Star City Games has a statement in the comments on their Facebook about the Brainstorm play. Here it is:
"StarCityGames.com (Jared) The brainstorm play was analyzed in the HD version from our archives frame by frame to count and track the individual cards drawn. What seems to be a fourth card is actually a shadow caused by a bend in the sleeve. Sorry guys, but this one is on the up and up." I call B.S.
Call me naive, but I am willing to buy this. It does make a bit of sense on their part.
HOWEVER..........The Explore thing he pulled, the fact that he pre-boarded against Reanimator WHEN IT WAS A FEATURE MATCH was what boggles my mind. I think the commentators have the deck lists when they are doing the commentary. Did no one check? Or no one, when putting up the decklists or reading said lists over realize that he played a Sower Of Temptation main in his deck while it belongs in the sideboard game 1?
Call me naive, but I am willing to buy this. It does make a bit of sense on their part.
HOWEVER..........The Explore thing he pulled, the fact that he pre-boarded against Reanimator WHEN IT WAS A FEATURE MATCH was what boggles my mind. I think the commentators have the deck lists when they are doing the commentary. Did no one check? Or no one, when putting up the decklists or reading said lists over realize that he played a Sower Of Temptation main in his deck while it belongs in the sideboard game 1?
It was probably cause no one bothered to check the main deck, or even look at the sideboard, since the commentators are given all the information for the various feature matches they cast and probably didn't pay it no mind, but the judges should have at least checked the list submitted after the 1st game to ensure he wasn't pre side boarding.
"StarCityGames.com (Jared) The brainstorm play was analyzed in the HD version from our archives frame by frame to count and track the individual cards drawn. What seems to be a fourth card is actually a shadow caused by a bend in the sleeve. Sorry guys, but this one is on the up and up." I call B.S.
I am assuming this is screencap, posted in the other thread, is the Brainstorm in question? http://i.imgur.com/WR2C0.jpg
If so, HOW can anyone say that's a shadow? Unless they're trying to say that the top card has two white reflection bands on it which makes it look like two cards when it's really only one?
I think they have to respond at this point, no matter how good or bad the approach. This is because at this point, the integrity of SCG's tournament series, and the game as a whole, has been called into question.
I sincerely hope you are right. I played against Alex once many years ago when Faeries were in Standard. I was playing Doran Rock with Mwonvuli Acid-Moss and Fulminator Mage as a meta call. He tried to cast a Cryptic Command without having enough blue mana available (he did have four lands though). I corrected him and he was fine about the loss. It was a relatively low level event so I didn't think he was trying anything particularly malicious. Now I see it is just the way he functions.
I am assuming this is screencap, posted in the other thread, is the Brainstorm in question? http://i.imgur.com/WR2C0.jpg
If so, HOW can anyone say that's a shadow? Unless they're trying to say that the top card has two white reflection bands on it which makes it look like two cards when it's really only one?
Well, there's no way it was a shadow since Frank Lepore ended up doing a analysis of the screen shot and highlighted the area where it seemed kinda odd here ---> http://i.imgur.com/QYOPW.jpg
It shows the differences compared to the physical screen shot analyzed by SCG
The first thing SCG needs to do is be rid of that asinine comment about the Brainstorm "shadow." Saying nothing is better than saying something stupid. Next you know they will be saying the sixth land off Explore was a reflection.
Saying nothing is better than saying something stupid. .
Agreed, since the proof has been presented to the community already via in depth analysis of that particular incident in question, as for the explore incident they can't discount it, there is video proof showing he cheated if they do say anything about it being a mirage or some stuff they will instantly lose a lot of customers i would think.
It still does nothing to mention why the first brainstorm he draws the cards one at a time and the second he draws all at once, which in itself is a rules violation.
120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.
This rule exists to try and stop people from cheating.
It still does nothing to mention why the first brainstorm he draws the cards one at a time and the second he draws all at once, which in itself is a rules violation.
120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.
This rule exists to try and stop people from cheating.
I am pretty sure that rule exists in order to accommodate abilities that are triggered by card draws. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's meant to apply to the physical manner in which cards are drawn.
Of course, this doesn't explain away Alex's behavior.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Why people aren't watching the board and there opponent like hawks is beyond me, especially that that high level of play. I can understand not catching the sower cheat but the explore on such an early round should have been caught by the players. Maby I have an inherent distrust of people but I always assume that the other player will cheat at any given time, forcing me to watch every move and ask plenty of questions. One thing is for certian, they will from now on.
I am pretty sure that rule exists in order to accommodate abilities that are triggered by card draws. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's meant to apply to the physical manner in which cards are drawn.
I am not trying to be rude but how can you not draw a card individually (physically) and still follow the rule. You are correct that it accommodates triggers but it still applies.
Again, I'm just trying to clarify the point.
Rule:
120. Drawing a Card
120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player's draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.
Did he actually cheat @ the invitational? Proof?
Don't mean to save his bacon here folks, but the ethical side of this is that he shouldn't be DQ'd from an event that he actually hasn't cheated in. As for the other vids, I am pretty sure that something should come from those. Worse case scenario, the "Feature Matches" commentators should at the very least watch the games continuously. Let alone make sure that Player 1 is playing with the right deck.
SCG needs to do some serious damage control here. Their PR is in the gutter at the moment, so anything is possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Failing to Find" Since March 2010.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Standard:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
Did he actually cheat @ the invitational? Proof?
Don't mean to save his bacon here folks, but the ethical side of this is that he shouldn't be DQ'd from an event that he actually hasn't cheated in.
Even if he didn't cheat at the event itself, cheating at the events which earned him the invitation to the invitational should be sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of his win.
As for the other vids, I am pretty sure that something should come from those. Worse case scenario, the "Feature Matches" commentators should at the very least watch the games continuously. Let alone make sure that Player 1 is playing with the right deck.
The commentators should be focused on commentating, not enforcing the rules. While they should mention any issue they see to the judges, that's not what they should be focusing on.
I don't think Alex should have his title taken from him.
In fact, I think the witchhunt here is aimed in the wrong direction.
Instead of focusing on SCG to take away his title, why not start demanding that Alex comes forward and admits his faults, thus giving his title to Adam?
If he has any character at all, he should accept the fact that he's been repeatedly caught cheating and back away from the scene. The only way to save face at this point, or even look like a halfway decent human being, is to admit fault and give back what was won.
Even if he didn't cheat AT the invitational, he cheated on his way to it. Tainting his right to be there in the first place.
At the very least, you guys should be hounding Bertoncheaty to give back his prizes and request that Adam be the true winner of the event. I know you all want to hold SCG accountable, but after their statement on 'the shadow' it seems like that's a fool's errand.
Make Bertoncheaty give back his prizes.
Or at the very least, make him uncomfortable to play in any future sanctioned event. If the DCI won't support banning him, as players we should stand up for the MTG community and ask him to never show his face again.
If he has any character at all, he should accept the fact that he's been repeatedly caught cheating and back away from the scene. The only way to save face at this point, or even look like a halfway decent human being, is to admit fault and give back what was won.
umm...:-/
He very obviously is not a person with character. He cheated and it was extremely profitable for him. I mean he got 10,000$ and a full set of P9, worth thousands more.
No one would just give away that kind of money after working so hard for it if they didn't have to.
If you take his title, they should replay top 8. The players losing to him might've won from another opponent (who didn't cheat, lol).
They should do this but it doesn't seem like scg would ever do that. Isn't it possible that they'll just not award him the money and cards and leave the other standings as they are? It would sure save them money.
Don't expect Alex to respond at all to any of this. He's been perfectly content to ignore it as long as the dci is too although I feel like some sort of response is coming with this much evidence
Even if he didn't cheat at the event itself, cheating at the events which earned him the invitation to the invitational should be sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of his win.
The commentators should be focused on commentating, not enforcing the rules. While they should mention any issue they see to the judges, that's not what they should be focusing on.
1-AGREED. If all his cheating actually earned him that spot, then ya.
2- So you're telling me that if the sower cheat, or the 2nd Brainstorm cheat happened to you... that you wouldn't want someone to say something? Especially since they are commenting on your game, they should know what you are running. Because not everyone makes craw wurms and turns them sideways. Hell, most of the commentators could pass off as judges. Its not like they earned the spot there by their voices.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Failing to Find" Since March 2010.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Standard:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
I've made mistakes myself too and I rarely play competitively, but at the same time, this guy is supposed to be a pro. He had to have known that sower didn't belong. He also should have at least double checked his lands after the guy asked about them in the explorer video. The fact that he ignored both of those things seems pretty convincing.
I didn't watch the video with the brainstorm, but that one seems weird to me. Look at the images again. Is that fourth card on top sideways or what? Look at where it appears to be the edge of a fourth card, then look at how wide it appears to be (compared to, say, the bayou or trop next to it). The 'analyzed' photo says "far too large for one cards", but even from the edge they marked, it STILL looks far too large to me. cut right in half maybe it'd be fine, but the edge isn't in the middle, and it would be weird to spread them so wide if you tried to draw 4. It honestly looks like the top cards is in perpendicular to the rest. He didn't set his hand of top of the brainstorm or anything weird? The image is confusing.
If there's so much evidence of his cheating caught on camera I wonder how many times he had cheated more blatantly off camera during the hundreds of matches he had played in all of the SCG tours.
2- So you're telling me that if the sower cheat, or the 2nd Brainstorm cheat happened to you... that you wouldn't want someone to say something? Especially since they are commenting on your game, they should know what you are running. Because not everyone makes craw wurms and turns them sideways. Hell, most of the commentators could pass off as judges. Its not like they earned the spot there by their voices.
That's not what I said. As I said, if the commentators see someone cheat (or make a mistake which causes a violation of the game rules) they should report it to the judges. However, they should be focusing their attention on providing insightful commentary, not (for example) looking closely to see if the player drew 3 or 4. That's the job of the judges.
Actually Argentina wins the match from the goal that happens a couple of minutes later (which was legitimate). The Hand of God goal would have been tied in the 80th minute without the second goal from Maradona. Just pointing that out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Call me naive, but I am willing to buy this. It does make a bit of sense on their part.
HOWEVER..........The Explore thing he pulled, the fact that he pre-boarded against Reanimator WHEN IT WAS A FEATURE MATCH was what boggles my mind. I think the commentators have the deck lists when they are doing the commentary. Did no one check? Or no one, when putting up the decklists or reading said lists over realize that he played a Sower Of Temptation main in his deck while it belongs in the sideboard game 1?
It was probably cause no one bothered to check the main deck, or even look at the sideboard, since the commentators are given all the information for the various feature matches they cast and probably didn't pay it no mind, but the judges should have at least checked the list submitted after the 1st game to ensure he wasn't pre side boarding.
EDH:1 vs 1
Talrand, Sky Summoner Retired.
EDH Multiplayer
Drana. Kalastria Bloodchief
Talrand, Sky Summoner
My Blog -
Tips to Writing
Tips for Freelance Magic Writing
I am assuming this is screencap, posted in the other thread, is the Brainstorm in question? http://i.imgur.com/WR2C0.jpg
If so, HOW can anyone say that's a shadow? Unless they're trying to say that the top card has two white reflection bands on it which makes it look like two cards when it's really only one?
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
I sincerely hope you are right. I played against Alex once many years ago when Faeries were in Standard. I was playing Doran Rock with Mwonvuli Acid-Moss and Fulminator Mage as a meta call. He tried to cast a Cryptic Command without having enough blue mana available (he did have four lands though). I corrected him and he was fine about the loss. It was a relatively low level event so I didn't think he was trying anything particularly malicious. Now I see it is just the way he functions.
Well, there's no way it was a shadow since Frank Lepore ended up doing a analysis of the screen shot and highlighted the area where it seemed kinda odd here ---> http://i.imgur.com/QYOPW.jpg
It shows the differences compared to the physical screen shot analyzed by SCG
EDH:1 vs 1
Talrand, Sky Summoner Retired.
EDH Multiplayer
Drana. Kalastria Bloodchief
Talrand, Sky Summoner
My Blog -
Tips to Writing
Tips for Freelance Magic Writing
Agreed, since the proof has been presented to the community already via in depth analysis of that particular incident in question, as for the explore incident they can't discount it, there is video proof showing he cheated if they do say anything about it being a mirage or some stuff they will instantly lose a lot of customers i would think.
EDH:1 vs 1
Talrand, Sky Summoner Retired.
EDH Multiplayer
Drana. Kalastria Bloodchief
Talrand, Sky Summoner
My Blog -
Tips to Writing
Tips for Freelance Magic Writing
------------------------------------------
[Team Revolution]
120.2. Cards may only be drawn one at a time. If a player is instructed to draw multiple cards, that player performs that many individual card draws.
This rule exists to try and stop people from cheating.
I am pretty sure that rule exists in order to accommodate abilities that are triggered by card draws. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's meant to apply to the physical manner in which cards are drawn.
Of course, this doesn't explain away Alex's behavior.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
I am not trying to be rude but how can you not draw a card individually (physically) and still follow the rule. You are correct that it accommodates triggers but it still applies.
Again, I'm just trying to clarify the point.
Rule:
120. Drawing a Card
120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player's draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.
Don't mean to save his bacon here folks, but the ethical side of this is that he shouldn't be DQ'd from an event that he actually hasn't cheated in. As for the other vids, I am pretty sure that something should come from those. Worse case scenario, the "Feature Matches" commentators should at the very least watch the games continuously. Let alone make sure that Player 1 is playing with the right deck.
SCG needs to do some serious damage control here. Their PR is in the gutter at the moment, so anything is possible.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
Even if he didn't cheat at the event itself, cheating at the events which earned him the invitation to the invitational should be sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of his win.
The commentators should be focused on commentating, not enforcing the rules. While they should mention any issue they see to the judges, that's not what they should be focusing on.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
In fact, I think the witchhunt here is aimed in the wrong direction.
Instead of focusing on SCG to take away his title, why not start demanding that Alex comes forward and admits his faults, thus giving his title to Adam?
If he has any character at all, he should accept the fact that he's been repeatedly caught cheating and back away from the scene. The only way to save face at this point, or even look like a halfway decent human being, is to admit fault and give back what was won.
Even if he didn't cheat AT the invitational, he cheated on his way to it. Tainting his right to be there in the first place.
At the very least, you guys should be hounding Bertoncheaty to give back his prizes and request that Adam be the true winner of the event. I know you all want to hold SCG accountable, but after their statement on 'the shadow' it seems like that's a fool's errand.
Make Bertoncheaty give back his prizes.
Or at the very least, make him uncomfortable to play in any future sanctioned event. If the DCI won't support banning him, as players we should stand up for the MTG community and ask him to never show his face again.
umm...:-/
He very obviously is not a person with character. He cheated and it was extremely profitable for him. I mean he got 10,000$ and a full set of P9, worth thousands more.
No one would just give away that kind of money after working so hard for it if they didn't have to.
They should do this but it doesn't seem like scg would ever do that. Isn't it possible that they'll just not award him the money and cards and leave the other standings as they are? It would sure save them money.
Count backwards from 20.
1-AGREED. If all his cheating actually earned him that spot, then ya.
2- So you're telling me that if the sower cheat, or the 2nd Brainstorm cheat happened to you... that you wouldn't want someone to say something? Especially since they are commenting on your game, they should know what you are running. Because not everyone makes craw wurms and turns them sideways. Hell, most of the commentators could pass off as judges. Its not like they earned the spot there by their voices.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
I didn't watch the video with the brainstorm, but that one seems weird to me. Look at the images again. Is that fourth card on top sideways or what? Look at where it appears to be the edge of a fourth card, then look at how wide it appears to be (compared to, say, the bayou or trop next to it). The 'analyzed' photo says "far too large for one cards", but even from the edge they marked, it STILL looks far too large to me. cut right in half maybe it'd be fine, but the edge isn't in the middle, and it would be weird to spread them so wide if you tried to draw 4. It honestly looks like the top cards is in perpendicular to the rest. He didn't set his hand of top of the brainstorm or anything weird? The image is confusing.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.
That's not what I said. As I said, if the commentators see someone cheat (or make a mistake which causes a violation of the game rules) they should report it to the judges. However, they should be focusing their attention on providing insightful commentary, not (for example) looking closely to see if the player drew 3 or 4. That's the job of the judges.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
They can redistribute his P9 to the other finalists.
Hope it really stings, you cheating p.o.s.
Oh yeah, ban him.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Just be patient, something will come of this.
Current Capt. of Team "Ju"
I play this:
Rotation is coming...
Modern: GGGSTOMPY
ZOO (Goyf-less)
Legacy:
Brewing
EDH:
Too many to name.