Well, watched all these new videos of Jared now. I have to say there's a lot of evidence against him. When I watch him do it though I just don't see him looking at the deck. I would believe he's honest at this point if he responded to this by changing his shuffling pattern. If he keeps to the same thing he has been doing though I think that's a big strike against him.
Maybe that's making him prove his innocence a bit, but guilty or not his shuffling is clearly disturbing to a lot of people. The decent thing to do would be to change it up.
I would think the exact opposite. I mean if his shuffle isnt cheating then why would he change it. By changing the way he shuffles it would be admitting that there was something wrong with how he was shuffling
The important part is if you change behaviour out of fear or simply as someone told you what you didnt know.
Ofcourse if you cheated and you change your behaviour to avoid that cheat, then you are not cheating anymore (or at least in a different way).
If you just had this bad habbit for shuffling and you now see it is potential suspucious, its a good thing to change.
So changing by itself isnt bad or good, it just shows that you actual know about it now.
Well, watched all these new videos of Jared now. I have to say there's a lot of evidence against him. When I watch him do it though I just don't see him looking at the deck. I would believe he's honest at this point if he responded to this by changing his shuffling pattern. If he keeps to the same thing he has been doing though I think that's a big strike against him.
Maybe that's making him prove his innocence a bit, but guilty or not his shuffling is clearly disturbing to a lot of people. The decent thing to do would be to change it up.
I would think the exact opposite. I mean if his shuffle isnt cheating then why would he change it. By changing the way he shuffles it would be admitting that there was something wrong with how he was shuffling
The important part is if you change behaviour out of fear or simply as someone told you what you didnt know.
Ofcourse if you cheated and you change your behaviour to avoid that cheat, then you are not cheating anymore (or at least in a different way).
If you just had this bad habbit for shuffling and you now see it is potential suspucious, its a good thing to change.
So changing by itself isnt bad or good, it just shows that you actual know about it now.
Actually refusing to change your shuffling technique would be a larger red flag to me.
I think that's one of the things that lead to Trevor's lengthy ban. I heard rumors that he had an opponent that asked him to shuffle differently, and he refused.
When you repeatedly shuffle your opponents deck in such a way that you purposefully put a single card on top and then never change that one card, and you DON'T shuffle your own deck in this manner, AND your opponent draws a land basically every time you do this, yeah, I'd say that's a good amount of evidence.
I didn't believe it at first for the same reasons you're saying, but the more and more video that's found with this exact situation happening, plus the fact that many, many people far smarter than me (essentially the entire pro community) considers this evidence substantial, means I just can't ignore it.
So much this, cheating should be punished hard.
And people need to stop excusing various degrees of cheating. Cheating IS cheating.
Putting a card ontop and not shuffling does not equate to cheating though. It is only cheating if you know what that card is (which the videos do not prove).
I still think this is all a major With-Hunt. There is not a single video evidence where you can say 100% Jared knew what the top card of the library was.
It happens in game 3. He tracked summoning sickness before. In the end he goes off with Elves but he obviously knows he does not have lethal on board which is why he tries his hardest to keep going but he fizzled and he knew it. Then he tricks himself to winning the game by asking his probably "in aw" puzzled opponent if his summoning sick visionary could attack (which he could not and Sam obviously knew!) and wins.
funny how that was probably never investigated or anything even the commentators seemed aware
I think the truth is that wotc want their game/organized play to have "something extra" in the game, kind of like the romance of the old west or the fancyness of Las Vegas.
Rosewater once wanted one of the worst cheaters of the game (Mark Justice) to be let into Hall Of Fame, which really says enough.
Putting a card ontop and not shuffling does not equate to cheating though. It is only cheating if you know what that card is (which the videos do not prove).
I still think this is all a major With-Hunt. There is not a single video evidence where you can say 100% Jared knew what the top card of the library was. [/quote]
But why would anyone do this? The implication alone is motive enough to NOT put a bottom card on top and then keep it there, as the bottom card is typically the most visible to the shuffler. And then to only do it for shuffling your opponent's deck? It may not be proof, but it is still damning, and leads us to where we are now. Only Jared can answer why he shuffles this way.
Putting a card ontop and not shuffling does not equate to cheating though. It is only cheating if you know what that card is (which the videos do not prove).
I still think this is all a major With-Hunt. There is not a single video evidence where you can say 100% Jared knew what the top card of the library was.
Superstition? I honestly would think Jared's shuffling technique would be more damning if he didn't do that move every single time.
Since he does, you could easily argue that's simply how he shuffles.
By the way: I agree he should probably be looked into. I'm not saying bringing the Shady-Shuffling to DCI's attention is a "witch hunt". What is the Witch Hunt; however, is everyone calling for his immediate banning despite the fact that there is "smoking gun" evidence of him cheating.
Even if the DCI finds him not guilty, his reputation is ruined. And that is the "witch-hunt" I speak of.
When I search through my deck when side boarding, I will move cards around if there are lots of land in a row or if there are two of a specific card in a row. I just break them up by sticking one or two cards in a different spot in the deck. I'm wondering now whether some would consider this wrong.
When I "pile shuffle", I do not always deal cards into the piles in the the same order every time through, so if I use 6 piles, I put cards in piles 123456 one time through,then 124536 the next time, and 653421 the next time through, etc. I'm sure I have some pattern to this, but it is quite different from 123456, 123456, 123456, etc. Some here don't seem to consider a "pile shuffle" a real shuffle. Would you consider it a shuffle if the order of cards into stacks is somewhat randomized?
I have in mind that "pile shuffles" help break up groups of lands/creatures that often appear after a game is played because of how played cards are collected from the table after a game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
When I search through my deck when side boarding, I will move cards around if there are lots of land in a row or if there are two of a specific card in a row. I just break them up by sticking one or two cards in a different spot in the deck. I'm wondering now whether some would consider this wrong.
This is a good question. Similarly, when I pick up my cards from the table, I typically grab the non-land in one pile, and the land in another pile, and do a quick "mash" of the two, and then mash that into the deck. Of course, I shuffle for a minute or so afterward. I actually never do the pile shuffle thing only because it seems too tedious.
When I search through my deck when side boarding, I will move cards around if there are lots of land in a row or if there are two of a specific card in a row. I just break them up by sticking one or two cards in a different spot in the deck. I'm wondering now whether some would consider this wrong.
When I "pile shuffle", I do not always deal cards into the piles in the the same order every time through, so if I use 6 piles, I put cards in piles 123456 one time through,then 124536 the next time, and 653421 the next time through, etc. I'm sure I have some pattern to this, but it is quite different from 123456, 123456, 123456, etc. Some here don't seem to consider a "pile shuffle" a real shuffle. Would you consider it a shuffle if the order of cards into stacks is somewhat randomized?
I have in mind that "pile shuffles" help break up groups of lands/creatures that often appear after a game is played because of how played cards are collected from the table after a game.
You should be shuffling well enough that the way the cards are collected from the table is irrelevant. If your chosen method of shuffling (pile shuffling or anything else) has any affect on the outcome of your deck afterwards, then it wasn't random enough.
If your deck is "more evenly distributed" after pile shuffling than it would be with a completely random shuffle, then you're stacking your deck. If pile shuffling had no effect on the final outcome because you shuffled enough afterwards, then there was no reason to pile shuffle in the first place.
I don't think they deserve praise. They didn't do a good job. They failed to protect the integrity of their tournaments for an extended period of time, allowing this guy to walk away with significant Ill-Gotten Gains. They never caught him; that was done by people independent of WotC.
All they did was actually ban the guy after overwhelming evidence was gathered by third parties.
I shudder to think about how many cheaters there are out there who have the good sense not to cheat while on camera. When they start actively going after these people and catching them, then they will begin to deserve our praise.
I don't think they deserve praise. They didn't do a good job. They failed to protect the integrity of their tournaments for an extended period of time, allowing this guy to walk away with significant Ill-Gotten Gains. They never caught him; that was done by people independent of WotC.
All they did was actually ban the guy after overwhelming evidence was gathered by third parties.
I shudder to think about how many cheaters there are out there who have the good sense not to cheat while on camera. When they start actively going after these people and catching them, then they will begin to deserve our praise.
I think that's an extremely difficult thing to do.
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
I don't think they deserve praise. They didn't do a good job. They failed to protect the integrity of their tournaments for an extended period of time, allowing this guy to walk away with significant Ill-Gotten Gains. They never caught him; that was done by people independent of WotC.
All they did was actually ban the guy after overwhelming evidence was gathered by third parties.
I shudder to think about how many cheaters there are out there who have the good sense not to cheat while on camera. When they start actively going after these people and catching them, then they will begin to deserve our praise.
Agree.
Tbf, what they did just now is good, its what they didn't do earlier that isn't good.
I don't think they deserve praise. They didn't do a good job. They failed to protect the integrity of their tournaments for an extended period of time, allowing this guy to walk away with significant Ill-Gotten Gains. They never caught him; that was done by people independent of WotC.
All they did was actually ban the guy after overwhelming evidence was gathered by third parties.
I shudder to think about how many cheaters there are out there who have the good sense not to cheat while on camera. When they start actively going after these people and catching them, then they will begin to deserve our praise.
1) I certainly agree that more should be done to catch cheaters.
2) I very much disagree that saying "good job" for how the handled this situation isn't appropriate.
I'm not sure how you guys envision WotC HQ operating, but they aren't ESPN. They don't have an army of paid/unpaid interns assigned to view and review every minute of every video shot of every tournament. They also probably don't have the ability to detect a "disturbance in the force" when someone cheats at a tournament, but I admit that's pure speculation on my part.
People had concerns, they brought their concerns to WotC's attention, WotC investigated, WotC concluded cheating occurred, WotC issued 3 and 4 year bans. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
2) I very much disagree that saying "good job" for how the handled this situation isn't appropriate.
Analogy time. A criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes. This goes on for over a year and the police are unable to catch him. Finally, an private citizen publishes multiple videos of the person committing the crimes. After several days of deliberation, the police send an officer to his house to arrest him.
Do you tell the police "good job"? I don't think so. Sure, their actions at the very end were proper. But that doesn't change the fact that they completely failed to do their job in the case.
I'm not sure how you guys envision WotC HQ operating, but they aren't ESPN. They don't have an army of paid/unpaid interns assigned to view and review every minute of every video shot of every tournament. They also probably don't have the ability to detect a "disturbance in the force" when someone cheats at a tournament, but I admit that's pure speculation on my part.
People had concerns, they brought their concerns to WotC's attention, WotC investigated, WotC concluded cheating occurred, WotC issued 3 and 4 year bans. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
The system worked as it was designed to. The design of the system is the problem. It takes a very passive approach to detecting cheating. This means that cheaters who are smart are very unlikely to get caught. Even those who aren't careful enough to not cheat on camera (like this guy) are able to cheat for a very long time (and profit from it) before they get caught.
Until they change the system to take a more active approach to stopping cheaters, they will continue to fail in their responsibility to protect the integrity of their tournaments.
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
Analogy time. A criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes. This goes on for over a year and the police are unable to catch him. Finally, an private citizen publishes multiple videos of the person committing the crimes. After several days of deliberation, the police send an officer to his house to arrest him.
Do you tell the police "good job"? I don't think so. Sure, their actions at the very end were proper. But that doesn't change the fact that they completely failed to do their job in the case.
In your analogy, when you say the criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes, are you stating this as an omniscient narrator? Or are you also suggesting that the police were aware that crimes had been committed but did nothing to investigate them? If it's the latter, your analogy doesn't hold, because no one had any reason to suspect anything shady was going on until someone came forward with either: a. a personal anecdote suggesting foul play, or b. someone happening to notice something fishy in the video. Once someone said, "Hey, maybe a cheat/crime has been committed," it would be fair to take WotC to task if they still sat around and did nothing.
As it stands, yelling at WotC for not investigating cheats they had no reason to believe existed is like yelling at the police for not conducting random dead body searches of houses.
The first step is to recognize that the person in the absolute worst position to detect Sleight of Hand is the intended target. So you can't rely on the cheater's opponents to detect the cheating.
So we need more eyes actively looking for cheaters. One option is to have additional specially-trained judges roaming around specifically looking for cheating. The second option is to expand the use of cameras. You don't need every table covered, but at least enough that in the later rounds everyone in contention is covered. We know that people are willing to trawl through hours of footage looking for cheaters, so take advantage of that.
I realize that this costs money and will lead to an increase in entry fees. That's unfortunate, but I think people are willing to pay a bit more for a fair tournament.
Additionally, some rules changes might help. There used to be a rule which allowed you to cut your deck once after your opponent shuffled. That could have prevented the latest rounds of cheating.
In your analogy, when you say the criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes, are you stating this as an omniscient narrator? Or are you also suggesting that the police were aware that crimes had been committed but did nothing to investigate them? If it's the latter, your analogy doesn't hold, because no one had any reason to suspect anything shady was going on until someone came forward with either: a. a personal anecdote suggesting foul play, or b. someone happening to notice something fishy in the video. Once someone said, "Hey, maybe a cheat/crime has been committed," it would be fair to take WotC to task if they still sat around and did nothing.
As it stands, yelling at WotC for not investigating cheats they had no reason to believe existed is like yelling at the police for not conducting random dead body searches of houses.
The former. I'd say it's like yelling at the police for just sitting in the police station rather than going on patrol.
2) I very much disagree that saying "good job" for how the handled this situation isn't appropriate.
Analogy time. A criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes. This goes on for over a year and the police are unable to catch him. Finally, an private citizen publishes multiple videos of the person committing the crimes. After several days of deliberation, the police send an officer to his house to arrest him.
Do you tell the police "good job"? I don't think so. Sure, their actions at the very end were proper. But that doesn't change the fact that they completely failed to do their job in the case.
I'm not sure how you guys envision WotC HQ operating, but they aren't ESPN. They don't have an army of paid/unpaid interns assigned to view and review every minute of every video shot of every tournament. They also probably don't have the ability to detect a "disturbance in the force" when someone cheats at a tournament, but I admit that's pure speculation on my part.
People had concerns, they brought their concerns to WotC's attention, WotC investigated, WotC concluded cheating occurred, WotC issued 3 and 4 year bans. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
The system worked as it was designed to. The design of the system is the problem. It takes a very passive approach to detecting cheating. This means that cheaters who are smart are very unlikely to get caught. Even those who aren't careful enough to not cheat on camera (like this guy) are able to cheat for a very long time (and profit from it) before they get caught.
Until they change the system to take a more active approach to stopping cheaters, they will continue to fail in their responsibility to protect the integrity of their tournaments.
Here's the problem with your analogy. These crimes don't leave evidence. There have to be victims who know they are victims. If your real life villain was robbing abandoned homes, I wouldn't be surprised if the police only found out after someone caught it on video.
If you've read enough things about mentalities of cheaters and the like, you'll have seen that countless times the person who is cheated sticks up for the cheater, saying that he wasn't doing anything suspect, etc. There's no problem with the Wizards system. There's a problem with people not recognizing and reporting cheating. The player to judge ratio is sort of a necessary evil. If your opponent repeatedly commits rule violations and you don't notice or do anything about it, nothing will happen to that person.
The DCI already does random deck checks, pool registering, and all of the things they can like that to reduce cheating in those ways. They aren't going to put a camera on every table and go through them later to see if there are suspect shufflers and it's ridiculous to say that they are at fault for not providing that much equipment. Some of this is even a function of the fact that a lot of these tournaments aren't RUN by Wizards.
Here's the problem with your analogy. These crimes don't leave evidence. There have to be victims who know they are victims. If your real life villain was robbing abandoned homes, I wouldn't be surprised if the police only found out after someone caught it on video.
Even if the villain was just robbing abandoned houses, the police could send officers to patrol around abandoned houses to try to catch the person.
Cheating isn't new. WotC has known that cheating is happening, but they haven't taken any steps to actively prevent it.
If you've read enough things about mentalities of cheaters and the like, you'll have seen that countless times the person who is cheated sticks up for the cheater, saying that he wasn't doing anything suspect, etc. There's no problem with the Wizards system. There's a problem with people not recognizing and reporting cheating. The player to judge ratio is sort of a necessary evil. If your opponent repeatedly commits rule violations and you don't notice or do anything about it, nothing will happen to that person.
But that is exactly the problem with the Wizards system! They're relying on the worst possible person (the victim) to detect cheating.
And even when the opponent does notice (as sometimes happens with these cheaters) and calls a judge, usually the cheater gets away with a warning at most. A good cheater makes sure to have plausible deniability.
The important part is if you change behaviour out of fear or simply as someone told you what you didnt know.
Ofcourse if you cheated and you change your behaviour to avoid that cheat, then you are not cheating anymore (or at least in a different way).
If you just had this bad habbit for shuffling and you now see it is potential suspucious, its a good thing to change.
So changing by itself isnt bad or good, it just shows that you actual know about it now.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Actually refusing to change your shuffling technique would be a larger red flag to me.
I think that's one of the things that lead to Trevor's lengthy ban. I heard rumors that he had an opponent that asked him to shuffle differently, and he refused.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Putting a card ontop and not shuffling does not equate to cheating though. It is only cheating if you know what that card is (which the videos do not prove).
I still think this is all a major With-Hunt. There is not a single video evidence where you can say 100% Jared knew what the top card of the library was.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Rosewater once wanted one of the worst cheaters of the game (Mark Justice) to be let into Hall Of Fame, which really says enough.
Putting a card ontop and not shuffling does not equate to cheating though. It is only cheating if you know what that card is (which the videos do not prove).
I still think this is all a major With-Hunt. There is not a single video evidence where you can say 100% Jared knew what the top card of the library was. [/quote]
But why would anyone do this? The implication alone is motive enough to NOT put a bottom card on top and then keep it there, as the bottom card is typically the most visible to the shuffler. And then to only do it for shuffling your opponent's deck? It may not be proof, but it is still damning, and leads us to where we are now. Only Jared can answer why he shuffles this way.
Superstition? I honestly would think Jared's shuffling technique would be more damning if he didn't do that move every single time.
Since he does, you could easily argue that's simply how he shuffles.
By the way: I agree he should probably be looked into. I'm not saying bringing the Shady-Shuffling to DCI's attention is a "witch hunt". What is the Witch Hunt; however, is everyone calling for his immediate banning despite the fact that there is "smoking gun" evidence of him cheating.
Even if the DCI finds him not guilty, his reputation is ruined. And that is the "witch-hunt" I speak of.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
When I "pile shuffle", I do not always deal cards into the piles in the the same order every time through, so if I use 6 piles, I put cards in piles 123456 one time through,then 124536 the next time, and 653421 the next time through, etc. I'm sure I have some pattern to this, but it is quite different from 123456, 123456, 123456, etc. Some here don't seem to consider a "pile shuffle" a real shuffle. Would you consider it a shuffle if the order of cards into stacks is somewhat randomized?
I have in mind that "pile shuffles" help break up groups of lands/creatures that often appear after a game is played because of how played cards are collected from the table after a game.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/2013-2014-rookie-year-title-revoked-2014-10-30
Obvious deck manipulation.
His results are tainted even if he was a good player.
This is a good question. Similarly, when I pick up my cards from the table, I typically grab the non-land in one pile, and the land in another pile, and do a quick "mash" of the two, and then mash that into the deck. Of course, I shuffle for a minute or so afterward. I actually never do the pile shuffle thing only because it seems too tedious.
You should be shuffling well enough that the way the cards are collected from the table is irrelevant. If your chosen method of shuffling (pile shuffling or anything else) has any affect on the outcome of your deck afterwards, then it wasn't random enough.
If your deck is "more evenly distributed" after pile shuffling than it would be with a completely random shuffle, then you're stacking your deck. If pile shuffling had no effect on the final outcome because you shuffled enough afterwards, then there was no reason to pile shuffle in the first place.
I don't think they deserve praise. They didn't do a good job. They failed to protect the integrity of their tournaments for an extended period of time, allowing this guy to walk away with significant Ill-Gotten Gains. They never caught him; that was done by people independent of WotC.
All they did was actually ban the guy after overwhelming evidence was gathered by third parties.
I shudder to think about how many cheaters there are out there who have the good sense not to cheat while on camera. When they start actively going after these people and catching them, then they will begin to deserve our praise.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I think that's an extremely difficult thing to do.
Not sure if this has been linked here but everybody should listen to it: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/29619_CEDTalks-Patrick-Sullivan.html
Patrick Sullivan is ON POINT.
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
Tbf, what they did just now is good, its what they didn't do earlier that isn't good.
The crowds have learnt that witch hunt is good.
WotC probably has learnt nothing.
1) I certainly agree that more should be done to catch cheaters.
2) I very much disagree that saying "good job" for how the handled this situation isn't appropriate.
People had concerns, they brought their concerns to WotC's attention, WotC investigated, WotC concluded cheating occurred, WotC issued 3 and 4 year bans. The system worked exactly as it was designed to.
Analogy time. A criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes. This goes on for over a year and the police are unable to catch him. Finally, an private citizen publishes multiple videos of the person committing the crimes. After several days of deliberation, the police send an officer to his house to arrest him.
Do you tell the police "good job"? I don't think so. Sure, their actions at the very end were proper. But that doesn't change the fact that they completely failed to do their job in the case.
The system worked as it was designed to. The design of the system is the problem. It takes a very passive approach to detecting cheating. This means that cheaters who are smart are very unlikely to get caught. Even those who aren't careful enough to not cheat on camera (like this guy) are able to cheat for a very long time (and profit from it) before they get caught.
Until they change the system to take a more active approach to stopping cheaters, they will continue to fail in their responsibility to protect the integrity of their tournaments.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
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
In your analogy, when you say the criminal goes on a crime spree, periodically committing various crimes, are you stating this as an omniscient narrator? Or are you also suggesting that the police were aware that crimes had been committed but did nothing to investigate them? If it's the latter, your analogy doesn't hold, because no one had any reason to suspect anything shady was going on until someone came forward with either: a. a personal anecdote suggesting foul play, or b. someone happening to notice something fishy in the video. Once someone said, "Hey, maybe a cheat/crime has been committed," it would be fair to take WotC to task if they still sat around and did nothing.
As it stands, yelling at WotC for not investigating cheats they had no reason to believe existed is like yelling at the police for not conducting random dead body searches of houses.
The first step is to recognize that the person in the absolute worst position to detect Sleight of Hand is the intended target. So you can't rely on the cheater's opponents to detect the cheating.
So we need more eyes actively looking for cheaters. One option is to have additional specially-trained judges roaming around specifically looking for cheating. The second option is to expand the use of cameras. You don't need every table covered, but at least enough that in the later rounds everyone in contention is covered. We know that people are willing to trawl through hours of footage looking for cheaters, so take advantage of that.
I realize that this costs money and will lead to an increase in entry fees. That's unfortunate, but I think people are willing to pay a bit more for a fair tournament.
Additionally, some rules changes might help. There used to be a rule which allowed you to cut your deck once after your opponent shuffled. That could have prevented the latest rounds of cheating.
The former. I'd say it's like yelling at the police for just sitting in the police station rather than going on patrol.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Here's the problem with your analogy. These crimes don't leave evidence. There have to be victims who know they are victims. If your real life villain was robbing abandoned homes, I wouldn't be surprised if the police only found out after someone caught it on video.
If you've read enough things about mentalities of cheaters and the like, you'll have seen that countless times the person who is cheated sticks up for the cheater, saying that he wasn't doing anything suspect, etc. There's no problem with the Wizards system. There's a problem with people not recognizing and reporting cheating. The player to judge ratio is sort of a necessary evil. If your opponent repeatedly commits rule violations and you don't notice or do anything about it, nothing will happen to that person.
The DCI already does random deck checks, pool registering, and all of the things they can like that to reduce cheating in those ways. They aren't going to put a camera on every table and go through them later to see if there are suspect shufflers and it's ridiculous to say that they are at fault for not providing that much equipment. Some of this is even a function of the fact that a lot of these tournaments aren't RUN by Wizards.
Even if the villain was just robbing abandoned houses, the police could send officers to patrol around abandoned houses to try to catch the person.
Cheating isn't new. WotC has known that cheating is happening, but they haven't taken any steps to actively prevent it.
But that is exactly the problem with the Wizards system! They're relying on the worst possible person (the victim) to detect cheating.
And even when the opponent does notice (as sometimes happens with these cheaters) and calls a judge, usually the cheater gets away with a warning at most. A good cheater makes sure to have plausible deniability.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)