Upon the recent discussion of scooping to deny triggers (i.e. spite scooping) in the general and commander forums, I became more interested in obtaining more information about the general opinions present on the matter. As a result I created the following polls.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Please note these questions refer to multiplayer games.
Also, if your group does not allow spite scooping and have some rules against it (as opposed to simply knowing it when you see it), please share the rules you have put in place to stop it (e.g. scooping only allowed when any player could play an sorcery (e.g. you could scoop during an opponent's main phase, but not at instant speed before spells on the stack or triggers resolved)).
Maybe find a better term than "spite" to describe this. It is a part of the game, and while some people associate it with king-making, it isn't always.
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
Is it spiteful towards the player killing you with a creature equipped with sword of fire and ice, if you deny him the card draw, or is it spiteful towards the rest of the table for allowing this player to draw?
Maybe describe different tiers of scooping, like preventing the above example draw trigger, to someone act of treason'ing a creature then scooping to exile it. Different levels of "spite" IMO
I wouldn't use the term "spite" here. It sort of leans your opinion already.
Maybe find a better term than "spite" to describe this. It is a part of the game, and while some people associate it with king-making, it isn't always.
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
Is it spiteful towards the player killing you with a creature equipped with sword of fire and ice, if you deny him the card draw, or is it spiteful towards the rest of the table for allowing this player to draw?
Maybe describe different tiers of scooping, like preventing the above example draw trigger, to someone act of treason'ing a creature then scooping to exile it. Different levels of "spite" IMO
I wouldn't use the term "spite" here. It sort of leans your opinion already.
I used "scooping to deny triggers" and "spite scooping" to describe what I am asking about, because I think most know what I am talking about simply by reading it and mtgsalvation limits how long questions can be for polls so it is difficult to word questions without something short to describe what I am asking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
Is it spiteful towards the player killing you with a creature equipped with sword of fire and ice, if you deny him the card draw, or is it spiteful towards the rest of the table for allowing this player to draw?
The difference being that one is just how the rules of the game work and the other is a side effect of not being able to stop anyone from simply picking up their cards and leaving. I don't see how it's smart or not to deny advantage to a player that kills you. You're out of the game either way, so why do you care? Better to let the rules operate as normal to maintain the integrity of the game.
Full Definition of spite
1: petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart
2: an instance of spite
The "I'm going to lose anyway, so I'll just scoop so you don't get your triggers." attitude is petty, spiteful, and unsportsmanlike. Nine times out of ten, spite scooping won't matter much in the long run, but when it does it's a pretty drastic change in outcome that can deny someone a win that they earned and deserved. It's a bad attitude to have and an even worse habit to get into.
I've only ever scooped a game for 5 reasons:
1. Cause it's like 8pm on a FNM, and I'm getting hungry.
2. You exiled my deck's literal only win condition. (I've been guilty of this more often than the others; I like gimmick decks)
3. Class is starting in a few minutes and I've got to go.
4. This game has been going on for 4+ hours and no one has even come close to ending the game yet. (normally when 4+ control decks end up in the same game and no one ever taps out)
5. Someone dropped an Armageddon/Obliterate and scooped for some reason or another, and basically everyone left just decides to start up a new game instead.
First off, who equates petty ill will with a smart decision?? You are bolding the text and quoting something completely different. Second, what some people appear to be labelling "spiteful scooping" actually adds another layer of strategy, if you know someone might concede and cut you off from some amount of value you are expecting to get. Sometimes that added level of complexity can be leveraged so a player can stay in the game, so you look extremely foolish by just calling it spiteful. It's actually anything but, since everyone else could easily just ignore the exact timing the "spiteful" player conceded and let all the triggers resolve.
Not that it matters much for this particular conversation, but I play with good friends which are all strong magic players with years of experience and all of us agree that such effects should be part of the game, because they make it more interesting. Not because someone is an ******** and needs to be unnecessarily mean to others. In fact, the bigger jerk in my opinion is the player that gets offeneded at stuff like conceding, because they are so immature that they absolutely need that win under any circumstances.
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
I have to reiterate what Daracaex has said. In what way is it smart? You lose either way, so what can your motive possibly be other than to help and/or hurt the players who are still in the game?
First off, who equates petty ill will with a smart decision?? You are bolding the text and quoting something completely different. Second, what some people appear to be labelling "spiteful scooping" actually adds another layer of strategy, if you know someone might concede and cut you off from some amount of value you are expecting to get. Sometimes that added level of complexity can be leveraged so a player can stay in the game, so you look extremely foolish by just calling it spiteful. It's actually anything but, since everyone else could easily just ignore the exact timing the "spiteful" player conceded and let all the triggers resolve.
Not that it matters much for this particular conversation, but I play with good friends which are all strong magic players with years of experience and all of us agree that such effects should be part of the game, because they make it more interesting. Not because someone is an ******** and needs to be unnecessarily mean to others. In fact, the bigger jerk in my opinion is the player that gets offeneded at stuff like conceding, because they are so immature that they absolutely need that win under any circumstances.
Please get over yourself.
How is spite scooping to deny triggers a "smart decision"? Note the 0% of people who said they would target those who spite scoop less.
I grant that permitting spite scooping changes strategy, but does it 'add' strategy? Spite scooping for an advantage would also only work when some players spite scoop and others don't. If everyone spite scooped, there would be no value at all and there would simply be more incentive to aim to win via combos that do not care if others spite scoop (e.g. Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Mind Over Matter and Laboratory Maniac). Perhaps you enjoy the strategy of spite scooping, but if lots of people dislike it and the strategy only changes instead of adds complexity, then why keep spite scooping in general matches?
The only word in that definition of spite that makes any sense here is thwart.
I think the definition of retaliatory fits better. Revenge-scooping even.
I do understand the arguments here and why people would like some sort of established rule/change. But it seems very one-sided.
There are other players at the table that may see the lack of a scoop as an issue. Back to that example I mentioned earlier, if it is considered "spiteful" to scoop to stop a player from drawing from sword of fire and ice when they send lethal at you, how is it not then be considered "spiteful" against the other opponents if you do not scoop?
Again I think there needs to be a tier to describe the event that causes a player to scoop. There is a difference in how players should respond if someone scoops to prevent a draw trigger, vs someone blowing up all the lands and leaving for food.
There are other players at the table that may see the lack of a scoop as an issue. Back to that example I mentioned earlier, if it is considered "spiteful" to scoop to stop a player from drawing from sword of fire and ice when they send lethal at you, how is it not then be considered "spiteful" against the other opponents if you do not scoop?
While it is possible there "are other players at the table that may see the lack of scoop as an issue", I think the above polls, responses to threads on the issue of scooping, and the experiences of many in regards to scooping is the reason why spite scooping is referred to as it is. Language is definitely malleable, but I think a large influence on what language is used is what the majority thinks and feels about the term and the personal experiences the term is being used to describe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
IDK how much of an issue this really is to be honest.
A quick search for topics in this forum with the term "scoop" or "concede" and there are very few topics of relevance. There was the recent post your topic came from, a scoop rule proposal in 2015, a discussion about "unfair concedeing" in 2014, a tactile scooping discussion in 2013. From there it is just random topics about auto-scooping to specific cards, or a few decklists with some poweful rofl-stomp deck called "scoop-now-plz-kthx" or something.
This topic seems to have only really come up when someone wants scoop-patrol due to a few bad experiences.
Like most of those linked topics, the end result will most likely be just to enforce house-rules and choose who you play with.
The only word in that definition of spite that makes any sense here is thwart.
I think the definition of retaliatory fits better. Revenge-scooping even.
I do understand the arguments here and why people would like some sort of established rule/change. But it seems very one-sided.
There are other players at the table that may see the lack of a scoop as an issue. Back to that example I mentioned earlier, if it is considered "spiteful" to scoop to stop a player from drawing from sword of fire and ice when they send lethal at you, how is it not then be considered "spiteful" against the other opponents if you do not scoop?
Again I think there needs to be a tier to describe the event that causes a player to scoop. There is a difference in how players should respond if someone scoops to prevent a draw trigger, vs someone blowing up all the lands and leaving for food.
Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?
No one should try to decide the outcome of a game that they aren't a part of. Scooping to keep one person from gaining an advantage from making you lose is exactly that. If you want to keep someone from gaining advantage, then do it right. Remove one of their things on the way out. Gain enough life to make sure the 2 from the sword has to go to you rather than someone else. Do something rather than scooping and trying to affect the outcome of the game from outside of it and just accept the loss even if you have to do it with a grain of salt. It's not smart to scoop. It doesn't give you any advantage. It doesn't up your chances of winning the next one. It's just a spiteful, unsportsmanlike, and negligible effort to keep the person that knocked you out of the game from winning.
This topic seems to have only really come up when someone wants scoop-patrol due to a few bad experiences.
Like most of those linked topics, the end result will most likely be just to enforce house-rules and choose who you play with.
Just for the record I want to state that I did not bring up this topic, because of a bad experience. I have actually never had anyone spite scoop to me. However I have experienced a situation where that could have occurred and I asked the player if they were scooping to deny me triggers, but they said they weren't, so I asked the other people still in the game and they said I should take the triggers, so it kind of became a house rule to not deny triggers in that manner. My other groups basically agreed not to allow scooping in that manner before any situation occurred. I have had someone scoop to heavy control magic once, but then that changed the outcome of the game so much the other players in the game wanted to just shuffle up and play a new game, so we just went with that.
I agree house rules will be and are the most likely end result. I just wish there was a more specific rule for stores, since it gives a lot of people feel bads, runs contrary to the intuitions of most, skews people towards non-interactive combo wins, would be relatively easy to apply a simple rule that would solve most issues (e.g. scooping only allowed whenever any player could play a sorcery), and is applied non-uniformly, leading players to being unsure how they should act in a situation since it does not seem common to ask people at the start of games if they spite scoop or not. There just does not seem like many reasons to keep things as they are and many reasons not to. That is why I would like to see a rules change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Scooping is a legal action within the realm of the game and its rules. It should be taken into consideration as a decision an opponent can make. However, if a playgroup still wants the triggers to go off, that's up to them.
Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?
I am utterly lost as to how this comment came in to existence.
My logic is that if someone has the choice to concede a game, and if they do or if they do not, the impact is on more than just one person.
Edit; think about this. If someone is about to cast Craterhoof Behemoth after insurrection, or rise of the dark realms when an opponent has a flayer of the hatebound in the yard, and the outcome would be total table annihilation, is it good or bad for someone to scoop in response, if by that person's creatures no longer being a part of resolution to confirm a table-win?
Who sees the scooping person as a dick-bag? The person trying to win most likely. Who sees this person as a savior? Most people at the table who gets to continue the game.
This topic is going to have too many "what-if" 1-sided scenarios that make it impossible to establish some rule.
Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?
I am utterly lost as to how this comment came in to existence.
My logic is that if someone has the choice to concede a game, and if they do or if they do not, the impact is on more than just one person.
Edit; think about this. If someone is about to cast Craterhoof Behemoth after insurrection, or rise of the dark realms when an opponent has a flayer of the hatebound in the yard, and the outcome would be total table annihilation, is it good or bad for someone to scoop in response, if by that person's creatures no longer being a part of resolution to confirm a table-win?
Who sees the scooping person as a dick-bag? The person trying to win most likely. Who sees this person as a savior? Most people at the table who gets to continue the game.
This topic is going to have too many "what-if" 1-sided scenarios that make it impossible to establish some rule.
You said it is spiteful to deny the triggers, but argued it was spiteful to the remaining players to let the triggers happen.
Except that in that case, one of those things happened completely within the rules of sportsmanship, and one of them didn't. So the person you quoted took it to the logical extreme. If every action is spiteful to someone, why play the game?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
How is spite scooping to deny triggers a "smart decision"? Note the 0% of people who said they would target those who spite scoop less.
I grant that permitting spite scooping changes strategy, but does it 'add' strategy? Spite scooping for an advantage would also only work when some players spite scoop and others don't. If everyone spite scooped, there would be no value at all and there would simply be more incentive to aim to win via combos that do not care if others spite scoop (e.g. Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Mind Over Matter and Laboratory Maniac). Perhaps you enjoy the strategy of spite scooping, but if lots of people dislike it and the strategy only changes instead of adds complexity, then why keep spite scooping in general matches?
I misunderstood the poll then. I thought you were asking if people are more or less likely to attack spite scoopers as opposed to people who don't spite scoop (once again, I find this terminology ridiculous). Naturally, trying to eliminate a spite scooper is smarter if all other things are equal. However, if there is a situation in the game where someone is able to scoop early and deny me important resources, I will of course take that into consideration and perhaps not attack them.
Spite scooping definitely adds strategy. It prevents you from going all out on someone, since they have an important weapon to potentially stifle you. Heck, that's half the reason to even play multiplayer! And judging from the poll responses the majority of people don't mind it. The poll you linked has most people marked as neutral and there is only one other poll where spite scooping seems to be the worse option (most people say the don't do it themselves).
It's not really important if denying triggers is a smart decision; threatening to do so is. And if you rationally come to the conclusion that attacking a person who might spite scoop is a bad idea, that person used the threat of spite scooping very smartly in my opinion. I don't understand how you find this a difficult concept. It's the same as people saying "I'm not gonna attack you, unless you do something mean to me!".
How is spite scooping to deny triggers a "smart decision"? Note the 0% of people who said they would target those who spite scoop less.
I grant that permitting spite scooping changes strategy, but does it 'add' strategy? Spite scooping for an advantage would also only work when some players spite scoop and others don't. If everyone spite scooped, there would be no value at all and there would simply be more incentive to aim to win via combos that do not care if others spite scoop (e.g. Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Mind Over Matter and Laboratory Maniac). Perhaps you enjoy the strategy of spite scooping, but if lots of people dislike it and the strategy only changes instead of adds complexity, then why keep spite scooping in general matches?
I misunderstood the poll then. I thought you were asking if people are more or less likely to attack spite scoopers as opposed to people who don't spite scoop (once again, I find this terminology ridiculous). Naturally, trying to eliminate a spite scooper is smarter if all other things are equal. However, if there is a situation in the game where someone is able to scoop early and deny me important resources, I will of course take that into consideration and perhaps not attack them.
Spite scooping definitely adds strategy. It prevents you from going all out on someone, since they have an important weapon to potentially stifle you. Heck, that's half the reason to even play multiplayer! And judging from the poll responses the majority of people don't mind it. The poll you linked has most people marked as neutral and there is only one other poll where spite scooping seems to be the worse option (most people say the don't do it themselves).
It's not really important if denying triggers is a smart decision; threatening to do so is. And if you rationally come to the conclusion that attacking a person who might spite scoop is a bad idea, that person used the threat of spite scooping very smartly in my opinion. I don't understand how you find this a difficult concept. It's the same as people saying "I'm not gonna attack you, unless you do something mean to me!".
If someone constantly spite scooped, I would either make sure to kill them as soon as possible for every game I play with them, or just not play with them at all. You're using the rules of the format to attack people in a way that was never intended.
Real world example: Premier League Football. Margin of victory is taken into account for league standings. What you're doing is essentially one of team knowing that the opponent needs to win by three goals to advance in the league, and forfeiting the game after they score one.
Luckily, if a team does not, they get a heavy fine, sanction, possible league demotion, so they don't do that. You're well within your rights to use the rules of a game as a bludgeoning tool, and everyone else is well within their rights to ignore you when you want to play a game as a result.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
I just have an interesting question to ask. Let's Say you have your sword of protection and value out (or whatever trigger Maybe your Daretti or Shadowmage infiltrator etc.) If I have no blockers and am within lethal range of an attack from you is it still spite if I scoop as a sorcery? Is it spiteful if everyone else has blockers? Cause if it is still spiteful than your rule does nothing, if it isn't spiteful than you are a hypocrit.
I just have an interesting question to ask. Let's Say you have your sword of protection and value out (or whatever trigger Maybe your Daretti or Shadowmage infiltrator etc.) If I have no blockers and am within lethal range of an attack from you is it still spite if I scoop as a sorcery? Is it spiteful if everyone else has blockers? Cause if it is still spiteful than your rule does nothing, if it isn't spiteful than you are a hypocrit.
It might be spiteful, but I think that isn't a situation most people would care about since the other player can still choose to keep their creature as a blocker or use their mana for other plays. My rule proposal was not meant to stop this since it does not really seem like a problem to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?
I am utterly lost as to how this comment came in to existence.
My logic is that if someone has the choice to concede a game, and if they do or if they do not, the impact is on more than just one person.
Edit; think about this. If someone is about to cast Craterhoof Behemoth after insurrection, or rise of the dark realms when an opponent has a flayer of the hatebound in the yard, and the outcome would be total table annihilation, is it good or bad for someone to scoop in response, if by that person's creatures no longer being a part of resolution to confirm a table-win?
Who sees the scooping person as a dick-bag? The person trying to win most likely. Who sees this person as a savior? Most people at the table who gets to continue the game.
This topic is going to have too many "what-if" 1-sided scenarios that make it impossible to establish some rule.
If someone is about to make a game winning play and no one is capable of stopping them, then it's their win. That means that they've sit there creating and waiting for the perfect timing to make their game winning play.
The whole reason that humans play games and the concepts of winning and losing matter is because of the feeling people get when we win. People are willing to lose hundreds of times in hope of that win, it's how casinos make money. Scooping to intentionally take away their advantage towards winning or a win entirely is unsportsmanlike, and shouldn't be done.
No, your decision to scoop doesn't just affect the person that's knocking you out of the game or that's about to win. If you scoop, prevent that one guy from losing and give the win to someone else, then it's not a win. They didn't win because they were more skilled, or because they built a better deck. They won because someone decided to scoop because they didn't want to lose to one specific person. It's like getting the bye at a tourney or someone just not showing up for their match. It's not fun. It's not a win. By scooping, your not just taking the fun away from the obvious winner.
I've been on both sides of it, and frankly you aren't a very good player if you rely on the player you are killing to let you get additional advantage. If a player is playing well, I will almost never "spite" scoop, unless he is so far ahead that giving him the triggers will seal the deal while denying it for a turn makes it more interesting for everyone else. If they are playing like an idiot, I'll spite scoop, and sometimes I'll warn a player that I'll do it if they try to kill me. I'll sometimes also do it to help a player that kept me in the game. Honestly, its pretty rare that I do it though, but I feel its a necessary political tool and a way to discourage idiots from singling out a player with a deck that doesn't benefit from it, or ignoring other threats. Like I said, I've had it used on me and always expect that a person will scoop before triggers, so I never rely on the guy I'm killing to help me win. Its incredibly whiny to get mad at someone for conceding instead of waiting for you to kill them so you benefit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Upon the recent discussion of scooping to deny triggers (i.e. spite scooping) in the general and commander forums, I became more interested in obtaining more information about the general opinions present on the matter. As a result I created the following polls.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
Please note these questions refer to multiplayer games.
Also, if your group does not allow spite scooping and have some rules against it (as opposed to simply knowing it when you see it), please share the rules you have put in place to stop it (e.g. scooping only allowed when any player could play an sorcery (e.g. you could scoop during an opponent's main phase, but not at instant speed before spells on the stack or triggers resolved)).
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Sometimes it's just smart to not let the person that is killing you get some extra advantage.
Is it spiteful towards the player killing you with a creature equipped with sword of fire and ice, if you deny him the card draw, or is it spiteful towards the rest of the table for allowing this player to draw?
Maybe describe different tiers of scooping, like preventing the above example draw trigger, to someone act of treason'ing a creature then scooping to exile it. Different levels of "spite" IMO
I wouldn't use the term "spite" here. It sort of leans your opinion already.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
I used "scooping to deny triggers" and "spite scooping" to describe what I am asking about, because I think most know what I am talking about simply by reading it and mtgsalvation limits how long questions can be for polls so it is difficult to word questions without something short to describe what I am asking about.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
That's called spite.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spite?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
The "I'm going to lose anyway, so I'll just scoop so you don't get your triggers." attitude is petty, spiteful, and unsportsmanlike. Nine times out of ten, spite scooping won't matter much in the long run, but when it does it's a pretty drastic change in outcome that can deny someone a win that they earned and deserved. It's a bad attitude to have and an even worse habit to get into.
I've only ever scooped a game for 5 reasons:
1. Cause it's like 8pm on a FNM, and I'm getting hungry.
2. You exiled my deck's literal only win condition. (I've been guilty of this more often than the others; I like gimmick decks)
3. Class is starting in a few minutes and I've got to go.
4. This game has been going on for 4+ hours and no one has even come close to ending the game yet. (normally when 4+ control decks end up in the same game and no one ever taps out)
5. Someone dropped an Armageddon/Obliterate and scooped for some reason or another, and basically everyone left just decides to start up a new game instead.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Not that it matters much for this particular conversation, but I play with good friends which are all strong magic players with years of experience and all of us agree that such effects should be part of the game, because they make it more interesting. Not because someone is an ******** and needs to be unnecessarily mean to others. In fact, the bigger jerk in my opinion is the player that gets offeneded at stuff like conceding, because they are so immature that they absolutely need that win under any circumstances.
Please get over yourself.
This question is entirely a maturity issue.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
How is spite scooping to deny triggers a "smart decision"? Note the 0% of people who said they would target those who spite scoop less.
I grant that permitting spite scooping changes strategy, but does it 'add' strategy? Spite scooping for an advantage would also only work when some players spite scoop and others don't. If everyone spite scooped, there would be no value at all and there would simply be more incentive to aim to win via combos that do not care if others spite scoop (e.g. Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Mind Over Matter and Laboratory Maniac). Perhaps you enjoy the strategy of spite scooping, but if lots of people dislike it and the strategy only changes instead of adds complexity, then why keep spite scooping in general matches?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
I think the definition of retaliatory fits better. Revenge-scooping even.
I do understand the arguments here and why people would like some sort of established rule/change. But it seems very one-sided.
There are other players at the table that may see the lack of a scoop as an issue. Back to that example I mentioned earlier, if it is considered "spiteful" to scoop to stop a player from drawing from sword of fire and ice when they send lethal at you, how is it not then be considered "spiteful" against the other opponents if you do not scoop?
Again I think there needs to be a tier to describe the event that causes a player to scoop. There is a difference in how players should respond if someone scoops to prevent a draw trigger, vs someone blowing up all the lands and leaving for food.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
While it is possible there "are other players at the table that may see the lack of scoop as an issue", I think the above polls, responses to threads on the issue of scooping, and the experiences of many in regards to scooping is the reason why spite scooping is referred to as it is. Language is definitely malleable, but I think a large influence on what language is used is what the majority thinks and feels about the term and the personal experiences the term is being used to describe.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
A quick search for topics in this forum with the term "scoop" or "concede" and there are very few topics of relevance. There was the recent post your topic came from, a scoop rule proposal in 2015, a discussion about "unfair concedeing" in 2014, a tactile scooping discussion in 2013. From there it is just random topics about auto-scooping to specific cards, or a few decklists with some poweful rofl-stomp deck called "scoop-now-plz-kthx" or something.
This topic seems to have only really come up when someone wants scoop-patrol due to a few bad experiences.
Like most of those linked topics, the end result will most likely be just to enforce house-rules and choose who you play with.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Ok, by the same logic as your example where it is spiteful to one person for scooping and also spiteful against the others for not scooping, then why play removal? Even funnier question, what do you do when someone plays Mystic Remora or Rhystic Study? Is it spiteful to that player when you pay the 1 or is it spiteful to the other players to not pay the 1?
No one should try to decide the outcome of a game that they aren't a part of. Scooping to keep one person from gaining an advantage from making you lose is exactly that. If you want to keep someone from gaining advantage, then do it right. Remove one of their things on the way out. Gain enough life to make sure the 2 from the sword has to go to you rather than someone else. Do something rather than scooping and trying to affect the outcome of the game from outside of it and just accept the loss even if you have to do it with a grain of salt. It's not smart to scoop. It doesn't give you any advantage. It doesn't up your chances of winning the next one. It's just a spiteful, unsportsmanlike, and negligible effort to keep the person that knocked you out of the game from winning.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Just for the record I want to state that I did not bring up this topic, because of a bad experience. I have actually never had anyone spite scoop to me. However I have experienced a situation where that could have occurred and I asked the player if they were scooping to deny me triggers, but they said they weren't, so I asked the other people still in the game and they said I should take the triggers, so it kind of became a house rule to not deny triggers in that manner. My other groups basically agreed not to allow scooping in that manner before any situation occurred. I have had someone scoop to heavy control magic once, but then that changed the outcome of the game so much the other players in the game wanted to just shuffle up and play a new game, so we just went with that.
I agree house rules will be and are the most likely end result. I just wish there was a more specific rule for stores, since it gives a lot of people feel bads, runs contrary to the intuitions of most, skews people towards non-interactive combo wins, would be relatively easy to apply a simple rule that would solve most issues (e.g. scooping only allowed whenever any player could play a sorcery), and is applied non-uniformly, leading players to being unsure how they should act in a situation since it does not seem common to ask people at the start of games if they spite scoop or not. There just does not seem like many reasons to keep things as they are and many reasons not to. That is why I would like to see a rules change.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
I am utterly lost as to how this comment came in to existence.
My logic is that if someone has the choice to concede a game, and if they do or if they do not, the impact is on more than just one person.
Edit; think about this. If someone is about to cast Craterhoof Behemoth after insurrection, or rise of the dark realms when an opponent has a flayer of the hatebound in the yard, and the outcome would be total table annihilation, is it good or bad for someone to scoop in response, if by that person's creatures no longer being a part of resolution to confirm a table-win?
Who sees the scooping person as a dick-bag? The person trying to win most likely. Who sees this person as a savior? Most people at the table who gets to continue the game.
This topic is going to have too many "what-if" 1-sided scenarios that make it impossible to establish some rule.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
You said it is spiteful to deny the triggers, but argued it was spiteful to the remaining players to let the triggers happen.
Except that in that case, one of those things happened completely within the rules of sportsmanship, and one of them didn't. So the person you quoted took it to the logical extreme. If every action is spiteful to someone, why play the game?
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
Spite scooping definitely adds strategy. It prevents you from going all out on someone, since they have an important weapon to potentially stifle you. Heck, that's half the reason to even play multiplayer! And judging from the poll responses the majority of people don't mind it. The poll you linked has most people marked as neutral and there is only one other poll where spite scooping seems to be the worse option (most people say the don't do it themselves).
It's not really important if denying triggers is a smart decision; threatening to do so is. And if you rationally come to the conclusion that attacking a person who might spite scoop is a bad idea, that person used the threat of spite scooping very smartly in my opinion. I don't understand how you find this a difficult concept. It's the same as people saying "I'm not gonna attack you, unless you do something mean to me!".
If someone constantly spite scooped, I would either make sure to kill them as soon as possible for every game I play with them, or just not play with them at all. You're using the rules of the format to attack people in a way that was never intended.
Real world example: Premier League Football. Margin of victory is taken into account for league standings. What you're doing is essentially one of team knowing that the opponent needs to win by three goals to advance in the league, and forfeiting the game after they score one.
Luckily, if a team does not, they get a heavy fine, sanction, possible league demotion, so they don't do that. You're well within your rights to use the rules of a game as a bludgeoning tool, and everyone else is well within their rights to ignore you when you want to play a game as a result.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
It might be spiteful, but I think that isn't a situation most people would care about since the other player can still choose to keep their creature as a blocker or use their mana for other plays. My rule proposal was not meant to stop this since it does not really seem like a problem to me.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
If someone is about to make a game winning play and no one is capable of stopping them, then it's their win. That means that they've sit there creating and waiting for the perfect timing to make their game winning play.
The whole reason that humans play games and the concepts of winning and losing matter is because of the feeling people get when we win. People are willing to lose hundreds of times in hope of that win, it's how casinos make money. Scooping to intentionally take away their advantage towards winning or a win entirely is unsportsmanlike, and shouldn't be done.
No, your decision to scoop doesn't just affect the person that's knocking you out of the game or that's about to win. If you scoop, prevent that one guy from losing and give the win to someone else, then it's not a win. They didn't win because they were more skilled, or because they built a better deck. They won because someone decided to scoop because they didn't want to lose to one specific person. It's like getting the bye at a tourney or someone just not showing up for their match. It's not fun. It's not a win. By scooping, your not just taking the fun away from the obvious winner.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!