(May. 29, 2013  12:39 PM)Kai-V Wrote: What really bothers me and that I think is the actual moral issue here is when the Stalling Clause has not been invoked yet, and that, when asked by the judge, a Blader says they are attached, but actually are not and they wait for their opponent to turn around with their Beyblade selection really attached. If you say you are attached or that you nod when asked if attached, that should be it, it should be a magical sentence that you cannot lie about. It did seem to hurt the one or two Bladers I saw this happen to during BEYBLADE REVOLUTION.

wpardin Wrote:In Jakarta, I have limited the stalling clause time to 2 minutes for quite some time.

wpardin Wrote:So, at some point I asked all the players to give the bey they wanted to use to the judges before the match & the judge will put both beyblades on the stadium before the round.

(May. 29, 2013  5:15 PM)BeyHyperK!LLeR Wrote: I made myself a little task; to make a MSF-H Wyvang Dragooon BD145 RDF and for it to be locked onto a Beylauncher-L within two minutes. Conditions: MSF-H was assembled to a random bey, Wyvang was assembled to another random bey, Dragooon was assembled to another random bey, BD145 was assembled to another random bey and RDF was assembled to another random bey. My launcher grip had a Beylauncher-R in it and my Beylauncher-L was in my 'bey box' sealed with the other random beys. That took me 1 min and 19 seconds. Now imagine it in tournament conditions, with all the pressure from the tournament and deciding what bey to use in the first place etc. I know that situation would very rarely come up in a tournament however it is a possibility. So i would say ATLEAST 2 minutes? However, in my opinion 1 minute/and a half, is no where near enough time if you're in that situation in a tournament.

(May. 29, 2013  5:26 PM)th!nk Wrote: That's quite the unlikely situation, but fair enough, two minutes minimum if required is acceptable in my books - but that is the upper limit for me, at least, for what it's worth - 40 seconds on top of all you described is plenty, and any blader that gets themselves into that situation and doesn't rectify it before the round is kinda asking for it anyway to be blunt. Based of wpardin's post, people will adapt to it quickly anyway. And remember, I've had, what, one setup go on maybe that long, when my opponent was assembling a beyblade from other people's parts in the finals, and was changing his mind etc. Given a time limit, it just wouldn't have happened like that in the first place - time would've been saved, etc etc.

(May. 29, 2013  5:26 PM)zeneo Wrote: Well, adding to my previous post-
If users, A and B are going to battle, and they decide on stalking clause, and if I'm great friends with B, I could go near A while the stalking clause is going on, and tell B, what A is going to use.
I did that before, just for fun, knowing there was nothing wrong in that.
So yeah, for stalling clause, the two bladers should be given utmost privacy to decide themselves, and do a stalling clause instead of a stalking clause.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote:

Wikipedia's Cheating Article Wrote:Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote: The quote from Wikipedia's Cheating Article at the top of this post is particularly poignant when you consider that we openly call this deception – a synonym for dishonesty. In almost every other mainstream competitive game or sport, weakening your opponent is considered cheating. Football teams don't hire people to break the opposing striker's leg before matches, chess players don't slip their opponents strong laxatives before matches, and so on. Heck, seeing a coach in the Australian Football League play down a victory in the post-match press conference because the opposition were without their three best players due to injury is a thing that happens. Sure, some boxers will play mind games before fights (though they are generally considered bad sports for doing so), but they don't bribe someone to slip their opponents sedatives before the fight - mind games do not present them with an Auto-Win situation even if they work about as well as they can. And then there's us, openly discussing and boasting about how we made sure we didn't have to rely on skill or thorough understanding of opponent or either our or their beyblades so that we could beat them at competitive children's spinning tops. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think this is how it should be.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote: In context, fooling your opponent into using a combination you can predict/counter undermines their ability, unlike getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability. We're here to see who is best at tops, not who is best at making their opponent suck at tops.

(May. 29, 2013  11:55 AM)th!nk Wrote:

Play Beyblade Not Loophole Abuse - A Rule Change Proposal

Note: Cliff Notes Version in spoiler at bottom of post for the lazy.

Wikipedia's Cheating Article Wrote:Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means.

I was going to write an opinion piece/rant about people employing unsportsmanlike tactics to win at children's spinning tops, but someone I spoke to while drafting that pointed out that rule changes would have a lot more impact than my moaning, and somehow it was only then I realised that the main problems I'm aware of of - Fake-Outs and Timewasting, can actually be addressed pretty easily with rule changes – and fairly simple ones that have precedents, at that!
Rule changes won't directly address the root of the problem – that's a 'cultural' thing, but they can set a strong precedent about what we consider "right" and "being a jerk", and as I said, they're a lot more effective than my grumbling. So, here we go:

Why This Needs To Happen

The reason deception tactics (in particular, fake-outs) are unfair is because they aim to weaken the opponent rather than strengthen oneself – it undermines the opponents ability, as opposed to things such as getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability without affecting the opponent.

The quote from Wikipedia's Cheating Article at the top of this post is particularly poignant when you consider that we openly call this deception – a synonym for dishonesty. In almost every other mainstream competitive game or sport, weakening your opponent is considered cheating. Football teams don't hire people to break the opposing striker's leg before matches, chess players don't slip their opponents strong laxatives before matches, and so on. Heck, seeing a coach in the Australian Football League play down a victory in the post-match press conference because the opposition were without their three best players due to injury is a thing that happens. Sure, some boxers will play mind games before fights (though they are generally considered bad sports for doing so), but they don't bribe someone to slip their opponents sedatives before the fight - mind games do not present them with an Auto-Win situation even if they work about as well as they can. And then there's us, openly discussing and boasting about how we made sure we didn't have to rely on skill or thorough understanding of opponent or either our or their beyblades so that we could beat them at competitive children's spinning tops. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think this is how it should be.

Furthermore, it reflects badly on the WBO as a sanctioning body (our primary purpose), to parents, new tournament attendees, sponsors, and distributors. I dislike excessively intrusive parents as much as the next guy, but is it really any wonder that they complain when an older teen/young adult/actual adult fools their kid into using the wrong combination rather than playing them at full strength, just to win a game of tops? Especially when you consider the intimidation factor they already have to their advantage.
One of the primary reasons the World Beyblade Organization began was because Hasbro does not allow anyone over the age of 14 to compete in their tournaments, and I ask you, are we really making a good case against that?

Perhaps this opinion that deception tactics are not fair clashes with tradition, but that tradition began when the community was small and nowhere near as varied as it is today. Now, we actually get sponsorship from and communicate with distributors, and it's time to shape up to the standards set by other competitive games/sports. So please, can we all agree to play tops rather than "make other people suck at tops"?

Commonly Exploited Loopholes and How To Close Them

1. Fake-outs.
If you are wondering why I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed, you should probably read my extended rant here, but the core of it comes from Wikipedia's Cheating article:
"Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means."
In context, fooling your opponent into using a combination you can predict/counter undermines their ability, unlike getting better parts, learning what your opponent will likely use through observation etc, or learning how to sliding shoot or aggro launch a defense custom, which bolster your own ability. We're here to see who is best at tops, not who is best at making their opponent suck at tops.

It also tends to really annoy parents when older bladers do it to kids, and upset kids too. That's not good for our image, to bladers, parents, potential sponsors, and almost certainly the distributors themselves.

Solution: This has been proposed before, but I don't think there was an appropriate rebuttal of WHY Fake-outs/deception need to be removed. Now I've done that, here's the suggestion again: Double Blind all the time.

-Both players turn around, facing away from each other, and select and attach their beyblades and launchers, and tell the judge when they are ready. Once BOTH players have signalled they are ready, they then turn around and begin the match.

-Judges should be on the lookout for bladers who purposely fail to conceal things– if it is obvious they are doing it to gain an advantage (primarily if they show one top/launcher and then use something else etc), in the first instance during a tournament a verbal warning should be issued and selection restarted, if a blader does it again, then it should be an automatic loss for that match – after the verbal warning, bladers will be careful to avoid doing it again anyway. And yes, this apparently does occur and thus needs to be addressed.

- To minimise fake-outs before the selection period begins, both bladers should arrive at the stadium for their match with their beyblades and launchers concealed, be it in a suitably opaque bag, container, etc. It would be good if hosts bought a few spare opaque bags for attendees who mightn't notice this rule, but most people seem to bring bags with them anyway. This could be mildly inconvenient, but as this will be the most convenient/obvious fake-out method remaining if/when double-blind-all-the-time is implemented, we need to be proactive about it, and this is the simplest solution I can come up with.

- Keep in mind that 'punishments' are only to be enforced where a blader displays one combo and then uses something else. If for some reason they want to show their opponent their actual combo, that's their strange, strange choice. They should still be recommended not to, however, as a lot of people will feel uneasy about that kind of advantage. If it happens, for a few months these rules are implemented, I think hosts should strongly discourage this to prevent any second-guessing shenanigans, but there's no real need to make a rule for that unless it becomes a serious problem.

- To be practical, I feel the time limit on selection needs to be reduced as four minutes is a very long time, but more on that in my other recommendation.

2. Wasting time to annoy opponents.
2a: In Stalling Clause/Double Blind Picking:
-We currently allow a whole 4 minutes for Beyblade assembly once stalling clause is caused.
-The most complicated Beyblade parts swap I could think of, swapping the casings between two plastics zombies with SP-equipped bases and dual bearings for extra fiddliness took my shaky hands a whole 1:35 – and 30 seconds of that was one of the sets of casings getting stuck together and my fingernails being too short to pry them apart – which is something the extremely small number of people who would have to do this at a tournament have a responsibility to prepare for, honestly.
-So, 4 minutes is far too long, and people are abusing this to annoy their opponents. This was brought up at AN this year, so I think it needs addressing.

Solution: Reduce the length to 1 minute 30 (or 1 minute for HMS/MFB, 2 minutes for Plastics, perhaps?)

-Before anyone objects that this is too short, I suggest simulating having to select/assemble a Beyblade for a tournament. Unless you have taken a bag full of hundreds of miscellaneous parts (which is your own fault), you won't take a whole minute to find parts and assemble a Beyblade – and most people tend to have combos pre-assembled.

2b: Wasting time getting to the stadium.
I wish I could say this was just a proactive measure to prevent an alternative to the above, but I've heard of this happening a few times. The rules don't lay out a timeframe for getting to the stadium for a beybattle, and this is exploitable. However, as complications can occur, we need to allow for them.

Solution: 1 minute limit, with reshoot-clause-styled exceptions for emergencies.

- 1 minute is plenty of time to be called for a match and get to the stadium, especially as it is the responsibility of participants to know when their next match is. Judges should ensure bladers are made aware that they are due for a match. I just yell really loud (especially because I'm bad with remembering names/faces). It's generally considered a blader's responsibility to know when they're due for a match (I have another proposal that will make this easier, but it's complicated/requires a bit of work on my part and a lot of discussion, so I'll save it for another day and thread).


-Exceptions can be made in the case of 'emergencies', and that is things that are actually a problem: important phone calls, temporary incapacitation (minor injuries), unexpectedly extended toilet breaks etc, which should be limited to two times per tournament. The odds of emergencies happening when you're due for a match twice in a single tournament are pretty much zero (as in, this could probably be limited to once per tournament and still be fair, but two is a lot more palatable). While this involves the judge's discretion, it limits it just like the reshoot clause. When an extension is granted, the next match should occur instead, and the person granted the extension should be at the stadium when that match is completed. Perhaps a minimum extension limit should be put in place in case the matchup ends up being attack vs stamina with no self-KO's, 5 minutes should be plenty IMO (which would make it "by the end of the next match or 5 minutes, whichever is longer).

-For clarification, matches should be reported in the order they actually occurred, not the order they were supposed to occur.

---

That's it, for now anyway – there is at least one more proposal I intend to post, but that both requires a lot more work on my part before it is due for posting, and is mainly something that needs to be discussed with hosts, so that'll go in organizer's circle.

I think I've made a strong case for why this needs to happen, for both the game and the WBO, as well as outlined practical, precedent-based solutions, but I'd love to hear from hosts, attendees, and parents on their thoughts on this, any concerns, issues, or general feedback is greatly appreciated. I will say that I do feel very strongly that rule-abuse strategies are tantamount to cheating, so I'm sorry if I'm somewhat dismissive of counter-arguments that may be raised, but I'll do my best.

Also, if you feel there are any other loopholes that are commonly abused under the guise of 'tactics', feel free to post them and any possible solutions you can think of, though I would ask that we remain focussed on the suggestions in this OP (which may be updated if I feel it is necessary/can be bothered).

One final note: I would request that if you disagree about deception etc being wrong, that you first check whether you use these tactics at tournaments, and if so, perhaps consider that you might not be entirely objective about this, but either way, at least state that you do in your response.
Me? I've got nothing to gain/lose either way given I don't like competition much anyway, main bias is being excessively idealistic and perhaps not taking competitive beyblade seriously enough, but I think mainstream sports set a strong precedent there for what is considered "being competitive" and what is considered "being a cheat" anyway.

Cliff Notes Version: (Click to View)

Deception and other rule abuse tactics focus on weakening your opponent rather than battling with both of you at maximum strength. This is generally considered "cheating" in other sports/games, and should be in beyblade. It reflects poorly on us to new bladers, parents and potential sponsors. It needs to change.
-The two rule-abuse methods I am most aware of are Fake-Outs and Timewasting.
-The former can be addressed with double blind picking being mandatory (and judges should make sure competitors don't try to work around this rule). Having competitors arrive at the stadium with their beyblades in opaque containers/bags etc to prevent any pre-selection fake-outs would also be a good step, and is not a big hassle for organisers aside from bringing a couple of extra opaque bags for anyone who didn't read the rules and didn't bring a bag of their own anyway.
-The latter can be addressed by reducing the time limit to 1m30s, or perhaps 1 minute for MFB/HMS and 2 minutes for plastics. For reasoning on this limit and why it is plenty, you'll need to read the full version.
-Furthermore, time taken to get to the stadium also needs to be addressed, and one minute after being called should be plenty, with two exceptions per person per tournament allowed for legitimate cases of unavoidable delays (important phone calls, unexpectedly long toilet breaks, minor injuries), as these things rarely happen at all at the same time as a scheduled match, let alone twice a tournament. This is basically the same policy as used for Reshoot Clause, which sets the precedent IMO.

(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: This is sabotage, not deception. Deception is not physical in nature, it is not done forcibly: It is a bait that your opponent leaves or takes of his own accord; it is not beaten down his throat.

What you seem to forget is that every sport you cite employ a form of deception. It's called a feint.

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right; the football player pretends to make an aerial play, but goes for ground; the boxer will pretend to hit right, but will actually hit left: I will show you a Defense-type, I will go with an Attack-type. By your definition, your point, I am cheating: by our combined definitions, everyone is cheating.

And sports are played on an arguably leveled playing field, same number of players, same equipment (mostly), Beyblade is not. People are allowed to play no matter the number of Beyblades they have, the competitiveness of their parts. Beyblade is a game of rock-paper-scissors, itself a game of deception (you call rock, so I believe you will not use rock, but you use rock anyway, etc.), with a more complex underlying mechanic, someone with very little "rock" and much "paper" can call "scissors" while going "paper," hoping that his opponent goes with "rock."

Quote:Do not forget that deception goes both ways, and that unlike other forms of cheating, its success relies as much on you as your opponent. There is little that can be done against sabotage, save preventing it; deception is as much a game as a tool.

Quote:You say "learning what your opponent will likely use through observation." Thus, you claim that there is guessing involved. So, what if a player with an affinity for Stamina-types battles you? You choose an Attack-type, even though you prefer Defense-types. You break pattern to counter his Stamina-type, while he does not, because he figured his pattern can beat your pattern, meaning that you, unwittingly perhaps, deceived him. And that's the problem, permanent Double Blind will only incorporate a system where the one with the most parts, and therefore the one who can break pattern the most, win. Deception encourages making more with less. There are battles and match-ups you cannot win, no matter how much skill and BeySpirit you pour into it.

(May. 29, 2013  5:17 PM)Kei Wrote: The problem here is the judge asking "Are you attached?" when Stalling Clause has not been invoked. Under the current rules, they have no right to ask this directly to one Blader, as it puts the other Blader who is still waiting to attach at an unfair advantage. And the same can actually be said when Stalling Clause has actually been invoked: a judge should not be announcing that one Blader is ready, because that can give the opponent an indication of what the other Blader is using. If they took only 10 seconds to decide, it's pretty obvious that they are using a previously established combo, for example. The judge should only confirm with both Bladers privately, and then begin the match once they are both ready.

I do agree that Bladers should not lie to judges, but the judges themselves should not be interfering with the selection process unless Stalling Clause has been invoked. If it has not been invoked yet, it is up to the Bladers themselves to show that they are ready to begin. The only thing a judge should be asking in that situation is "Ready?" as a general question to both competitors. Asking if they are "attached" is irrelevant because it should be kept in mind that one Blader may be attempting to deceive the other. The Blader who is attempting to deceive may be "ready", but he won't necessarily be "attached".

(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: They can do the same to you, not everyone can, being predictable is a fantastic way to lose (Kai-V laid out all her customizations at Crusade 2; she didn’t get very far), those techniques are only relevant to what you will pull, regardless of whether you use deception or not.

(May. 30, 2013  5:47 AM)Kyler_the best Wrote: How would double blind work if both bladers use a random combo ex. I use a def. custom vs. someone else using a stam. combo. Of course The def. combo is going to lose because its made to counter attack combos. If the judge allows the use of a combo proposal: i say i'll use an attack combo and the opponent will use a defensive combo, so... if the attack combo is better it will KO but if the defense custom is better it won't KO. Thos doesn't fix the problem of cheating, but there has to be a better way, like just as simple as using opaque carrying cases. Maybe if the judges take a list of combos used by the blader that they have to use throughout the tournament unless after a match they can inform the judges of a combo change after a match, but they wouldn't know who they would be up against so they can't change their combos if they don't know who there up against and theu won't be able to change it in between matches. I'm just thinking out loud here so... it may be a good solution it may not.

(May. 30, 2013  5:08 AM)Kai-V Wrote: Eh, what ? Excuse me, but I won my first match against Blitz, then I super luckily had to face him again right after so I would of course not use the same combination (but he did think I would use the same Meteo customization, which is why he chose Gravity Perseus), and then I just lost my third battle because that is my general record/weak launch or whatever. When did I lay out all of my combinations exactly ?

(May. 30, 2013  3:23 AM)th!nk Wrote:

(May. 30, 2013  1:39 AM)Nocto Wrote: This is sabotage, not deception. Deception is not physical in nature, it is not done forcibly: It is a bait that your opponent leaves or takes of his own accord; it is not beaten down his throat.

What you seem to forget is that every sport you cite employ a form of deception. It's called a feint.

[quote=Oxford English Dictionary]
feint, v.: 1. To deceive.
feint, n.: 1. A feigned or false attack. a. Fencing and Boxing. A blow, cut, or thrust aimed at a part other than that which is the real object of attack.

The soccer player pretends to go or kick left, but goes to the right; the football player pretends to make an aerial play, but goes for ground; the boxer will pretend to hit right, but will actually hit left: I will show you a Defense-type, I will go with an Attack-type. By your definition, your point, I am cheating: by our combined definitions, everyone is cheating.

And sports are played on an arguably leveled playing field, same number of players, same equipment (mostly), Beyblade is not. People are allowed to play no matter the number of Beyblades they have, the competitiveness of their parts. Beyblade is a game of rock-paper-scissors, itself a game of deception (you call rock, so I believe you will not use rock, but you use rock anyway, etc.), with a more complex underlying mechanic, someone with very little "rock" and much "paper" can call "scissors" while going "paper," hoping that his opponent goes with "rock."

Point one: Deception, when successful, breaks the actual game.
A single successful feint does not end an entire match in most sports, it takes multiple successful plays to win because the other player still has a chance to make a comeback afterwards, whereas a lot of the time with deception tactics, it becomes an auto-loss for the decieved. Deception also takes place before a match starts, not during the match, like a feint. A feint lacks an actual analogy in beyblade because we don't have control during the match, IMO. Perhaps there's something with launching, but we're getting away from the point. Even if the analogy is correct as it may be, my point is that it's far too 'powerful' in beyblade if it succeeds, and I think this explains the feelings of guilt Zeneo described - it's basically game over.

(May. 30, 2013  3:23 AM)th!nk Wrote:

Quote:Do not forget that deception goes both ways, and that unlike other forms of cheating, its success relies as much on you as your opponent. There is little that can be done against sabotage, save preventing it; deception is as much a game as a tool.

And that game is not spinning tops, is what I've been saying. If you "win" deception in the way it seems to pan out most of the time, the tops battle becomes irrelevant. While perhaps the same could be said of knowledge, that at least derives from knowing the game, your opponent, your parts, their parts, deception requires very little that actually relates to tops - he who can lie the best and has a basic knowledge of attack beats stamina beats defense beats attack and what is good enough to do the above (which is well publicised on these forums) wins.

Also, like most sabotage, nothing can be done if it succeeds (though things can be done to prevent both - trying to ignore it/setting up better security) - deception represents two parties trying to sabotage each other at best. Successful deception basically ends the match there most of the time, or may as well. Matches between major players seem to just be decided on who can gain the upper hand through deception and mind games a lot of the time - a lot of our best players use them to gain an advantage, and I don't think that's right, it's just not part of tops.