MTGO Outside Assistance
-
@rikter That's a separate issue. People can have teams and not stream, or can have teams and stream, or can not have teams and still stream. I fall into the last category.
-
There isn't going to be a rule. The lack of community consensus makes that pretty clear. It's also clear that no one would really know if anyone was following it. So accusations could still fly and no one would feel "safer" because there was a "rule."
I've spent a lot of mental time over the years on issues of morality, ethics, the law, enforcement, and impartiality of enforcement. Most people here seem to agree that certain behaviors are immoral, but there is also a lot of disagreement on other behaviors.
That said, if you want to make moral arguments, feel free. If you want to make rule or enforcement arguments, feel free. But let's please not conflate them. The argument against the difficulty of enforcing a rule is not: "But what they're doing is wrong!" It is, "Here is how we might craft and enforce such a rule." And if you can't figure out a way to enforce the rule... well, the discussion is kind of over.
How many online tournaments where Pro Tour invites are on the line may have involved a player 1) scouting out opponent decklists online, 2) taking notes or consulting strategy articles, 3) ghosting someone's stream, 4) getting advice from a bunch of good players, or 5) something I haven't even thought of yet? We will never know.
And I've already spoken about what I've learned about paper Magic from some players. Even at the Pro Tour, there are routinely unethical things going on that are not against the rules--specifically things that benefit big teams or players with a support network of agents who scout decks.
-
Yeah, no rules since unenforceable, ethical guidelines only. I'll propose a few:
- No ghosting. Check video feed later.
- If you stream, and you receive helpful information, you have an ethical responsibility to determine if you would have come to that helpful information on your own violation. If clearly you would not have done so, then you can note it, but should not use it. If you are not sure, then you can check with your conscience, but I don't think the guidelines should go further than that admonition.
- (If streaming) Don't ask for immediate help. For example, when sideboarding, make your changes, then ask and see what others would have said (helpful for future rounds, maybe games). Don't make immediate changes if you asked for help.
- Internet searches for match information are fine.
- Timing out your opponent is fine (I wish we had 30 minutes though!).
-
Yeah, no rules since unenforceable, ethical guidelines only. I'll propose a few:...
Yeah, and if a frog had wings his ass wouldn’t bump the ground.
I think AJ's angst is misguided. But I'm equally surprised by the handwaving and straw men on the other side. All you need to say is, "Yes, I wanted help in a competitive event, but it's ok, because it's allowed."
-
@Morbid-Spec The hand-waving on my part is a direct result of the fact that the only possible ToS issue involves collusion. But a group of people participating in a session by looking over their buddies shoulder is not collusion. Collusion is multiple people enrolled in the event working together, by sharing draft picks, by throwing matches or otherwise conspiring to manipulate pairings, etc. So the type of behavior being complained about does not fall outside the rules.
Ghosting someones stream, as lame as it is, is also not against the rules. WotC even put a caveat in the ToS stating as much. So even if you got caught ghosting, its not a ToS. We could probably all agree that it is lame, and I wouldn't do it because it could have the effect of discouraging people from streaming, but its certainly not unethical to stream cheat. Immoral maybe, but not unethical.
Lastly, I seriously doubt that @THE ATOG LORD needs help in a competitive event. Its not about "I wanted help in a competitive event, but its ok because its allowed", its "I wanted to do something together with my friends, that is completely within the rules, and that I cannot understand why peoples panties are in such a bunch over it"
Edit to add that I can't tag Rich in this post, did he leave or something?
-
Collusion...Ghosting
Sorry, more straw men; this isn't AJ's point.
Lastly, I seriously doubt that @THE ATOG LORD needs help in a competitive event
A non-trivial portion of Pro Tour winners have been found out as cheaters. What makes Rich so special?
Note here that I'm not saying his behavior is cheating. I just think it's clear that player quality, if you think Rich is a good player, is irrelevant to the evaluation.
-
In the tradition of Pascal I will attempt to keep this short.
I have nothing but respect for both Rich Shay and Brian. I find them to be erudite and entertaining individuals.
I tuned into the stream of the challenge. Billy shennanigans aside,, during one match Brian was walking through the steps of a turn and Rich was disagreeing with him. It was very obvious that attempting to discuss the line with Brian, while reading the Twitch chat, while putting up with the myriad other distractions going on in the basement were plainly taxing Rich's thought process as he attempted to herd the radioactive cats.
That said- I was discomfitted by it because as a paper player I ran face first into the cognitive dissonance that says "you aren't allowed to do that."
Do I think Brian was navigating Rich through anything that Rich did not see? No, and in fact, I think the amount of input from Brian, the Twitch chat, plus the additional distraction of friends made for a much harder tournament for Rich than if Rich was just streaming in his office.
And no, I'm not weighing in on whether or not the rules or community guidelines should change. But it did feel wrong, even though I fully understand that it is not, due to years of "that's not how this works" from the non-digital format.
That said, I would also have no issue playing Rich if Brian were in the room kibbitzing/commenting/telling him to sac a thorn to ravager during the game- so there is that.
-
For sure they could discuss the correct line of play or even how to sideboard correctly few times.
Some points I wanted to raise, do whatever you want with that
1- who knows if their opponents are not doing it? I've been drafting
2- MTGO is not tournament paper MTG. Remember you can see all of your picks during a draft (and even sort those as you wish:!)
3- Their brainstorming is good for (almost) all players so we all get more knowledge about those decks/match up/situations
4- The only thing I regret (MTGO issue) is that some starting hands were mulliganed because we almost knew what opponent were playing. This is where I don't like it but well, that's a MTGO topic... if anyone who know me play against me in any tournament, they can be sure I'm playing shops. -
It's just something that can, but most likely doesn't happen a lot on MTGO with events.
You can't know so there is no point in stressing about it.
Sure, there's always that chance some of the VSL contestants, or power 9 players, or other format leagues do this but I seriously doubt it, and especially at the higher levels.
If I'm playing against Rich Shay and he has a friend behind him discussing plays, do I care? Not really as I was likely going down anyway.
-
For what it's worth, I never talk to anyone during VSL matches. I shut down chats and don't check anything while I am playing in that (outside of the chat that coordinates the games).
"On the other hand, they have admitted that text matters." -- Smmenen
-
@The-Atog-Lord Sorry if it came across as I was implying VSL players do it, I tried to say the opposite.
-
@The-Atog-Lord said in MTGO Outside Assistance:
For what it's worth, I never talk to anyone during VSL matches. I shut down chats and don't check anything while I am playing in that (outside of the chat that coordinates the games).
So you recognize that there is some sort of fairness principle at play?
"Pitch Dredge is the worst thing to happen to Vintage this decade." - 2015 Vintage Champion Brian Kelly
youtube.com/user/ajfirecracker/videos
twitch.tv/ajfirecracker -
This post is deleted! -
I will admit to not really watching a large swath of different MTGO streams, but do the consistent streamers observe "ghosting on their behalf", where the chat offers comments on an opposing streamers hand or thought processes?
It is a fine line that the popular streamers have to walk between offering a product entertaining enough that folks come back, while maintaining the integrity of the game. The notion of even a single player offering comment/advice on a live game in a competitive Paper tournament goes against some of the most fundamental notions of competitive paper magic (not to mention that that sort of behavior often has serious repercussions in paper events). Chalking this up to MODO is MODO and Paper is Paper is fine, as long as we all remember that Metagame analysis and ultimately banning/restrictions will continue to be heavily based on MODO data.
-
@The-Atog-Lord said in MTGO Outside Assistance:
For what it's worth, I never talk to anyone during VSL matches. I shut down chats and don't check anything while I am playing in that (outside of the chat that coordinates the games).
@ajfirecracker said in MTGO Outside Assistance:
So you recognize that there is some sort of fairness principle at play?
This FTW
-
I'm reluctant to post in this thread because I'm obviously biased. It's hard for me to trust my own objectivity in this matter, so I accept that it would be much harder for someone else to.
I'm a little surprised how many people are just accepting that this is an ethical problem and jumping straight to a discussion about enforceability. I might just be compartmentalizing, but I don't see it.
I understand why someone would be upset to lose to a team of vintage players when they don't have access to a team of vintage players. I also understand why someone would be upset to lose to someone who could afford expensive cards when they didn't have access to those cards. This is unfortunate, but it's not cheating and it's not unethical.
I'm reminded of "cheesy strategies" from Sirlin's Playing to Win, and a tournament I went to once where the TO thought IDs were unethical and required everyone to play out all of their matches. When a ruleset is agreed upon ahead of time (which is what you're doing when you pay your entry fee), it's hard to argue that playing within those rules is unethical ... with the exception of things that would be unethical in any context, like physically threatening someone for a concession. (here "collaborating to make effective decisions" is not something considered always unethical). By the rules as we can infer from Wizards, MTGO is a team vs team game, where teams contain an arbitrary number of players.
It is, however, totally fair to decide that a given ruleset is unbalanced or unfun, though I think the term unfair isn't helpful here. This mindset gives us actionable steps and stops us from getting too mired in a fight over semantics. If the current ruleset - the one where WotC obviously doesn't care about team play, isn't fun, there are steps we can take to try and help. Player-run tournaments can have any ruleset they want, including "no teams", "no streaming", or "no streaming without a delay". We can ask WotC to clarify or change their stance on team play.
This is exactly why I campaigned to promote proxy-legal events back when they were unpopular 10 years ago. I felt that the official game, the one where most people can't afford a deck, was unbalanced and less fun because of that. Proxy Vintage is a player-run format with an similar but alternate ruleset that I personally find more interesting/challenging/entertaining (not everyone agrees with this, but not everyone agrees with any rules change).
For what it's worth I would no longer stream or play vintage online if Wizards took a hard stance on this. It's just less fun for me when I'm not playing with my friends or interacting with a stream - but that's fine, if the majority of players would be happier with a rules change, it's probably for the best.
-
We could think of ethical rules for streaming...
There's two things you guys are going around with. The first one, that everyone agrees with, is that enforcement is totally impossible.
The second one, that there seems to be some debate about, is whether there is an ethical question involved. I'm not even sure there is. MTGO has, from the get-go, never had any rules against outside assistance. Originally this was probably because of no enforcement capabilities, but whatever the reason, it happened. So, people play within the rules. It's the same as any other game. Would you complain if your StarCraft opponent had a friend in the room helping them remember the build order...?
And, as Steven discussed, it helps the community by giving people a stream to come to and cheer or argue over plays.
-
I brought this up last time we had a similar thread, but the original EULA/Terms of Use/whatever for MTGO did indeed disallow outside assistance. I know this because when my dad signed lil baby McAra up for an account on day 1, I was the kind of weird kid that read the entire document before clicking I Agree, because thats what I was supposed to do as a conscientious Internet Citizen.
Also, back in the day, way back when, a few streamers mentioned WotC contacting them about videos or broadcasts of MTGO, where they would ask for verbal confirmation that 'the plays made were based entirely on your own decision-making process" or something like that. I think Kenji/Numot talked about this at one point?
Would be interesting to learn if that stipulation is still buried in all those words, if anyone cares enough to scrub through it with a Ctrl-F.
-
it's about ethics in video game streaming
-
I for one would prefer if players stream . Having read this thread I think most of my pre-conceptions were wrong - I thought having the chat on your side gives you some edges. However much of the information that might by provided by the chat can be looked up and if you are so inclined you could set up a bot to look up the information to save time .
The one possible exception (and maybe I'm also wrong on this) is the innocuous what is my opponent on? Yes you can look up what they've played in recent tournament, but if someone in chat knows what your opponent is actually on as they faced them in a previous round this can hugely influence mulligan, turn 1 play. Is there anyway of finding our what your opponent is on - can you review previous rounds while the tournament is underway?
