Suggestion for a Code of Conduct

[Atomzed]

These questions occur to me admist the Crown Downer (CD) inquiry. I called it the Downer, because an epic final was let down by an untimely bug.

The final decision has been made so i'm not questioning the outcome. The issues I want to raise has implications for future tourneys. This timer bug has been squashed in v1.29 but there will always be bugs. And if it happens in a tourney, ESP in a tourney final, there need to be clear guidelines on managing it.

Qn1) When is the latest the players can challenge the outcome of the game?

Scenario: atomzed (AD) got into the finals (dream on!) with Random Intelligent Player (RIP). The game continue as usual. GS who came in late for the live matches, saw the recording of the first few turns. He realized that there was an important bug that gave an unfair advantage to AD. He sound out in the in-game chat. AD and RIP did not realized the error and didn't keep track of it.

Can the match be void if the error is sound out within first turn, 3 turns, 5 turns, 10 turns or before the finishing blow? This has to be made clear. In the CD event, if someone pointed out the error just before Gravebone killed Logan, would the match be voided? No one knows, but you can see that it's a very difficult decision.

2) Can a bug, that has never been reported before, void a match?

A true story, I encountered a bug when my Gravebone revived a SK. The SK was CB by the computer AI, but the SK retain its 5 attack. (I cannot replicate the bug with the AI, neither did I pursue it bec no one else said anything)

So if the above bug happen in my AD vs RIP final, do RIP have the right to void the match? Or do we treat it as part of the game and tough luck to RIP?

3) Does a 'challenge' need to be acknowledge by both players b4 it's considered legitimate?

Scenario, in an obscure league match which nobody watches, i played a game with RIP. I thought that the timer bug hit me on my first turn. I said that i will restart the match but RIP insist that I counted wrongly. He proceeded with the match. I insist I'm right and quit the match. Unfortunately during the view matches, a sync error occur (which happens quite frequently now) prevent a third party from checking each other claims? So who's correct and who's wrong?

4) Is there a limit to the number of 'challenges' to the game?

Scenario: AD played a game with RIP and AD pointed out that the first game had a timer bug. Cos it was during RIP turn, RIP had to count his cards and check his SE. This reduce the amount of time RIP had for planning his moves. RIP checked and said that AD was wrong and AD accepted. In the second round, AD once again challenge that a bug occur. RIP was pissed and said that he won't bother to check bec it's AD mind games. Subsequently replay showed that AD was correct. So is the match void or does it count?

No doubt, the above four questions are difficult to answer. Some might said 'Why so serious? It's just a game!'.

My argument is that precisely its just a game with no official judges (most of the time at least) the SE community NEEDS to agree on a code of conduct. If things fall outside of the code of conduct, we can say 'Tough luck this time, but we will refine the rules so that it doesn't happen again.' At least that brings closure to unfortunate event(s) happening at a major final (s)

If we choose to say 'it won't happen again, no need to be bothered about it'... You obviously have not heard of Murphy Law.

Of course, the specific ruling still remains within the jurisdiction of the tourney organizers.

personally I will definitely want a Code of Conduct to be agree upon.

Note: the timer bug / CB-SK bug are just examples. Even if they are fixed, more bugs will arise. Some minor, some major. And all bugs can have potential effect on games outcome.

------------------------------

I have decided to keep a summary record of the 'controversies' that happens in tourneys. I will only record tourneys bec they are the competitions. Non tourneys will not be recorded here.

The purpose of recording it is to highlight the need for a code of conduct among SE players. The rules are set by the tourney holders, but as mentioned in scenario 3, things can happen that is not anticipated. I feel that it's necessary to discuss this openly.

Note that there is no value judgement against anyone mentioned in here. I have try to record it as objectively as possible. If anyone wants me to rephrase the sequence of event, kindly let me know how you want me to rephrase it and I will consider your suggestion seriously.

------------------------------

xx Xx 11 (need to check the date again)- Crown Downer for Crown tourney final

Yarikasakin vs Raph Majere final. The turner bug occur on the first game which nobody caught including all the spectators. The turner bug was that the person who start first has an extremely short time to sac, which often ended up him forfeiting his turn.

In the CD final, the turner bug hit Raph, and the timing was so good that once the game started, it proceeds to show Yarika starting the game. No one picked up that Yarika was starting with 1 card more and 1 SE more.

The final was tight with Yarika winning 2-1. A day or 2 after the congrats, someone who watched the replay pointed out that Raph skipped his sacrifice phase. Raph demanded a rematch bec of the unfair advantage. The decision was ding-dong bet Bluejet (Crown organizer) and GDC (OOPS) and after much intense discussion, the final decision of the game remains.

After CD, bluejet came up with a RNB rules that is commonly used in most tourneys. The RNB rules clearly state how bugs that affect tourneys should be handled. This is a huge improvement over precious tourneys with no official rules.

Currently the RNB is as close to an official rule that SE community has (caa 13 Feb 12)

------------------------------

12 Feb 12 - Kris bug winning the game

Additional controversy arise during the Pop-up tourney organised by Bluejet on 12 Feb 12.

The game was between soothslyr and DndFreak. DnDFreak used a Ghostmaker to revive Kris who could immediately and won the game with it. It was a known bug as listed here. http://dev.wulven.co...0/browse/SE-389.

Soothslyr forfeited the game to protest the bug being utilised. Note that this was a test server tourney, and that the organizer did not specify any specific rules for this tourney.

2 school of thoughts arise:-

1) Since the game allows it to happen and Wulven didn't fix it, we should allow the bug to be used.
2) It was a known bug which was going to be fixed. Also the rules stated clearly that a revived ally will not have the ability activated when summoned. So it should not be used.

Also, since the physical card game is going to be up soon, it raise questions for the first school of thought.

If its a bug because of scripting errors, but the rules in the physical game stated clearly that the bug is against the rules, what then?

Do we accept the bug bec its "allowed in the digital game"?
Or do we reject it bec its "not allowed in the rules", and hence call for a void match?

Difficult questions to answer.

Either the community has to answer it or Wulven Studio needs to come up with an official stand.

[Gondorian]

This a good post with some good questions.

However, I am not touching them with a ten-foot pole unless someone puts me on the payroll!

[Raphael Majere]

This a good post with some good questions.

However, I am not touching them with a ten-foot pole unless someone puts me on the payroll!

??? GDC is not paid for his work as OOPS? It's a voluntary position?

[Atomzed]

It's an open post to all SE community members. Everyone can contribute in their personal capacity.

[Raphael Majere]

Excellent thread started.

[Gondorian]

??? GDC is not paid for his work as OOPS? It's a voluntary position?

Yes. I have received no payment or even Shadow Crystals for my contributions.

The OOPS post was my idea so that I could bring order (i.e. renaming threads, adding stickies, etc) to the Tournaments and Ladders sub-forum, which i had cluttered up with all my threads.

As part of the OOPS idea, I asked for T&L to be renamed to Organised Play.

I also took the role because I thought it would allow me to fill a need for official tournaments that Wulven were not otherwise running, and give me the power to allocate prizes from a monthly budget and transfer crystals.

Unfortunately, there is no monthly budget yet and only contracted employees can do crystals transfers.

Sorry for the derailment.

[Raphael Majere]

Yes. I have received no payment or even Shadow Crystals for my contributions.

The OOPS post was my idea so that I could bring order (i.e. renaming threads, adding stickies, etc) to the Tournaments and Ladders sub-forum, which i had cluttered up with all my threads.

As part of the OOPS idea, I asked for T&L to be renamed to Organised Play.

I also took the role because I thought it would allow me to fill a need for official tournaments that Wulven were not otherwise running, and give me the power to allocate prizes from a monthly budget and transfer crystals.

Unfortunately, there is no monthly budget yet and only contracted employees can do crystals transfers.

Sorry for the derailment.

Thanks for clarification, I also apologize for temp derailment.

[LARKEN]

awww Raphael and GonDorian have made up!! im glad guys, your both pillars of the SE world at the moment and it would have been a great shame for a system bug to have damaged what you both bring to the table.

I would just run the rule that if there was ever a bug in a game at anypoint that game is re-played, in addtion you allow the organisor 24 hours to 'officially' confirm the winner.

What happened in the torny sucked, but this is the 'either world', crap like that happens all the time... its like earlier this morning i was suppose to be checking the future price of oil for a client and when my boss came over i had this site 'p**n h*b' open and i was like...."not me boss, its a bug" and he understood...kinda

[Atomzed]

Btt, I hoping all tourney organizers will contribute their opinions. Off the top of my head, that include Mattog, GDC, bluejet, BDK, and Pablomag. I would like to hear how you would handle these issues in the tourney you organized.

[MistahBoweh]

I have a response to 4).

In serious Magic events, if a player calls a judge over to challenge their opponent of cheating and the judge has to extend their time limit and reset the game in order to check, say to examine the opponent's deck and sideboard for missing or marked cards, then the player who challenged is penalized instead were they wrong. That way, you can't just have players insisting some error occurred and resetting the game when they don't like their opening hand. This also serves as a deterrent for players that forces them to pay more attention and not hold up the round unless they're certain.