Why should someone with a bad back suffer through another hour in a folding chair when they don’t have to? It would be different if more of the large tournaments had a decent amount of down time between rounds, but I was at Worlds last year and that was not the case. Why should that advantage of not being in crippling pain only go to the people with healthy backs? This isn’t a contact sport.
What if you only concede one game and offer to play the other? “Give me 20 minutes for a smoke break and I’ll give you the first game. Pick whichever side you want for the second game. Back in a bit.”
Would you say that the only effect of tax evasion laws is to hamper those who choose to pay their tax lawfully, and that tax evasion should therefore be allowed?
I can think of very little that is possible to enforce 100%. That isn’t an argument not to enforce rules at all. Neither is it an argument against encouraging self-policing as far as possible.
@MondoPeregrino, there is no doubting that it is a valid concern. The question is whether a valid concern is an excuse to unilaterally ignore the tournament rules. It seems that there is reason for petitioning for less physically intensive tournaments generally, and reason for requests to the tournament organisers for allowances in specific cases (nicotine addiction, bad backs, whatever). It doesn’t seem that there is reason to cheat simply because you personally would have rather the tournament structure had been different. If, having signed up to the tournament, you can’t or don’'t feel like playing a match for whatever reason, it seems the reasonable response would be to report that to the organiser and let them deal with that in whatever way their tournament guidelines prescribe.
I based my statement on Dan’s poll for the SSCI, which had a slight favor of keeping the anti-ID rule, and some extrapolation that the wider casual community would be more in favor of keeping the rule. Has there be a more recent poll or one that captured a wider audience on the subject?
I do agree that enforcing it would be difficult for just a T.O. (and maybe a few additional judges). But, it wouldn’t be that difficult to nearly eliminate every instance if the community helped out. Bribery, collusion, and micro-aggression are just as difficult to enforce, but I don’t think this community thinks there shouldn’t be rules against those, I don’t think the difficulty to enforce is that great of a gauge on whether a rule should exist. I think this community values respecting other players and the game, as well as true Netrunner skill and sportsmanship.
"I think that the vast bulk of competitive players are fine with ID’s. "
I am against them as long as they provide a full split win.
Anyone who IDs in a Netrunner tournament as it stands where its not explicitly allowed like GLC is a cheater, it actively does hurt other players in the tournament regardless of how many times on this forums i’ve read it doesn’t, if you type that out your lying to yourself. Work out the math. There have been plenty of times in netrunner where I need top tables to sweep to enter the cut. It usually works it out that one of the tables ends up with a sweep, and rest end up splitting or whatever. Most tournaments do not have ridiculous prize pools associated with them, most of FFG game prizes is pride and accomplishment of doing well in a game you like. Splitting just goes against what this game is currently about. Not that I’m against big prize pools, but we simply don’t have them. I won a 19 person MTG tournament on Saturday and won way more than had I finished second at the INVITATIONAL on Sunday. Local small fry PPTQ vs our very own Invitational. Not saying your prizes suck stimhack, just that there are different things going on here. We don’t have a lot of players paying ridiculous amounts to get to tournaments except for maybe worlds and nationals. Do we really need the safety blanket of IDs then? If you fight hard through a Netrunner tournament, just play the last round. Do you not like playing Netrunner?
. I’m not in favor of making them legal until someone comes up with a better tournament system for Netrunner that incorporates them and doesn’t make them relatively safe to do for the final 3-4 rounds of tournaments based on tournament size.
If an ID provided one point for each player I would maybe be ok with them. I’m perfectly fine with IDs when I play MTG. But your not taking wins when you ID in MTG, your taking a draw(1 point instead of 3). In MTG players don’t constantly earn 1.5 points throughout the tournament, majority of points earned are 3 or 0. In Netrunner good players will often split earning 2 points each. Depending on meta I expect a lot of worlds swiss rounds to be splits, 2 points each. Players that ID in current system are taking 2 points each. The current system rewards IDs way too much.
I don’t always have special needs, but if I get a few consecutive rounds that run nearly to time, I’m going to need a bit of a break to stretch and stuff. It’s never been an issue with any of my opponents before, but the way some people are talking on this thread makes me wonder if it might become one in the future. I certainly don’t want to be accused of cheating!
There’s really not much they could do about it other than add time between all the later rounds just in case, but Netrunner tournaments already take forever.
I get the arguments in favor of IDs, and I like the strategy/math involved, but they rub me the wrong way too. I’m against them emotionally, even if I like/respect them logically.
For me it is this: You go to tournaments to play. You’re not playing if you ID. Why are you going to an event dedicated to playing a game if you’re avoiding playing said game for favorable math?
Netrunner is a for-fun game with low stakes. Do we really need the safety blanket of netdecking then? If you are going to a tournament, just brew your own deck and stay off decklist websites. Do you not like deckbuilding?
People like playing, but people also like winning. This is the true answer to my snarky post above (sorry bluebird). I’m sure if the deck quality function were flatter, people would bring their own decks lots more because it’s really fun to deckbuild. But having a good deck is more important.
I think status quo bias is an issue here. For whatever reason FFG has chosen to ban IDs, so people arguing in their favor have to provide extra evidence (see: “why should that advantage of being well rested only go to the people who choose to intentionally draw?”).
This is a false equivalence. Nobody netdecks so they don’t have to play more Netrunner games in a tournament. People netdeck so their opponents don’t get to play Netrunner games in a tournament. (;))
I think the best reason to allow IDs is that people are going to do it without anyone knowing if you don’t, and that puts everyone else at a disadvantage. The difference between IDs and say, drawing extra cards or something, is that a large portion of the players feel like it should be allowed and isn’t wrong, so you’re not likely to shame them out of doing it, or ever catch them.
Something I actually like about IDs in Netrunner is that unlike magic, very few people can ensure making the cut with an ID. You have to do particularly well to even think about it.
Also, speaking to the “IDs reward well connected players” argument, I think the exact opposite is true. If IDs are not allowed and Im playing a friend and I win game one, I can throw that game, or just play sloppy, without even colluding. That’s going to come up a lot more than a strategically disadvantageous or otherwise result-nebulous ID between friends, (assuming all strategically advantageous or result-ensured IDs between strangers are made if they are legal).
I think your statement about majority supporting IDs is not true. Take the poll results from SSCI, for instance. But IDs should probably be allowed if even a sizeable minority are going to do it anyway…
