Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Polonius wrote:This sort of thing can really only be a factor in smaller events though. If it's a three round event, and two wins and a draw will take both first and second, that means that nobody else there had enough battle points that a massacre would have leapfrogged those below. That, more than anything, is what keeps this from becoming an ethical problem.

This.
The scernario is only beneficial in a three-round, 8-man event. After three rounds, without draws, you can only have ONE payer with WWW, THREE that have WWL, Three more with WLL, and one LLL. That's one first place, a three-way tie for second, and a three-way tie for third.

In the scenario presented, if during Round Three the two players who are WW agree to throw the game to a draw, both are guaranteed a placing by viture of both being WWD at the end of the day, and everyone ELSE maxxing out at WWL.

If you up the field to 10, this bargaining can't happen, because the top table doesn't contain ALL of the undefeated players. Table 2 will contain an undefeated player facing off against the top-scoring WL or WD player. If that undefeated player at Table 2 takes a win over his WD or WL opponent, he wins overall when the two at Table One throw the game for a draw. You end up with a WWW, Two WWDs, and the rest of the pack. The only way one of them could get a sot at top prize if if the undefeated payer on Table Two draws against his opponent.


There's not a lot of incentive for collusion in tuorneys that don't hand out cash prizes or store credit. The only reason to bargain with your opponent for a free draw is if you're pals, and plan to pool your winnings and split it down the middle. In a $60/$40/$20 tier, the incentive is $10 if the colluders (is that a word?) take 1st/2nd for the LOWER placer. The winner LOSES ten bucks. of course, if he drops to WWL by not throwing the game, he might lose $50, so I guess that's the real incentive.

Give out merch instead of cash and you eliminate the whole incentive to cheat like this.

Yes, but standings are usually done (at least for fantasy) with battle points, not W/L record.

So, it matters a lot in some settings. A player at the 'Ard Boyz semis for fantasy at mikhaila's store took 3rd place with 2 massacre wins, and a massacre loss in the final round, from what I remember.

It can affect the numbers that matter (battle points) for placings if you go from a massacre to a major win, or vise versa, even though it doesn't change anyone's W/L record.

In most settings, it's not pure bracket style, so every battle point counts.

Well, in a MMMD system, draws are far less valuable. You can take Massacre/Massacre/Draw results to the bank only if someone else doesn't eke out a Massacre/Massacre/Minor in their last game. The MMMD system works well to eliminate "locks" on placings by two even-record players.
The OP's scenario seems to indicate that he was playing in a WLD setup, where pairing were basedon win-loss record.
In a WLD setup, battle points ARE your win/loss record, unless you use Battle Point mods/bonuses.

Magister187 wrote:The fact that you don't think a TO should put those into writing is 1) coming from your own personal experience 2) is rather naive 3) means you essentially use your judgment to determine who is cheating and who is not, which though you may believe is fair, is actually the opposite of being fair.

Ha, sorry, you lost me with this one. But the irony is amusing.)


You have very limited knowledge of GW tournaments, I do it for a living, and I'm naive? Who's really being naive?
You can label me as unfair, with no knowledge of the tournaments I have run? Now who's being fair?

Sorry, either go play in a warhammer tournament, better go run one. Your still arguing like we are playing MTG. And again, we play warhammer.

mikhaila wrote:

Magister187 wrote:The fact that you don't think a TO should put those into writing is 1) coming from your own personal experience 2) is rather naive 3) means you essentially use your judgment to determine who is cheating and who is not, which though you may believe is fair, is actually the opposite of being fair.

Ha, sorry, you lost me with this one. But the irony is amusing.)


You have very limited knowledge of GW tournaments, I do it for a living, and I'm naive? Who's really being naive?
You can label me as unfair, with no knowledge of the tournaments I have run? Now who's being fair?

Sorry, either go play in a warhammer tournament, better go run one. Your still arguing like we are playing MTG. And again, we play warhammer.

I fail to see how you can say that not having your tournament rules in writing is anything but unfair. You said already there is no reason for you to put your stance on intentional draws in your tournament rules, why is that? Because you expect everyone who plays at your tournament to view the world just like you do, that offering or accepting a draw to guarantee standing makes you a cheater? I have no issue with you taking that stance, I am just saying it is unfair and naive of you to not put them in your tournament rules.

And yes, I am planning to take your advice and play in a warhammer tournament, likely many. I am not arguing like we are playing MTG ( I don't feel we are arguing at all, just discussing tournament rules), I am pointing to the fact that what you hold to be an undeniable truth, that intentional draws are cheating, is not necessarily cheating as it can be supported in a TO's rules. While you do not in your own ruleset, which is 100% A-OK, assuming you don't have to mention that in your rules is naive of you.
Why not just include that in your rules, so the 1% of players who don't have any problems with that (or like me come from a tournament environment where it is condoned) who do not know your point of view don't feel hosed playing in your tournament and being called a cheater for offering an intentional draw?

Magister187 wrote:

I fail to see how you can say that not having your tournament rules in writing is anything but unfair. You said already there is no reason for you to put your stance on intentional draws in your tournament rules, why is that? Because you expect everyone who plays at your tournament to view the world just like you do, that offering or accepting a draw to guarantee standing makes you a cheater? I have no issue with you taking that stance, I am just saying it is unfair and naive of you to not put them in your tournament rules.

And yes, I am planning to take your advice and play in a warhammer tournament, likely many. I am not arguing like we are playing MTG ( I don't feel we are arguing at all, just discussing tournament rules), I am pointing to the fact that what you hold to be an undeniable truth, that intentional draws are cheating, is not necessarily cheating as it can be supported in a TO's rules. While you do not in your own ruleset, which is 100% A-OK, assuming you don't have to mention that in your rules is naive of you.
Why not just include that in your rules, so the 1% of players who don't have any problems with that (or like me come from a tournament environment where it is condoned) who do not know your point of view don't feel hosed playing in your tournament and being called a cheater for offering an intentional draw?

1% of players - where did you make that up from? I don't know anyone who plays 40k or WH who thinks this is acceptable in a friendly knock-out 4 person tournie in a friends basement let alone in a full blown tournie.

Dude, two people getting together to fix a draw so both get 1 & 2 is cheating/ collusion. It is called match fixing in any sport that is played competitively - fixing a draw is no better than two people deciding who will win and lose to maximize their benefit at the expense of the 3rd. If you think this is OK then I think your ethical reasoning is totally out of whack.

fullheadofhair wrote:

Dude, two people getting together to fix a draw so both get 1 & 2 is cheating/ collusion. It is called match fixing in any sport that is played competitively - fixing a draw is no better than two people deciding who will win and lose to maximize their benefit at the expense of the 3rd. If you think this is OK then I think your ethical reasoning is totally out of whack.

I never said it was ethical, I said it is a question of rules. Broadly painting everything in your concept of right and wrong is fine, but put it in your rules so there is no ambiguity. I have already referenced a tournament structure (in as close to warhammer of a setting as possible) that writes into their tournament rules that Intentional Draws are allowed, so you comment about match fixing isn't even correct.
Regardless, my point is that a standard Swiss style tournament structure allows for ID's because it is difficult to enforce, not because it is correct, right, should be allowed, etc. If you don't want them to be allowed in your tournament, put it in your rules, its as simple as that. Why is that so difficult a concept?
I have never once said I think people SHOULD Intentionally Draw, only that this style of tournament is built to allow them by default and that you should have a rule saying they are not allowed, spelled out before the event starts. To not do so is by its very definition unfair.

The Tournament Organizer does not need to include a rule about whether you can swipe your opponent's models all over the floor, breaking them into pieces as a result, and then say he's not WYSIWYG.

Yet, the same logic of "Well, you don't have a rule against it" could be applied.

This one is rather obvious - collusion can be diminished in value by having a format that functionally prevents it. Also, a tournament organizer probably SHOULD include some kind of comment in his sportsmanship or rules entries about collusion/cheating/unsportsmanlike conduct/etc.

Nevertheless, to think that it is not blatantly punishable if it's NOT written is so far into weirdland, I'm not sure there's a point to belaboring the ... I don't know, rhetorical technicality of it?

fullheadofhair wrote:
1% of players - where did you make that up from?

You do know that 87.63% of all statistics are made up right?

Thaylen wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:
1% of players - where did you make that up from?

You do know that 87.63% of all statistics are made up right?

Hey, to be fair I just took the 1% left from the 99% mikhaila threw out there. These are all in fact made up numbers. I understand the point that the vast majority of players feel it is despicable cheating, and I completely agree. My point is that you can't have ambiguous rules. Your example of throwing another persons models on the ground to break them is obvious, yes, and childish and ridiculous if attempted. But does that excuse a TO From not having "Be a courteous competitor, don't touch another person's models, do not use profanity, etc" from a basic list of tournament rules? I just don't understand the push back on having your basic sportsmanship rules on paper so to remove any ambiguity.

BTW, sportsmanship is absolutely not a black/white thing; everyone seems to assume it is, but its not. That is why there are rules in EVERY competitive environment tied to sportsmanship and Fouls/Penalties to enforce them. Flagrant fouls exist in the NBA, red cards in soccer, unsportsmanlike conduct in the NFL for this reason. You put it into the rules to promote a sporting atmosphere it doesn't just get born into everyone who has ever picked up a Citadel miniature.

I fail to see how you can say that not having your tournament rules in writing is anything but unfair.

I fail to see how you can in any way think I said that. Every tounament I run has a set of rules. I also stress heavily that if anyone has a question they should always contact me ahead of time to get it answered.

I just refuse to accept that if I don't write up a rule about something, it's ok to do it.

Now, with that said, I do have a speech I general give at the start of a tournament. Sometimes it's starts with "Let's all play fair". For 'Ardboyz it starts with "Don't be the guy named Richard".

I that covers, "don't collude to fix the game your playing".

You are assuming TO's don't have rules about playing fair, being courteous, and other rules to cover 'ambiguous' situations. Most do. Especially as tournaments get larger.
Don't mistake a reluctance to have to be held to putting down every frigging possibility in writing as "I don't have rules".

I apologize. I ran too far with your comments earlier about not listing what is illegal and interpreted it that you essentially will arbitrate a rules violation if it is brought up, based on your own judgment. Having a broad stroke set of rules laid out is fine, I don't think you have to lay out every possibility. I just advocate for clarity in the rules, it prevents a lot of whining (And prevents people like the OP hearing something and not knowing if that is against the rules or not). A TO should just do his best to make rules clear for all participants. I know you likely don't care, as you have established and I have agreed that it is not the same game, but I have run many tournaments in MTG and I strove to do the same thing. I luckily had clear cut tournament rules from the DCI to fall back on, and that clarity of rules makes things easier in my opinion, and that was all I was really advocating for. The situation the OP was presented with was unfair not only because of the actions of the players who ID'd, but by the failing of the TO to explain his rules and make them clear for all involved.

I think we have had enough debate on the subject, tbh. We see things slightly different, but I don't think we are on opposite sides of an argument here.
Also, I feel like I have been spamming this thread, so I will just let it be. I still have loads to learn about the wargaming community, and discussions like this help that.

Dashofpepper wrote:Hrm....

Damn me for this if you like.

In terms of sportsmanship, I pretty much max everyone, and let them see me doing it.

In terms of winning/losing, I win big or lose big. If my opponent is going to get a minor victory off me and I can't prevent it, I'll let him get the massacre. At the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in February (Cheers to Mikhaila), I made a serious mistake against my second round opponent which cost me the game. Rather than huddle up and protect an objective or two and screw him into a minor victory, I went balls to the wall and got tabled instead. F*** your terminators, here comes my gretchin. If I'm stomping on someone and they concede when they could conceivably pull off a major loss instead of a massacred, I don't object either.

In terms of agreeing on a draw before the game because its already in the bag...not so much. I go to tournaments to find out if anyone there can beat me. I'm going to win hard, or get put down hard trying to win.

This. This for a million years. I would love to play against you dash. I play to destroy or be destroyed. No middle ground. That to me is the fun of warhammer. If someone offered me an ID in warhammer, I would prolly lol in their face. Maybe because I take it much less seriously than I ever did MTG, but to me the idea of drawing your battle is ridiculous. My toy soldiers are there for blood. (Blood for the red thirst!)
Now in MTG I have ID'ed many, many times and have often played with Magister in many tournaments. I could see it going either way as far as being allowed by the TO, but it seems to go against the spirit of the game. Your armies didn't roll out to whatever battlefield to all of a sudden forget that they left the oven on.

Thats wrong. Many battles historically have not been fought because people have settled for increased estates in England and 10% increase in wool.

As far as not having your rules set in stone or clearly laid out, there is a phrase I have become accustomed with in business.
Reactive policy is always insulting to the person that created the situation. Regardless of how many internets percents of people think its a mortal sin to Intentionally Draw, you will have people that want to Min/Max there efforts at the tournament and for a lot of people that means coming home with a prize. $10.00 to play is not the same as $10.00 to get store credit (or cash, depending on your venue.)
Ethics are not universal, and people are entitled to their opinion. You are also entitled to run your tournament as you chose. But the first time you call me cheater for intentionally drawing, when your rules do not mention anything about, I will take my business and my friends elsewhere.
Running a tournament or a store does not make you infallible, and I am shocked that you stand so high on a pedestal to not see this as an opportunity to add 1 line to your rule sheet, to prevent someone from unintentionally murdering the baby seals in your store with their decisions.

Also, with the way that you hold so true to your mindset on this, it makes me wonder what else you are uncompromising on other things. Real life is not dealt in 100% absolutes, and the fact that you mention other games, which are by in large way bigger than your Warhammer 40k tournament, but fail to acknowledge the effort and resources that go into running and organizing these event, and be as bold to say that nothing that they do has anything to with what you do it absurd. You, as a person of responsibility, should cherish the fact that there are other events to lend example to your efforts, not spit in their faces.

I know they have rules and guide lines and restrictions on the World Poker Tour but that has nothing to do with me, my system of listing a few of my rules and interpreting the stuff I don't bother to list ad-hoc is way more efficient and fair to the people that do not know me or my stance on this topic.

Intentional drawing is a strategic move to ensure victory.
Warhammer is a strategy game right? Wrong or right, you know the debate is out there, rules should be written to avoid conflict, regardless of your stance.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Thats wrong. Many battles historically have not been fought because people have settled for increased estates in England and 10% increase in wool.

Next time we play offer me 10% more wool. See where that gets you

Hai. Where can I has this wool? My goblins is cold.

Soldado will provide it for you, given the fact that you line up your army like you are ready to play and then box them up shortly afterwards.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:As far as not having your rules set in stone or clearly laid out, there is a phrase I have become accustomed with in business.
Reactive policy is always insulting to the person that created the situation. Regardless of how many internets percents of people think its a mortal sin to Intentionally Draw, you will have people that want to Min/Max there efforts at the tournament and for a lot of people that means coming home with a prize. $10.00 to play is not the same as $10.00 to get store credit (or cash, depending on your venue.)
Ethics are not universal, and people are entitled to their opinion. You are also entitled to run your tournament as you chose. But the first time you call me cheater for intentionally drawing, when your rules do not mention anything about, I will take my business and my friends elsewhere.
Running a tournament or a store does not make you infallible, and I am shocked that you stand so high on a pedestal to not see this as an opportunity to add 1 line to your rule sheet, to prevent someone from unintentionally murdering the baby seals in your store with their decisions.

Also, with the way that you hold so true to your mindset on this, it makes me wonder what else you are uncompromising on other things. Real life is not dealt in 100% absolutes, and the fact that you mention other games, which are by in large way bigger than your Warhammer 40k tournament, but fail to acknowledge the effort and resources that go into running and organizing these event, and be as bold to say that nothing that they do has anything to with what you do it absurd. You, as a person of responsibility, should cherish the fact that there are other events to lend example to your efforts, not spit in their faces.

I know they have rules and guide lines and restrictions on the World Poker Tour but that has nothing to do with me, my system of listing a few of my rules and interpreting the stuff I don't bother to list ad-hoc is way more efficient and fair to the people that do not know me or my stance on this topic.

Intentional drawing is a strategic move to ensure victory.
Warhammer is a strategy game right? Wrong or right, you know the debate is out there, rules should be written to avoid conflict, regardless of your stance.

It's not something that I thought I'd have to add to a tournament rules set, but probably should from now on.)

That was in my first post. Repeated since you didn't bother to read it. I have never said I was against writing down a rule. Or putting this in a rules set.

You spend paragraphs thowing around lovely arguements about what I said I was going to do in the first post I made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But the first time you call me cheater for intentionally drawing, when your rules do not mention anything about, I will take my business and my friends elsewhere.

I'll make sure that if I ever travel to LA to open a store for you and Magister to play at, I'll absolutely make sure the rule is in the package, so you won't run be offended. Since I'm in Philadelphia this last 20 years, it's a long shot, but who knows.)

mikhaila wrote:I fail to see how you can say that not having your tournament rules in writing is anything but unfair.

I fail to see how you can in any way think I said that. Every tounament I run has a set of rules. I also stress heavily that if anyone has a question they should always contact me ahead of time to get it answered.

I just refuse to accept that if I don't write up a rule about something, it's ok to do it.

Now, with that said, I do have a speech I general give at the start of a tournament. Sometimes it's starts with "Let's all play fair". For 'Ardboyz it starts with "Don't be the guy named Richard".

I that covers, "don't collude to fix the game your playing".

You are assuming TO's don't have rules about playing fair, being courteous, and other rules to cover 'ambiguous' situations. Most do. Especially as tournaments get larger.
Don't mistake a reluctance to have to be held to putting down every frigging possibility in writing as "I don't have rules".

Not that I agree with the fixing of games,because I don't,but maybe if you feel that strongly about collusion in tournaments,maybe you should put it in your written rules? That would take maybe 10 seconds. "Don't be a Richard" doesn't mean anything,and is completely open to subjectivity. If you're going to award people zero points for collusion based on the "Don't be a Richard" rule,then you should also probably be awarding zero points for not holding the door for people,taking too much time in the bathroom with people waiting,or just being generally annoying. Those people are also being a Richard.

In any good tournament,the rules must be 1:Clear and 2:Evenly enforced. That's not exclusive to M:tG or Warhammer or any particular sport or game. In this case,your rules on collusion are not clear,so they are not good. When the rules are clear,it also leads players to believe that they are not being evenly enforced,even if your stance is clear and unshakable in your head where the rule exists. Seriously,how long does it take to come up with a form letter of rules? Collusion,and all your other examples,can be quickly covered with...

1.Any attempts by any player to fix the outcome of a game,either by collusion with another player to achieve a desired outcome,forfeiture of a game and/or objectives,and/or bribery,will result in all offending parties receiving a score of "0" for that round.

2.The use of "loaded" dice will result in immediate disqualification.

3.Any illegal behavior will result in immediate disqualification and removal from the premises.

Remember,threatening your opponent and/or your oppenent's property falls under Assault in most states. Breaking your oppenents mini's falls under Destruction of Property. Stealing someone's wallet is obviously theft.

Whatever1 wrote:
Not that I agree with the fixing of games,because I don't,but maybe if you feel that strongly about collusion in tournaments,maybe you should put it in your written rules?

As I stated in the post directily above yours, I stated in my very first post on the subject that I would be adding it to my rules set.

I would have no idea what you were talking about if you said "Don't be a Richard" at a tournament I attended.

I certainly wouldn't think you were disallowing IDs.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Thats wrong. Many battles historically have not been fought because people have settled for increased estates in England and 10% increase in wool.

As far as not having your rules set in stone or clearly laid out, there is a phrase I have become accustomed with in business.
Reactive policy is always insulting to the person that created the situation. Regardless of how many internets percents of people think its a mortal sin to Intentionally Draw, you will have people that want to Min/Max there efforts at the tournament and for a lot of people that means coming home with a prize. $10.00 to play is not the same as $10.00 to get store credit (or cash, depending on your venue.)
Ethics are not universal, and people are entitled to their opinion. You are also entitled to run your tournament as you chose. But the first time you call me cheater for intentionally drawing, when your rules do not mention anything about, I will take my business and my friends elsewhere.
Running a tournament or a store does not make you infallible, and I am shocked that you stand so high on a pedestal to not see this as an opportunity to add 1 line to your rule sheet, to prevent someone from unintentionally murdering the baby seals in your store with their decisions.

Also, with the way that you hold so true to your mindset on this, it makes me wonder what else you are uncompromising on other things. Real life is not dealt in 100% absolutes, and the fact that you mention other games, which are by in large way bigger than your Warhammer 40k tournament, but fail to acknowledge the effort and resources that go into running and organizing these event, and be as bold to say that nothing that they do has anything to with what you do it absurd. You, as a person of responsibility, should cherish the fact that there are other events to lend example to your efforts, not spit in their faces.

I know they have rules and guide lines and restrictions on the World Poker Tour but that has nothing to do with me, my system of listing a few of my rules and interpreting the stuff I don't bother to list ad-hoc is way more efficient and fair to the people that do not know me or my stance on this topic.

Intentional drawing is a strategic move to ensure victory.
Warhammer is a strategy game right? Wrong or right, you know the debate is out there, rules should be written to avoid conflict, regardless of your stance.

Well if you want to bring the business aspect into it, I know most shop owners are going to dump you as a customer in a heartbeat if your tournament actions cause him to lose customers. And think about the gaming community in general; most stores are known for the gamers that game there. I can't count how many times I have heard, "The store is good, but I hate the guys who game there."

So think about it, is the owner of a shop going to keep you as a customer and lose 3 or 4 others to support your collusion? Yea, I think not.

Manimal wrote:I would have no idea what you were talking about if you said "Don't be a Richard" at a tournament I attended.

I certainly wouldn't think you were disallowing IDs.

You'd actually know exactly what I was talking about, since there's a growing list of things that I go over at the start of a tournament so that everyone is clear on the subject. Didn't include colluding to throw a game, because we haven't had a problem with it, now it will, and it's written into the rules set.

I'm surprised how many people are defending this. Strikes me that this is the vocal minority... I've never even come across it at any of the RTT's I've been to, and never heard of someone doing it.

It seems like a lot of you guys know each other, and are bringing each other into this thread to back each other up. But your opinion, from everything I've seen, doesn't reflect the majority of warhammer players. If you look on page 1, you'll see that most see this as cheating.

It certainly doesn't deserve an acronym. I even had to re-read this page of the thread to figure out what you all meant by "ID". It can mean a lot of things... intentional draw is not going to be high on the list for most warhammer players.

It's unheard of, out-of-bounds, borderline or over-the-line cheating. That's how most warhammer players would see it, in my opinion. Coming from another background doesn't make your opinions invalid... just not the norm in this setting.

And yes, as MVBrandt and mikahila both point out above, both organizers of major GTs, something totally out of left field and absurd doesn't have to be written down in the ruleset to enforce. It looks like this might get added now, but most people would consider this outright cheating, and so it wasn't needed before. I've personally witnessed mikhaila's "Don't be a Richard" speech, and it's very clear- if you're cheating, being a poor sport, etc, he's going to come down on you. I imagine every TO has a similar speech. It is meant to cover things just such as this.

Honestly, it's not a very big deal, and bandying about language about ethics and whatnot when he already said he'd be adding it to the ruleset for blokes such as yourselves is really getting under my skin...

/rant

I didn't have a really negative reaction to it. To me, it just seemed like two parties settling instead of going to trial.

Of course, there are other parties of interest, and it's not really fair to them to collude. I'm not sure I'd call it cheating, but it's not very sportsmanlike.

I honestly can't say I have a problem with collusion amongst players.

This happens more often than you think particularly at the "elite" levels.

Never been a problem where I've played - hell enough people are normally wtchng the top tables anyway to make collusion pretty damn near imposible. It's hard to fake playing a game involving dice when you have people as skilled as you are watching your games.

If you are not deciding an outcome based on playing that game, that is cheating in my book. Fixing results is diallowed in every competitive sport except, apparently, MtG.

to be honest in 2008 at the hard boys semi's me and a friend faced off on table 1 in game 3. this was for all the marbles. the mission was capture and controlish.

We both placed the objectives so they could be easily claimed by either. basiclly setting up somebody was going to win and walk away with the big prize and probaly not draw and have the big prize slip to another table. We both played hard for the objective and I lost. would you consider this bad? we both tried to win at all cost but we did go out to screw the other person out of the prize.

I'm surprised how many people are defending this. Strikes me that this is the vocal minority... I've never even come across it at any of the RTT's I've been to, and never heard of someone doing it.

I, on the other hand, am surprised by the outrage the idea of intentional draws has caused.

If I enter a tournament my goal is to place in a prize winning spot, not to crush all opponents no matter what.
Well, really it is to have a good time, but my in game strategy will be based on trying to get prizes.

If I was in a position where I am going to win 1st or 2nd place by tying my last game, I will likely play that game for a tie. In other words, I would play very conservatively making it hard for me to win but equally hard for my opponent to win that particular game but making it very likely for me to achieve my larger goal.

If my opponent was in the same position he/she could easily choose to employ the same strategy assuming their goal was to also to place in a prize winning spot.
If this happens the game is almost guaranteed to be a draw. There was no collusion required, just two people playing in the way that makes the most sense if it is your goal to win prizes.

Intentional draws acknowledge this fact and skip the details of the draw.
While playing a game where the (likely) outcome is already known is still fun, it is really not necessary if both players are playing for a draw.