Victory Dragon Ruling
- Thread starter blade146
- Start date
Technically, it's not against the rules to punch your opponent in the face. Oh, wait, that's illegal.masterwoo0 said:
There's no rule saying that you can't take five bathroom breaks in the span of a single duel. It might annoy the heck out of your opponent so much that he can't think straight, but... Oh, that's suspicious behavior. Hm...
Well, okay, let's look at the definition of sportsmanship, from an online dictionary:
"Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing."
That's my argument.
Or: You're using rules to take advantage. For example, trying to get your opponent called on something like no deck sleeves when you're losing is definitely not against the objective rules. Not all of the rules are objective, however.
That's stretching it till it breaks. The whole issue here is that folks are hurt that Victory Dragon's effect can be curcumvented so easily. Suddenly it's bad sportsmanship or rules lawyering to do so. So let's take it a step further and say that anytime you can avoid a harmful situtation, it's bad sportsmanship. Now activatiing Waboku is bad sportsmanship, because you didn't want to loose, so you used a card to your advantage. Now it's bad sportsmanship to defeat your opponent before his Final Countdown gets 20 turns. Heck, why don't I just tell my opponent he wins the match before we even sit down to avoid being a bad sport. Honestly, physically assaulting my opponent is a far cry from conceding a game to avoid a damaging effect. It seems the only real bad sports surrounng this effect are the ones mad because policy prevents them from successfully pulling it off.
I challenge you to bring up a more relevant example.Digital Jedi said:
I don't play the game. I actually do feel that this is bad sportsmanship.Digital Jedi said:
This is an attack without any backup.Digital Jedi said:
This is an appeal to "comon" sense and you have not shown how this example would be warranted. This is also an example of the slippery slope fallacy.Digital Jedi said:
There's a CLEAR difference between using a card to your advantage and using a rule to your advantage, wouldn't you agree?Digital Jedi said:
And that is what we're arguing about here: using a RULE to your advantage. Make no mistake.
Why do you seem so offended by the opposing side of this argument?Digital Jedi said:
This has just wandered into the realm of irrelevancy.Digital Jedi said:
Yes, and I admitted that.Digital Jedi said:
As I said, I have no personal stake in this. You're the one that needs to calm down. You're attacking the opposing side as "bad sports" and also accusing them of favoring an answer that is favorable to them. All because they disagree with your ruling.Digital Jedi said:
And before you accuse me of the same, remember that I'm attacking you personally on the basis that your attacks are unwarranted. I'm making assumptions about you from your attack, and pointing them out to you. Where did you pull the attack that I'm just mad about not being able to efficiently use a card that I don't even have?
Oh God, not the multi-quote thing again. I'm not going there. Disecting my comments isn't going to accomplish anything, since I wasn't typing my thesis for anyalization.
This is geting a little heated so lets calm down for a second and think about it. You both are correct. Scooping to a player attacking with Victory Dragon is bad sportsmenship. You are not penilized for it under UDE rules though. Yugioh has always been about who can bend the rules the best. Other games do this to. The best example I can think of is stalling for a win. If you build a deck that does this it isn't against the rules. Ask anyone who has played against a Glock deck in VS.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Until UDE does an about face on the Concession Policy, and yes, anywhere that there is a policy, much like Insurance Policies that state driving without a seatbelt can result in a nonpayment (sounds like a Rule to me, for those who say policy does not mean a rule), it will continue to be that the opponent can "quit" anytime they wish without penalty. There is no reading into that. Anytime means "anytime".Raijinili said:
"Was that exclusively to your advantage?"mortals said:
That was in response to Digital Jedi's attitude towards mymasterwoo0 said:
The difference between insurance policies and UDE rules is that UDE gives its judges a loophole to stop the players from "not-breaking" rules.masterwoo0 said:
magnumcyclonex
Virus!
This thread is getting pointless. The bottom line is that players can concede a game whenever they wish to. Yes, it defeats the purpose of Victory Dragon, but remember that the policies weren't made with VD in mind.
The argument that conceding a game is unsportsman-like conduct is ridiculous. If I know I am going to lose, I will tell my opponent that he has won that game and move on to the next game. There is no point in playing it out to see exactly how I will lose, especially if I am under some sort of lock and the process of losing is slow and time consuming.
Players are given 40 minutes in a round to completed their matches. Let's say that it is game 1. If I have no way of stopping VD from attacking me, I declare to concede this game. By doing so, my opponent is 1 step closer to a match win, because it is now 1-0 in his favor. In this case, I am not abusing the tournament policies to gain any unfair advantage. I have no malicious intent in doing so. I simply want to acknowledge the fact that I wish to concede the first game and move on so we can play game 2 with plenty of time. In this case, I am adhering to the tournament policies and making full use of them within its boundaries. Remember that tournament policies do not dictate what situations must arise for a game concession to be made.
By conceding early, I have my full 3 minutes to side deck and THINK about how I can circumvent my opponent in the next game. I'd call this smart play and appropriate usage of my limited time.
The argument that conceding a game is unsportsman-like conduct is ridiculous. If I know I am going to lose, I will tell my opponent that he has won that game and move on to the next game. There is no point in playing it out to see exactly how I will lose, especially if I am under some sort of lock and the process of losing is slow and time consuming.
Players are given 40 minutes in a round to completed their matches. Let's say that it is game 1. If I have no way of stopping VD from attacking me, I declare to concede this game. By doing so, my opponent is 1 step closer to a match win, because it is now 1-0 in his favor. In this case, I am not abusing the tournament policies to gain any unfair advantage. I have no malicious intent in doing so. I simply want to acknowledge the fact that I wish to concede the first game and move on so we can play game 2 with plenty of time. In this case, I am adhering to the tournament policies and making full use of them within its boundaries. Remember that tournament policies do not dictate what situations must arise for a game concession to be made.
By conceding early, I have my full 3 minutes to side deck and THINK about how I can circumvent my opponent in the next game. I'd call this smart play and appropriate usage of my limited time.
But really, is it truly fair play to concede 1 round when the alternative was to lose the equivalent of 2 rounds even if the "rules" allow it?
The same kind of argument could be made for the person who uses the "end of match" procedures to their advantage. I have seen people who basically play to kill off 40 minutes only to reach the end of match and then come away with the win because they had the life gainer / opponent burn cards stockpiled. I have seen TOs and Judges crack down on that sort of play, giving warnings and penalties to people who repeatedly went to Sudden Death (the argument being slow play). Yet it is within the "guidelines" and "rules" of Tournament Play.
Could something be done to change the policy? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not. The only way you will see a change of policy in regards to Victory Dragon is to see someone take it to an event like the SJC where everyone is watching and then get completely nerfed by it all day (esp if that deck makes the Top 8). After all, it took Cyber-Stein making a mockery out of the finals in the last SJC before they decided to ban/restrict the card, despite the fact that it was in many decklists who had top 8-ed these events before (but was more the tech card rather than the winning theme).
However, conceding 1 round to avoid losing the whole match is not fair play. It's like Plea Bargaining to get a lesser sentence except I don't have the chance to say "no deal." Suck it up, take your match loss, sign the paper, and go on to the next round. After all, it does take some work to get out Victory Dragon AND have you low enough AND have it do a direct shot to kill you unlike Dropping Stein into Megamorphed Fusion, attack for game. The reward should be worth the work and not some "legal permission" to circumvent it.
The same kind of argument could be made for the person who uses the "end of match" procedures to their advantage. I have seen people who basically play to kill off 40 minutes only to reach the end of match and then come away with the win because they had the life gainer / opponent burn cards stockpiled. I have seen TOs and Judges crack down on that sort of play, giving warnings and penalties to people who repeatedly went to Sudden Death (the argument being slow play). Yet it is within the "guidelines" and "rules" of Tournament Play.
Could something be done to change the policy? Yes. Will it happen? Probably not. The only way you will see a change of policy in regards to Victory Dragon is to see someone take it to an event like the SJC where everyone is watching and then get completely nerfed by it all day (esp if that deck makes the Top 8). After all, it took Cyber-Stein making a mockery out of the finals in the last SJC before they decided to ban/restrict the card, despite the fact that it was in many decklists who had top 8-ed these events before (but was more the tech card rather than the winning theme).
However, conceding 1 round to avoid losing the whole match is not fair play. It's like Plea Bargaining to get a lesser sentence except I don't have the chance to say "no deal." Suck it up, take your match loss, sign the paper, and go on to the next round. After all, it does take some work to get out Victory Dragon AND have you low enough AND have it do a direct shot to kill you unlike Dropping Stein into Megamorphed Fusion, attack for game. The reward should be worth the work and not some "legal permission" to circumvent it.
The Advocate
The Prosecutor
I agree this thread is coming to an end; but the one question that bothers me is who and when was it considered bad sportsmanship to concede or scoop? I would never consider it bad sportsmanship unless the concession came with an "up yours" or something similar like "in your face Victory Dragon" or "take that urinal cake". After all this, does anyone expect to see Victory Dragon in anyone's deck? I have one and it looks good but it will remain in my collection for looks only.
The Advocate
The Prosecutor
Sorry, forgot, last regionals I saw several players, all very young, stalling for time after getting a lead in the 3rd duel. I considered this bad sportsmanship but no one was called on it.
I had the opportunity to do the same in a match and I could have gone 5-4 instead of 4-5 if I did but of course I didn't because it didn't make a difference to me, so I played quickly and lost.
I had the opportunity to do the same in a match and I could have gone 5-4 instead of 4-5 if I did but of course I didn't because it didn't make a difference to me, so I played quickly and lost.
The argument is that conceding the game to your advantage and to the tournament disadvantage of your opponent is unfair. This isn't about conceding the game being unfair in general. You're twisting the argument so that it appears weaker before you start attacking it.magnumcyclonex said:
If we're talking about Victory Dragon: The "unfairness" of it is what we're debating, so don't state your stance as if it's a point. Now that we've gotten that out of the way...magnumcyclonex said:
Can you honestly say that you do not gain an advantage from conceding the game (as opposed to allowing for it to continue) at the expense of your opponent?
If we're talking about Victory Dragon: Except that you don't want your opponent to win the match so easily. But that's the whole point of playing the game. Malicious intent isn't the point.magnumcyclonex said:
The point is, you're using a TOURNAMENT RULE to your advantage, as opposed to playing a game to your advantage.
You can also concede the match. But that wouldn't be to your advantage, would it?magnumcyclonex said:
If we're still talking about Victory Dragon, then you're a liar. You concede the first game because it would be to your disadvantage not to, not because you want time for the second game. There wouldn't even be a second game if you didn't concede, unless your opponent decides not to win with Victory Dragon.
But then again, we're not talking about Victory Dragon, are we? We're talking about conceding the game in general, which no one is arguing is unfair. You're just using the straw man fallacy: setting up a new target while looking like you're hitting the original target.
Remember that the tournament policies don't outline every situation and allow judges discretion precisely because they can't think of everything.magnumcyclonex said:
John Danker
Administrator
I think all reasonable points have been made regarding this thread and it appears that there isn't any positive progress being made. With that in mind and cosidering that it appears tempers are beginning to rise I think it best we close this thread for the time being. Thank you for everyone's input.
- Status