First, I’d like to thank @ericbtool, @SimonMoon, and @mendax for their posts.
Sasha,
I may have misread, but I don’t believe anyone has proudly admitted to intentionally splitting, rather I made it clear I had never done so except once in the GLC finals where it was explicitly permitted. You may be referring to my lobbying for ignoring the rule, which I continue to stand by. I’m surprised enough that it’s appalled you so that I believe you misunderstand where it’s coming from. I would not have posted again were you not giving me the impression you believe my cause to be sinister.
I don’t believe intentional draws are good or bad for the game. That’s really not for me to decide, and it’s not something I particularly care about. My entire intention in promoting intentional splits is to create a level playing field for all players. I’ve never been interested in free wins or easier routes to winning a tournament. On the contrary, anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I’m specifically against anything that inhibits the best competition. In the final round of the Chicago regionals, I let my opponent take back a run on archives he’d have had to make through a Crick after having revealed the hidden portion. He told me I could install with the Crick, but I allowed him to retroactively jack out. I have, on countless occasions, let players rez their assets late after drawing, or take back the installing of breakers. In the final game of the same regional, we realized I was over MU after having already come back under MU. I retroactively trashed a program and drew to the final card in my deck to recur it and finish the game. In ChiLo, I let spags retroactively click for a credit after going through R&D with only 3 credits remaining (the ICE was face up). In the PSI games, I let my opponent that eliminated me take back his turn after passing to me, because he had missed the winning play (I let him take back a turn to eliminate me). I would never, under any circumstances, want to win a tournament for any reason I could question the legitimacy of my win over after.
It is from this perspective that I propose the intentional splitting rule be applied such that it is fair to everyone. There is the idealist philosophy that no players will ever split intentionally, and there is the pragmatic one that all players may split intentionally. I’ve never at any point believed there are inherent benefits to intentional splitting; the ethics of the rule are not my concern. It is purely from a fair, competitive standpoint that I wish every player be offered the same options.
Looking at the opinions of some here, perhaps it is just my perspective that has caused me to believe intentional splitting is more common than it is. Understand that my perspective is merely one of a player who has been playing only this year, and only in tournaments for less than half of it. In an environment where only 5% of players split, I believe it makes sense to try to be honest and police the rule to the best of the community’s ability. Conversely, in one where 95% of players are amenable to the idea of splitting, I believe it is easier for the remainder to assume they have the same options as the dishonest players. Knowing now that it may be less common than I had originally perceived (I was under the impression the majority of players near the top were amenable to splitting), my opinion may be altered, but I will resume lobbying that the best, and only completely fair application of the rule is one that allows both honest and dishonest players the same opportunities.