I hear that a couple players got DQd during Day 2. What's the scoop on this?

EDIT: nvm, got the scoop. wow.

Well share it with the rest of us!!!!!

I had heard it was falsifying match slips, but it appears it was collusion.

Collusion at this level of play is not at all unexpected, and from top players even less surprising. Top teams regularly collude, pool prize monies, and advance their best/hottest player when given the chance.

The difference here is that they got caught and I am very curious as to how UDE got wind of it, as there will be bad blood if anyone ever names names.

Both players are probably looking at a suspension, David probably longer than Jim since he apparently had a very vocal argument with the judges when the DQ came down.

No one knows exactly how the judges found out, but I do know that both players were informed at the event there will be no suspensions as a result.

As for precisely what happened, David and Jim played in round 8 both sitting at 4-3. David told Jim he would rather play the "Funmoon Faire" anyway because the format was fun instead of grinding out the draft from 5-3 and offered to scoop for a split of Jim's prize. Jim agreed. The judges pulled both players aside Saturday to ask what happened. Both players said exactly what had happened and were given DQ's. I haven't talked to Bodimer about it, but Jim was pretty accepting since it's technically against the rules, although from our conversation I think he thought they were ok since they were only splitting prizes available in the tournament. For anyone unaware of the rules regarding splits, it's only allowed in the finals, has to be negotiated in front of a judge, and can only incluce prizes actually in the tournament.

As for team prize splits, they are perfectly legal as long as they are arranged before the tournament. The only time prize splits are illegal is when they are used to determine the winner of a match as in the case above. Had Jim and David already had an agreement in place, there would have been nothing illegal about the situation.

Pre-determined prize splits among teams are fine, so long as fair play is part of the deal.

For example Team Hypothetical has four members who agree to an even 25% split on all prize monies won. Ok this is fine, so long as they do not collude or manipulate the standings. If Player A and Player B meet in round 8 and they play it out and let things finish up there, then no problem.

Now take the same situation as above and the team has determined that Player A is playing their deck better than the others, and has the best chance of winning a lot of money on the tournament. Thus they decide to attempt to manipulate the tournament to ensure that Player A gets as many wins as possible. So when Player A and Player B meet in Round 8, player B scoops to ensure that Player A goes into Day 2 with a higher standing (thus greater chance to win more money). This is collusion and should be stamped out as it screws with the integrity of the game.

I'm surprised they managed to avoid suspensions on this as precedent from the Australian DMF would dictate a suspension. Collusion continues to wreck the Pro Tour in Magic and needs to be reigned in in WoW as well.

I would consider David a friend, and the few times I've spoken with Jim he's been awesome, but it just doesn't excuse this type of behavior.

While I would agree your second scenario is probably a little shady, it's actually 100% within the rules. The lack of suspensions isn't surprising to me because UDE needs big name players worse than WotC does so they can't rule with an Iron Fist like the turn of the millenium saw in Magic. The Aussie precedent was "overturned" when Markoff was DQ'd from a side event for collusion and not suspended.

The second example actually defines collusion.

The player is accepting compensation for scooping, it doesn't matter if this compensation was agreed to before the tournament started. Intent also plays into this as they are attempting to manipulate the standings which screws up the tournament integrity.

Here is the quote from the penalty guidelines:

The problem is there is a huge gray area. Neither player is accepting something for scooping because the team split occurs with or without a scoop. In the situation of David and Jim, if David doesn't scoop no split occurs meaning he was in fact scooping for compensation.

Also, the rule you quoted only talks about manipulating a match, not manipulating the standings. While you could argue that conceding based on potential matchups or who's hotter is manipulating the standings, it's not technically against the rules (as a quick aside, this is partly because this rule would be wholly unenforceable). If two teammates who have a pre-arranged split don't play a match, they are not manipulating the outcome of the match by the definitions in the rules. Neither player was offered something to scoop (the split is in place regardless of scooping or not) and they didn't randomly choose who won.

So in short, I do agree with you that teams can manipulate things to their own benefit and it is probably morally wrong, I've also played enough high-level TCG's to understand that this type of thing is one of the unavoidable evils of having elite teams, and it's basically impossible to stop and generally within the written letter of the law.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

From where I stand it is quite clear, and in this specific case was well defined within the rules. Whomever won that match was going to day two with a cash prize, any offer to scoop for compensation is obviously collusion.

Manipulating a match is the same as manipulating standings, since they are interdependent with each other.

I think my beef is that the community in general just accepts this, just because it is so common, which I find to be a very weak excuse. I have to play eight or nine rounds of swiss, but a member of Elite Team only has to play six or seven? Elite player ends up in a draft pod with three teammates, if he's the hot gun today he probably 3-0s that pod. This is the stuff that needs to stop happening, and needs to be enforced more heavily as it only hurts the game.

Wow, I didn't even see (the updates to) this thread here before I posted over on the wowtcg forums:
http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/wow/com...ad/1845154.aspx

I pretty much got my ass handed to me in that thread, for daring to suggest that more clarification was needed on the DQs at Worlds. Oh, well.

What's this about Markoff getting DQd at a side event? How did I miss that one??

Also: on the issue of this game "needing" more high profile players: I'm not sure I'm convinced about this one. Let's say you took the top-20 players in this game and for whatever reason, banned them for life. What would happen? Chances are, the other 98% of the field would keep showing up, and maybe get to win a little more often as a result. Without a doubt, other awesome players would step up pretty quickly.

On the other hand, Jim and David both are among my favorites of the "high-profile" players; a few of the others are total douches, IMO, and many of the others have oversized egos.

Markoff was DQ'd at a side event in Sydney for "playing a match outside the tournament area." Extrapolate from that what you will, but I won't say anything more on that matter publicly.

Scooping to a team member because you believe they have a better chance at succeeding isn't a punishable offense. Maybe it hurts the integrity of the game... or maybe it's a part of the game that needs to be mastered. Regardless, if there was a rule it wouldn't be enforceable. People would just sit across from their opponent and play really bad, etc.

Scooping to a team member isn't against any rules, at least not the letter of them.

Accepting compensation in exchange for scooping is against the rules. A team that sets up a prize split in advance of the tournament then has one teammate scoop to another is guilty of collusion since compensation has already been agreed upon.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I have verified this with several judges who would have the discretion to make this decision as well as UDE officials. If the prize split is pre-arranged, and teammate A scoops to teammate B because A has a better chance in the tourney, it is perfectly legal.

Then the rules need to be changed to accommodate that.

I can email Charsky and see what he has to say, because as currently printed pre-arranged prize splits that lead to match manipulation is against the rules.