Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Rules Discussions  (Read 2614 times)

Offline markus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #30 on: 13 August 2017, 10:52:59 AM »
But I don't see how playing an 8th game only after a draw is fairer than the current rules. If you could choose to go first and have to win, or to go second and a draw suffices, who would want to go second?
Given a choice between two bad things, people can pick the one they prefer, and it may even be that everyone will pick the same one. That doesn't mean that offering people that choice is as good as it gets.
In my opinion the other options presented to determine a winner after 7 games are even worse. Because in those cases winning the coin toss to become 1st player is more important. And I don't want a coin toss to decide / shift the chances too much.

For Dominion, of course, this is not an important discussion as draws are unlikely nowadays. (I had 12/1000.) The much more influential rule is that the first player in game 7 is determined by coin toss - and nobody seems to have complained about that.  8)

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #31 on: 13 August 2017, 04:26:37 PM »
But I don't see how playing an 8th game only after a draw is fairer than the current rules. If you could choose to go first and have to win, or to go second and a draw suffices, who would want to go second?
Given a choice between two bad things, people can pick the one they prefer, and it may even be that everyone will pick the same one. That doesn't mean that offering people that choice is as good as it gets.
In my opinion the other options presented to determine a winner after 7 games are even worse. Because in those cases winning the coin toss to become 1st player is more important. And I don't want a coin toss to decide / shift the chances too much.

For Dominion, of course, this is not an important discussion as draws are unlikely nowadays. (I had 12/1000.) The much more influential rule is that the first player in game 7 is determined by coin toss - and nobody seems to have complained about that.  8)
Obv. if the players are equally matched, luck will decide things.

You could have the higher ranked player go first in game 7.

Offline Ingix

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #32 on: 13 August 2017, 11:26:31 PM »
3.2: Yes, the bracket will be fully seeded, therefore the highest rated players will receive byes in round 1, should there be any.

Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,

That's a necessary consequence of a fully seeded bracket, so no, that can't be done. We could not seed the tournament instead, but that leads less fairness, in my opinion.

Of course it is possible to have a fully seeded bracket after the first round, even with random first round byes:

1) Determine the random set of people to get first round byes.
2) Pair the other players of the first round according to their seed numbers (highest vs. lowest, etc.)
3) Assume no upset in the first round, then order the first round byes and the virtual first round winners according to their seed numbers and you get the fully seeded bracket for the second round.

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #33 on: 13 August 2017, 11:34:54 PM »
Any chance to have that changed to a (uniformely) random selection of players instead? Byes are (in this case) a technical necessity so I don't see why the better seeded players should have an advantage here,
I don't understand. Assume no byes. The highest ranked player is paired in the first round against the weakest player. Why is that? No don't tell me, just keep the reason in your head. Now: whatever the reason was, doesn't it then apply naturally to byes too? The bye is an even weaker player.

Offline Ingix

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #34 on: 14 August 2017, 12:35:05 PM »
A bye can't win games, which even the lowest ranked player can do in theory. If you just want to find out who the highest ranking player is, then look it up in the rankings. If you want to find out who wins a tournament, let the players play.

If for technical reasons some players advance the first round without needing to play, then either make players earn that (I think I remember one could earn byes for MtG Pro Tour Qualifiers 15 years back), or make it random. Of course, being highest ranked is a form of 'earn it'.

Offline Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #35 on: 14 August 2017, 04:49:59 PM »
A bye can't win games, which even the lowest ranked player can do in theory. If you just want to find out who the highest ranking player is, then look it up in the rankings. If you want to find out who wins a tournament, let the players play.
Obv. that would be great (for example if two players are tied after 7 games), but it turns out, we've got these byes to assign.

If for technical reasons some players advance the first round without needing to play, then either make players earn that (I think I remember one could earn byes for MtG Pro Tour Qualifiers 15 years back), or make it random. Of course, being highest ranked is a form of 'earn it'.
Magic does have ways to earn byes. It also assigns byes to the best players. The Magic people have put more work into this than I have (argument by authority), and my "we pair the best against the worst in round one" argument doesn't appear to have been demolished to me (argument by looking at your argument).

Offline heron

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #36 on: 17 August 2017, 11:38:01 PM »
Is there any protocol for what we should do if we get into a stalemate with possession/donate?

Offline Beyond Awesome

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #37 on: 18 August 2017, 04:24:39 AM »
Have both players agree not to play possession that game.

Offline JW

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #38 on: 18 August 2017, 05:56:09 AM »
Is there any protocol for what we should do if we get into a stalemate with possession/donate?

Agree to a draw?  For ranking purposes, one player resigns and then you start a new game which the other player immediately resigns.

Offline Rabid

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #39 on: 18 August 2017, 06:27:33 PM »
Is there any protocol for what we should do if we get into a stalemate with possession/donate?

Agree to a draw?  For ranking purposes, one player resigns and then you start a new game which the other player immediately resigns.
It should be either a draw (0.5 vs 0.5)
Or void (0 vs 0)
Either option is fine, just needs to be in the rules.

Offline Polk5440

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #40 on: 23 August 2017, 06:51:26 PM »
I agree with Adam the tournament rules as originally written left something to be desired.

I was under the impression there was going to be a "tournament mode" or some such equivalent in the client that would essentially force adherence to most rules before an official tournament with actual prize money is offered. The f.ds rules plus moderator discretion is fine for a for-fun tournament with no actual monetary prize. Doing something with stakes that way is risky. 

In any case, this is not happening, so I would suggest (in addition to the rules thread) having instructions that outline WITH PICTURES IN CLIENT how to set up a tournament game and how to contact your opponent for matches. Where do I click? What options do I need to turn on/off?

Why is this important? The tournament currently assumes very detailed reading and 100% familiarity with everything in the most recent version of the client and a 20 game min does not ensure this. I've played hundreds of games and I still don't know exactly how to implement everything the rules ask of me without fishing around for a while. Having important instructions like "turn off spectator mode" buried in walls of rules text and further not telling me how to do this is risky. Some participants may not be fully aware of how politely agreeing to certain things ("Do you mind if I have spectator mode on?" "Sure!") could be abused or even that they should/should not be doing certain things.

So, in short, more direct guidance and more guardrails to prevent problems would be helpful!

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #41 on: 29 August 2017, 01:59:35 PM »
Is there any update to Section 8 of the rules? There's about two weeks left until signups are closed and I don't think that section is acceptable as it stands; it hasn't been addressed since my initial post.

Specifically, it should be clear what 8.3 and 8.4 actually mean:

8.3 Some games may be streamed by third parties.

This rule as currently worded doesn't actually say much, except that it goes against the recommendation set forth in 8.1, so it really needs to be something different.

Who are the third parties? Will spectator mode be used as the perspective for this stream? How do we reconcile that with rule 8.1 (does the software support only adding certain people as spectators outside of the friends list)? Will there be a delay? Will there be commentary (and if yes there are about a billion questions related to commentary which should be addressed)? If I were writing the rules I would put in a provision that people can't stream or spectate matches unless authorized by all players and a tournament moderator in the case where a match will be streamed, and I wouldn't want anyone but a moderator streaming the match so that I know all of the proper precautions are being taken.

8.4 From Quarterfinals onwards, every match will be streamed. Organizers may influence the scheduling to ensure no overlaps.

"Organizers" should definitely be "moderators" at the very least. Most of the questions that apply to 8.3 apply to this as well, but in addition:

Will it be required to have matches streamed at this point? What will happen if a player is unable or unwilling to have their match spectated/streamed? What, if any, are valid reasons for a player to refuse to have their match streamed? If a player wants to stream the match themselves, is that acceptable? What about taking video and uploading it later (after the match result has been confirmed)? If a player does not want to have their match commentated at all, or by specific people, is this a valid reason? What kind of influence will the organizers/moderators have on scheduling the match? Is there a possibility that after successfully scheduling several matches, a player is removed from the tournament because they are not flexible enough to schedule a match with unknown people?

I don't want to get to the quarterfinals of the tournament, then find out that I'm forced to have my match open to spectators, streamed with no delay by an unknown "third party" who could be anyone, commentated upon by people who have said inappropriate things to/about me in the past, or removed from the tournament because I'm unwilling to play a match at 3AM or something.

Offline tufftaeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #42 on: 29 August 2017, 03:46:44 PM »
I don't want to get to the quarterfinals of the tournament, then find out that I'm forced to have my match open to spectators, streamed with no delay by an unknown "third party" who could be anyone, commentated upon by people who have said inappropriate things to/about me in the past, or removed from the tournament because I'm unwilling to play a match at 3AM or something.

Luckily, there is an easy solution to avoid all this: just don't play in the tournament at all.

I will play for fun and I trust in the organizers to do their best, so I accept all their rulings in advance.
(Maybe that's actually something which could be added to the rules: "All decisions of organizers are final and cannot be appealed.")

Offline AdamH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #43 on: 29 August 2017, 06:21:48 PM »
Luckily, there is an easy solution to avoid all this: just don't play in the tournament at all.

Not playing is what I'll do if the rules aren't to my satisfaction. On the other hand, I like money and the rules are close enough to being good enough for me that I thought I'd bring this stuff up. Even drsteelhammer said himself in this thread that some of section 8 still wasn't decided yet. I think all of the suggestions I've actually made are good changes to the rules, and I think a lot of the questions I've asked are things that deserved clarification.

It's a little baffling to me that you seem to be arguing that it's better to turn people away from the tournament than it is to write a better rule set. I thought the whole point of this tournament was to draw people in and get them to buy subscriptions so more people would be the main goal.

In my experience running a total of 8 Dominion tournaments in my life, I've found it's really helpful to write the rules before the tournament starts, and have the rules be really good. The benefit is that when these situations come up (as is likely to happen given an entry pool this large), it's transparent and clear that the people in charge aren't putting personal bias into their decision because the decision was made before we knew which people were involved. It's a much better situation for everyone involved, but most of all, the organizers themselves!

I will play for fun and I trust in the organizers to do their best, so I accept all their rulings in advance.
(Maybe that's actually something which could be added to the rules: "All decisions of organizers are final and cannot be appealed.")

There are people here using the terms "organizers" and "moderators" -- I want to make sure I'm clearly defining who I'm talking about when I use these words. If this is not what other people mean, then please correct me.

Organizers/TO - drsteelhammer
Moderators - Deadlock39 and irrationalE (whatever is on the list at the bottom of this post)

There is a statement in the rules to the effect of what you said about the moderators

Quote
11.2 If there is a conflict, please contact your moderator, who will have the final say on the issue.

And I trust the moderators. On the other hand, I do not trust drsteelhammer. I'm not going to get into the details but the way the rules are written, drsteelhammer doesn't actually have any authority other than the fact that he writes the rules (which is a good thing, both for my personal preference, plus it's good practice). If he writes rules that are good enough for me then I'll join, and in a way I'm helping him because if he writes rules that are good enough for me, I'd say they're probably good enough for anyone -- that way he ends up with the best rules! Everyone wins!

On the other hand, changing the rules after the tournament starts is a huge no-no for me, so having vague rules that give the organizer authority to make "judgment calls" is not something I'm OK with (this is the moderators' job), particularly when I don't trust the judgment of the organizer. With well-written rules, though, this situation should not come up.

With regard to streaming/spectating in particular, it's a sensitive subject to me so while it may not seem important to everyone, the contents of section 8 of the rules are extremely important to me. In fact, whether or not I participate in the tournament hinges on what those are, because everything else out there seems good enough.

Offline tufftaeh

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
    • View Profile
Re: Rules Discussions
« Reply #44 on: 31 August 2017, 05:05:29 PM »
It's a little baffling to me that you seem to be arguing that it's better to turn people away from the tournament than it is to write a better rule set.

Not at all. I certainly agree that it is better to have good rules beforehand. But it seemed to me that it might be impossible to write rules which could be acceptable for you personally so I suggested the only remaining solution.