I think in most competitive sporting events if one player/team did not show up for a match that would be a forfeit. I think that applies to finals as well as regular games. If everyone is being honest (no collusion), I think that is what should happen for SWM. If there is any sort of collusion going on, then all involved players should be disqualified and their subsequent match(es) forfeited until you get back to normal again.

I like the idea of being nice and bumping someone who is not in the top 4/8 into the top 4/8 if someone drops. But, that doesn't seem fair to those who legitimately made it, and not being fair to the top players is the worst case scenario.

In the end it is not unfair to the two who had to play each other or to the person who benefited from the forfeit. However they got there, the top two will have to play to decide. And, if someone leaves the top two, then the other person wins. I don't think we'd ever say, "well, one of the top two players left, so you have to play someone who already lost in the single elimination final". So, I don't see why we would do that for the top 4/8.

So, all things considered, I voted for option 2.

At this point we are exactly tied between 2 and 3 (note post number 9), and people wanting some possibility for bumping up slightly outnumber the ones against it.

That being said - I think it's pretty clear the community is pretty divided on the issue of bumping up or not, but the more important issue is virtually unanimous, which is clear by the big goose egg for option number 1.

I think we have successfully raised community awareness to the point where the ridiculous scenario that happened at the MI regional this year will never happen again.

Despite what some people still can not understand, the whole reason for starting this conversation was not really to decide between #2, #3 or #4. It was to make sure #1 never happened again.


Though I did not vote for #2, I am TOTALLY FINE with a tournament being run that way. In fact, I suspect GenCon will be run that way. Great. No problems there.

I really hope that TOs make a decision (be it 2, 3 or 4) and announce it well ahead of time. I don't like the rules being changed after the tournament has started (or even after you've committed to going). Who does? We're gamers, I would think that would irk us all.



I actually agree with this 100%. Especially with the community divided on the issue of bumping up, really each TO will have to make the call. I really think it's important to announce how it will be run WELL BEFORE the tournament. That way everyone knows how it will work at that particular event, and if that effects whether they will go or not at least they know.

Just getting this conversation going is a win for the community. It raises awareness and now people have legitimate options to choose from. We can actually get back to playing the game we love.

Thanks everyone for your input, it was a great conversation to have.

That is not what happened. One finalist wanted to leave, another was in first place after swiss AND the TO, one was fine not playing, and one STRONGLY wanted to play. The one who strongly wanted to play was given the choice of conceding to not playing the finals at all - or - FORCING someone to stay and possibly causing him to die in a horrific car accident due to exhaustion. (This is actually what was said.) The TO should have stepped up and said to the one wanting to leave that it was his choice alone to forfeit or not. Then the finals should have continued on. The one wanting to play was strongly pressured into not playing. This was clear when he said, mutiple times, "I really want to play, but if it comes down to me being responsible for someone's death, I can't morally force someone into that position."

Big difference between that and "okay"

Someone brought up a sports analogy. It's imperfect, but consider the NCAA tournament.

If the swiss rounds are the regular season, and the brackets are the NCAA tournament - they would never draw up the brackets with teams missing. Even if a team finishes with the #1 RPI, but they are not eligible for post-season play due to rules infractions, they don't put up an empty spot in the bracket reserved for where they 'deserved' to be. If someone announces that they're leaving before the brackets portion of a SWM tournament starts, the brackets should be drawn up without them and with someone else in their place. (If we're following the sports analogy.)

On the other hand, if a team just doesn't show up to the court for their scheduled game, then the opponent would win by forfeit. You wouldn't go find an alternate. It's a fine line between these two scenarios in a SWM tournament setting since the brackets and final 4 is drawn up and starts immediately after the swiss rounds.

Tough call.

I agree with the sports analogy. This happened a few years ago in our New York State High School Football playoffs. The matchups were set, but the week before one of the games a team was found to have ineligable players due to grades or missing school. They had to resign from the playoffs and the next best team was brought into the playoffs. That team did go on to become the state champs by the way. In no way shape or form should a playoff team or player, get the FREE win or bye. Its not right to the rest of the playoff participants that someone gets a lucky bye because his opponent has to leave. Matchups have nothing to do with this, and have no relevance in this situation. Play the hand you are delt and win the game. Playoffs and regular season are 2 different animals, and the integrity of a playoff should never be compromised.

This is very different as the team was found to be ineligible If the team chose not to show up it would have been a forfeit. The person who gets the buy in this situation in no way hurts the other two players who have to play. They would have to play anyway, with only the winner advancing. The, the two players who won the semi-finals, either by playing or forfeiting, would end up playing. It doesn't rally matter how the get there, the process is fair to all involved.

Ideally, if someone knows they are going to have to leave, they should do so before this happens, though. I still think option 2 is the fairest, but I don't play in regional at this point.

The problem I see is that if you earned 1st 2nd 3rd 4th you should get the prize for it if you stay or not because you earned it.

see i can see grounds for either 2 or 3 at this point. Although i am beggining to be swayed to 2. 1, 4 of all of them are just not right no matter the situation as they either kill the finals, or they act in a very non uniform manner.

I think 2 may actaully be the best, contrary to my original vote of 3. Because a sports analogy works well for this system. Also because the above people are right, it is not fair to take a final 4 place from someone if they have earned that place. Because i have actually been in that sort of situation before. I have made the top 4 in an event, but because the event took longer than was orriginally thought i had to leave before the finals started. I was given 4th place for that event and given the 4th place prize and every one of the 4 of us and judges agreed. That was actually a Pirates of the spanish main tourny at gen con about 5 years ago. Though i know it is up to the to, but if we at least have it narrowed down in our floor rules, it can prevent a person from getting messed over in the end.

My friend Bevan, who runs the Hawera group here in NZ and has been my sounding board for just about every major Save11 decision ever (plus who had a significant hand in the workings of the SWMGPA Ranking site), had this to say regarding the issue:

"My view to your big question Kez is no.2
Here's why...
If a person completes the swiss round robin they have completed the tournament to the point where they can be officially ranked to their exact placing in that tournament.
The tournament could potentially finish here and everybody goes home happy with their place because thats exactly what they've acheived. If semis and finals are offered then it's effecticely a new tournament where the top 4 are playing off using a different game format (seeded playoff game allocation instead of swiss round robin) for the top 4 spots only. Hence if someone leaves they automatically get zero points for their allocated games and can do no better than 4th so they will get 4th. They have effectively conseeded without rolling a dice and the other players set to play them gets 3 points as they've con seeded. The leaving player however still deserves recognition as getting 4th in the tournament as they have done very well to have acheived that level in the tornament, hence no other player (who didn't do as well) should move in to take that placing from them (number 3 below). Remember, they completed the swiss tourney to get to the playoffs but didn't have time to complete the remaining playoff games to do any better than 4th.

However, it's different if someone pulls out during the swiss round robin. That person cannot offically be ranked in the tornament as his performance is 'incomplete'. However because of the way swiss tournament is played, it wont matter as the remaining players will shuffle to their levels as per normal without that player being considered (there may have to be a bye for someone). That player leaves without achieving a tournament rank as their performance was 'incomplete'.

Number 1 below potentially has negative repercussions if someone ranked 4th sees his mate ranked 1st and they do a 'deal' where 4th pulls out handing his mate ranked 1 the title.

That's where I see it bro
Bevan"

I have mixed fillings about this one. on one hand yes it would be great to get a free pass to the finals but on the other if I traveled any distance to attend this regional then I came to play and would hate to have a bye for my second to last round, and because of that I think I would enjoy to have the 5th or 9th person be bumped in order to continue play