Test for all yugioh players !!

[Raijinili]

Because I don't see how "least disadvantage" isn't an advantage of a choice.

You go off to fight a battle. You choose your ground. No matter what, some of your men are going to die, and you're going to win despite that. You choose the ground with the most advantage by deciding which one will have the LEAST of your men dead. Your men still die, but there was an advantage to choosing the way for LESS of them to die.

It's actually more like shooting yourself in the foot against shooting yourself in the foot, then shooting yourself in the head right afterwards. One choice covers the disadvantages of both choices and none of the other choice's advantages, and thus the other choice is better (i.e. more advantageous).

 

[Jathro]

If this thread is going to continue, it's going to do so without personal attacks/insults.

Keep it clean, guys.

And like DJ said: concede does not equal concession.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I agree, I don't see how anyone's point is better emphasized by calling anyone names.

This argument wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for a card that we're somewhat chagrined that we can't use in tournament to any effect. We're used to having cards that aren't as good as we'd like them to be, but even then, there was always the potential that somebody could finagle a strategy out of it. There was always the possibility that someone could make the card work.

We don't have that option with Victory Dragon thanks to our tournament policy. There's no finagling, strategizing or getting around it. It works the way it does and tournament policy works the way it does. And for some reason this has created sore feelings. Sore feelings that don't really serve any purpose.

We can dance round whether we think its fair or not all day long. But in the end, it does nothing to change what you can and can't do. Lest disadvantaged, disadvantaged, advantaged. Defining them isn't going to change the primary factors.

You can concede a game anytime you wish.
You cannot conceed in exchange for compensation.​

Neither of these factors are modified or altered in the face of Victory Dragon. Whether you view conceding as an advantage or not, the policies make no mention, nor do they intimate the word "advantage". They refer to compensation and compensation only. If conceding to you is for your own personal gain, then so be it. You weren't offered anything to concede, and you didn't offer anything to concede. It was a strategic decision and one you decided to do all on your own, not as a compensation to you by your opponent or to your opponent by you.

That's the definition of concession by compensation. Whether the act works to your advantage or not is neither here nor there. You were neither offered a bribe nor offered one yourself to do so.

 

[Raijinili]

In other words, I'm being bitter.

What did I already tell you? I CAN'T be bitter. I don't have the card, and I don't even play the game. I don't really know anyone who uses Victory Dragon, either.

So your attempt to dismiss my point of view as "bitterness", and thus "unreasonable", doesn't work.

Neither of these factors are modified or altered in the face of Victory Dragon. Whether you view conceding as an advantage or not, the policies make no mention, nor do they intimate the word "advantage". They refer to compensation and compensation only.

Conceding a game because your FRIEND bet on the outcome is allowed, if we want to read the rules literally. You, the player, don't get any compensation, but your friend does. You get advantage in that you receive gratitude, but you don't actually receive compensation. Also, there's no rule against an outsider betting on the games.

Yet, if you found a player doing this, would you do anything?

What if the opponent offered the friend money? Assume that the player still don't get anything except gratitude.

Disclaimer: This is an example of something that's not against the rules, but still not allowed. It is not a direct analogy to the Victory Dragon situation, but it does demonstrate how taking "the rules let you do this as long as you don't get anything" literally leads to problems. You can say "that's not NEARLY the same thing", but I'm not making an analogy, I'm attacking the mindset. Therefore, you must show how it IS against the rules without changing your interpretation of the policy, or you must say that it isn't against the rules, if you want to disprove my point.

 

[HorusMaster]

In other words, I'm being bitter.

What did I already tell you? I CAN'T be bitter. I don't have the card, and I don't even play the game. I don't really know anyone who uses Victory Dragon, either.

So your attempt to dismiss my point of view as "bitterness", and thus "unreasonable", doesn't work.
Conceding a game because your FRIEND bet on the outcome is allowed, if we want to read the rules literally. You, the player, don't get any compensation, but your friend does. You get advantage in that you receive gratitude, but you don't actually receive compensation. Also, there's no rule against an outsider betting on the games.

Yet, if you found a player doing this, would you do anything?

What if the opponent offered the friend money? Assume that the player still don't get anything except gratitude.

Disclaimer: This is an example of something that's not against the rules, but still not allowed. It is not a direct analogy to the Victory Dragon situation, but it does demonstrate how taking "the rules let you do this as long as you don't get anything" literally leads to problems. You can say "that's not NEARLY the same thing", but I'm not making an analogy, I'm attacking the mindset. Therefore, you must show how it IS against the rules without changing your interpretation of the policy, or you must say that it isn't against the rules, if you want to disprove my point.

Dude- first, get over yourself. What is the point of creating turmoil over a game you stated yourself that you don't play. If you want to create chaos and insult people by calling them "liars", then I ask that you take your posts and place them somewhere else.
Second, while it isn't directly addressed in the rules about "paying" a friend for a game concession or betting on the outcome and receiving nothing except "gratitude", it is nonetheless considered unsportsmanlike game conduct and that is addressed in the rules. Game concession for compensation is prohibited and if there arises a situation where there is question of compensation, then it's up to the judges to determine whether an infraction occurred and the penalty to be given as determined by game policy. Any other arguements from this point out, regardless of your interpretation of the rule as it exists is null and void. If you think that the rule needs to be interpreted differently or expounded upon, write a letter to UDE/Konami and address your concern(s). Until such time as UDE/Konami agree with your interpretation, then the rest of us who do play the game, will follow the rules as they exist. Thanks so much for your input but from this point out I think anything else you have to say in this matter is mute.

 

[Digital Jedi]

In other words, I'm being bitter.

What did I already tell you? I CAN'T be bitter. I don't have the card, and I don't even play the game. I don't really know anyone who uses Victory Dragon, either.

So your attempt to dismiss my point of view as "bitterness", and thus "unreasonable", doesn't work.
Conceding a game because your FRIEND bet on the outcome is allowed, if we want to read the rules literally. You, the player, don't get any compensation, but your friend does. You get advantage in that you receive gratitude, but you don't actually receive compensation. Also, there's no rule against an outsider betting on the games.

Yet, if you found a player doing this, would you do anything?

What if the opponent offered the friend money? Assume that the player still don't get anything except gratitude.

Disclaimer: This is an example of something that's not against the rules, but still not allowed. It is not a direct analogy to the Victory Dragon situation, but it does demonstrate how taking "the rules let you do this as long as you don't get anything" literally leads to problems. You can say "that's not NEARLY the same thing", but I'm not making an analogy, I'm attacking the mindset. Therefore, you must show how it IS against the rules without changing your interpretation of the policy, or you must say that it isn't against the rules, if you want to disprove my point.

Never said you were bitter. I said it was a unique card vs policy situation that we've never had before and creates contention.

Nevertheless, your scenario has one major flaw. The notion that betting on an event isn't against the rules when taken literally. That is merely a situation that is hard to get caught doing. It doesn't make it any less egregious or illegal.

 

[Raijinili]

Dude- first, get over yourself. What is the point of creating turmoil over a game you stated yourself that you don't play. If you want to create chaos and insult people by calling them "liars", then I ask that you take your posts and place them somewhere else.

I think it is wrong, and I point it out. I think it's wrong for masterwoo0 to pretend that there's no advantage, and I call him on it. I'm not one of those people who let things go just because I'm not personally negatively affected.

As for calling him a liar, he's twisting the truth, pretending that there's no advantage to losing a game, ever. I'm no longer trying to win an argument with him.

Second, while it isn't directly addressed in the rules about "paying" a friend for a game concession or betting on the outcome and receiving nothing except "gratitude", it is nonetheless considered unsportsmanlike game conduct and that is addressed in the rules.

Actually, I've also said that the Victory Dragon situation goes under "bad sportsmanship", and I've been called bitter for it.

Game concession for compensation is prohibited and if there arises a situation where there is question of compensation, then it's up to the judges to determine whether an infraction occurred and the penalty to be given as determined by game policy. Any other arguements from this point out, regardless of your interpretation of the rule as it exists is null and void.

Yes, it is up to the judges. I've said that they CAN get called for "bad sportsmanship", but it's up to the judges if they want to do that. Here, though, I can convince some of those judges.

You seem to think that my point of view is unique. That I'm the only person to interpret the rules this way.

If you think that the rule needs to be interpreted differently or expounded upon, write a letter to UDE/Konami and address your concern(s).

If I think the rules need to be interpreted differently, and I feel it is a correct interpretation (and I mean correct as in "it fits the rules"), then I can apply it. Remember, the only answer that was given on the list was a quote of a rule that was already in effect.

Until such time as UDE/Konami agree with your interpretation, then the rest of us who do play the game, will follow the rules as they exist. Thanks so much for your input but from this point out I think anything else you have to say in this matter is mute.

Moot.

Until UDE disagrees with my interpretation of "bad sportsmanship", then it's correct, isn't it? After all, isn't that how it works?

Never said you were bitter. I said it was a unique card vs policy situation that we've never had before and creates contention.

"This argument wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for a card that we're somewhat chagrined that we can't use in tournament to any effect."

In other words, I'm only arguing about this because I'm bitter.

Nevertheless, your scenario has one major flaw. The notion that betting on an event isn't against the rules when taken literally. That is merely a situation that is hard to get caught doing. It doesn't make it any less egregious or illegal.

Betting on the event is actually against the rule if you're a player or an official.

 

[masterwoo0]

I think it is wrong, and I point it out. I think it's wrong for masterwoo0 to pretend that there's no advantage, and I call him on it. I'm not one of those people who let things go just because I'm not personally negatively affected.

As for calling him a liar, he's twisting the truth, pretending that there's no advantage to losing a game, ever. I'm no longer trying to win an argument with him.

It's against the rules because it is not a appropriate venue for "betting", just as it's not appropriate to use foul language just because "you know all the words". It also creates a atmosphere that can increase the likelihood that someone will attempt to influence a Game outcome, just to win a "Friendly Wager".

As for lying about "losing" being an advantage, how do you gain advantage on something if you don't already know the future outcome? Do I expressly know that if I concede the game I am about to lose by getting attacked by Victory Dragon, that I will with utmost cetainty win Game 2 and 3?

No. I only know that I am at least going to be able to play one more game. Where is the advantage in that? I'm 0-1. One more loss and I lose the whole Match. Advantage, Opponent. I gain nothing from conceding, except the fact that I didnt lose the whole Match in one Duel. You have a rather skewed outlook on losing.

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

Except that the second part says that you cannot even offer a compensation in the first place....

I would have to say that if I concede so that I don't loose the Match due to Victory Dragon's effect, I am in a very real sense receiving compensation for my quitting. I am compensated by not loosing the match.

What do I win, Paul????

SoilentG wins?!?! Wait a minute...I said it first!!!
<pouts>
I don't like your reindeer games. They take too long and are arbitrarily won. I'm going back to my balloons.

Besides, you guys have gotten so off topic (and a little mean). Tootles!

 

[SoilentG]

And no offense to Paul or SoilentG, but the interpretation of totally off. <snip>

No offense taken... although, if you read my entire post you'll see I saw my own faulty reasoning before I left the thread after my original posting (which is why it doesn't say "Last editted by...")

Also, I don't really deserve to win, my thinking was outside of the box but it was errant, and it was not coupled with the Victory Dragon situation. I agree that Logician should win.

It is an interesting debate though... should a person be allowed to concede in the face of Victory Dragon? It is a very weak move to concede during your opponent's turn, when he clears your field for a direct Victory Dragon match winning attack. So, I would vote to amend the rule to say you can't concede during your opponent's turn... only during your turn.... but, you see it in the tournaments all the time... when players scoop in the face of a Chimeratech Overdrive with an ATK of, say, 10,400. (Of course, the difference is they're not conceding to avoid a match loss.)

 

[masterwoo0]

It is an interesting debate though... should a person be allowed to concede in the face of Victory Dragon? It is a very weak move to concede during your opponent's turn, when he clears your field for a direct Victory Dragon match winning attack. So, I would vote to amend the rule to say you can't concede during your opponent's turn... only during your turn.... but, you see it in the tournaments all the time... when players scoop in the face of a Chimeratech Overdrive with an ATK of, say, 10,400. (Of course, the difference is they're not conceding to avoid a match loss.)

The point you bring up has already been discussed to death. The Policy says anytime, and that's the way it is.

 

[SoilentG]

I still had the right to state my opinion though and that's what I was stating... did you not understand that? Sheesh.

 

[roadhouse007]

This thread is ridiculous. All it is is nonsense with an idea in the background that has been discussed ad nausea all over the place:


"SHOULD PLAYERS BE ALLOWED TO CONCEDE TO VICTORY DRAGON?"

You all are lucky I took the weekend off, or I would have put my 2 cents in about how ridiculous this thread is a while ago. There is no hidden meaning in the tournament concession policy, and all that policy means is a player can give up the current game as long as their opponent is not going to give them compensation which would cause personal gain of any sort. This includes monetary compensation, personal favors and anything of the sort.

But having a contest on who can find the "hidden meaning" in this statement is ridiculous. No offense meant, but there is no hidden meaning. There is one major loophole though. It has to be proven (basically by catching both parties in the act) that a player was offered compensation for their concession. It kind of makes it obvious when the winning player concedes, but if the player was losing anyways (due to actually losing or just playing loosely like might have been agreed to before the match), you can't really justify accusing the players of conceding due to a bribe.

And then, in that case, John Danker would lead you to the door and say "No more sanctioned UDE tourney for you".

 

[Digital Jedi]

Alright, I'll add one more response, as I no longer see the benefit of this thread topic. I'm not really sure why this always has to be such a sore spot on CoG.

"This argument wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for a card that we're somewhat chagrined that we can't use in tournament to any effect."

In other words, I'm only arguing about this because I'm bitter.
Betting on the event is actually against the rule if you're a player or an official.

Nope. As I stated, in other words it's a unique situation that we've never had before and the point causes contention. That's what I meant. Are you now contesting what I was thinking?

Clearly you have some feeling for this, otherwise why would you even persist in the matter?

I recommend this once before and I'll recommend it to you again to lay off the name calling. Specifically calling people liars when they disagree with you. If anything is bad sportsmanship then that's it. Consider that an official warning.

As for the rest of you, I would also recommend you put whatever feelings you have for the matter on the shelf. I really hate locking threads, as it closes the opportunity for positive additions to the discussion. But we'll have no choice if this continues in the heated direction. Anyone who persists in making this a personal grudge match will be looking at additional warnings and possible ban recommendations. I shouldn't have to do this. Most of you are more then old enough to know better. But that's where we stand.

 

[densetsu_x]

DJ, with all due respect, there is nothing positive that is going to come out of this thread.

It is just a rehash of the first time it was brought up (as I stated a few posts ago.) The only thing keeping this thread open is doing is making everyone upset with each new post on it. (Just look at SoilentG and masterwoo0 a few posts back).

There is nothing new that can be contributed. The heart of it is that some people feel it's unsportsmanlike to concede if you're about to lose your match to Victory Dragon. I think it's a chicken way to play (take your match loss like a man and move on to the next round). Current policy dictates otherwise. Are they going to change policy? My hunch is no. It doesn't see enough (any?) play at major events and changing things could cause other issues. Yes this could be a chicken and egg thing (change the policy, people will play it more or try to) but I think that will be a temporary boost after people get frustrated with how unreliable it is.

All the arguments for Victory Dragon and suppositions in the TCG have long since played themselves out for debate. Policy is what it is. For everyone reading this, if you don't like it and feel so strongly about this card and want to play, write the people at UDE and express your feelings to them. For everyone else here who has no interest in playing it and just feels like debating for debating's sake, enough. You're not going to say anything new nor will it change anything.

Lastly, I will repeat something in a bit more in depth now.

Personally, I would have closed this thread a long time ago. Since I can't now though, I repeat my motion to get it closed since there is no gain keeping it open (and frankly wasn't something that should have been opened the way it was in the first place). But since it's not ending, I move to end it here. Thank you.

 

[SoilentG]

Guys, et al, I think if you re-read my post that wooOOO responded to you'll see I wasn't trying to be snippy or inflamatory. I was trying to contribute to this topic in a positive manner (and basically said the same as densetsu... that conceding in the face of VD is weak). But, I did get a little snippy with wooOOO's statement... but, in the spirit Digi is stating... I'll try harder to not get snippy.

 

[masterwoo0]

Is this even worth continuing? There really is no point I can see to answering it any more, as it has sunk into a Spamfest, and the Thread Originator doesnt seem to be interested in stopping it.

This was Post #23. I voted to end this thread a long time ago. Like I said, he hasn't had any concern in the thread since posting on the 3rd (finally), so why prolong the obvious?

 

[John Danker]

I'll do the honors then and put this lame horse to sleep....rest in peace.