI, and even to those who did, it meant something far different from what it means today. Just because it happens/happened in other games doesn't make it right or acceptable. I once played in a Magic tournament where 4 guys came in with a system that was guaranteed to put 2 of them in the top 8. One of them told me all about it while we were playing when he said, I actually have to lose to you this match. I thought he was joking, but after the second game (I won 2-0), he said, I probably could have beat you but it's not my weekend. I was like, What does that mean, and he then explained how they took turns going to top 4 so they could each win stuff. Ridiculous. It wasn't long after that that the rules changed to reflect frowning on that sort of attitude, and that it should be reported whenever it occurred. Because it's unsportsmanlike. It's cheating.



There's no response I can offer that will satisfy this question. Either you agree with the people who have already responded, or you don't. There is nothing more I can add to it that will alter your viewpoint.



In that case, why have rules at all? Winning is the goal but not through manipulation or cheating of the system.

I think at this point I'm going to agree to disagree with you all. This is not even my own personal fight seeing I'm really not all that involved in the actual incident of what happened. There is no point fighting and risking what I feel like is the good relationships that I think I have with many of the posters of this thread.

Oh c'mon. Everyone needs a good online fight with Boris at least once in their SWM gaming career.

+1

LOL we have had our share over at the WOTC boards *cough GOWK *cough LOL. No I just think that is something I think could go on and on and just be a cause of major butthurt. In this case Boris and the others have the moral high road and if they can accomplish their goals of clean events I don't feel inclined of arguing against it. The only reason I argued against what they were saying was because I didn't want to see Tim crucified here for doing something that I feel is legal according to the floor rules that were in place on Saturday.

LOL