Generally speaking, most infractions that occur at that moment in time only impact that one single game. That's the baseline that the MIPG presumes, and is reasonable in the general sense of why X penalty applies to Y infraction.
I agree that this is generally the case. However, it is not always the case (such as with the current example) and the IPG should provide guidance as to what to do in these situations.
Yes, this situation is more significant in the fact that a player has 6 copies of the card in his deck rather than 4. And certainly, there is a mathmatical argument that this influenced how often he drew the card during the day. But, to actually determine the extent of the advantage? That's a purely qualitative argument at this point; there's no way one could put that into quantitative terms, given how much each game differs once you involve the other player, and any number of situations that develop.
If this issue had only affected a single game (suppose this had happened r1g1), the penalty is the same (game loss) whether any actual advantage was gained or not.
So apply this standard to every game in which the player had 6 copies of the card and give him a game loss for each. It makes no sense for the player to get away with absolutely no penalty for each game in which he had an illegal deck rounds 1 to 5 just because it wasn't caught at the time.
If you can't retroactively give that many game losses, a DQ seems a reasonable substitute.
Even those where the mistake results in the opponent gaining an advantage? Again, is that the system you want? Or, is it okay to penalize the player less harshly when their mistake results in them being at a disadvantage? Or not penalized at all in such situations?
Sorry, I wasn't precise. I meant that any penalty given, as an absolute minimum, needs to erase the unfair advantage gained by the rules violation by the player who committed the rules violation.
In general, penalties need to do 2 things:
1. Erase the unfair advantage gained by the one who broke the rules.
2. Punish the guilty player to dissuade them from breaking the rules again.
The first needs to depend on the actual advantage gained, while the second does not. This is the same reason we have separate compensatory and punitive damages in the justice system.
I see zero evidence against him (when it comes intent, aka what makes cheating cheating in mtg)
The evidence being that he played multiple rounds without noticing, only calling a judge when he knew his sly attempt to cheat was revealed to his opponent, then played with unmarked checklist cards and got caught too.
Intent can be assumed when so many blatant mistakes are made, it's called circumstantial evidence.
The DCI should probably make public the findings of the judges in order to squelch the popular concern, because right now this is blowing up on Twitter as well and the DCI is about to have a ****storm on its hands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
Just to agree with Valarin on one point: Being lenient on people who break rules by accident is a poor enforcement policy. Anything that one person can get away with doing accidentally, someone else can get away with doing on purpose.
Intent should have much less influence on Magic's rules enforcement at competitive+ REL than it evidently does.
Of course it is convenient. That is a further reason to trust that the head judge did his job, because this is so obvious that if he hadn't, his own reputation and credit would be on the line!
This thread is nothing but an insult to the judges that give so much to make this game awesome, and a display of how much our community has fallen!
Right now, this should be locked, and at the very least a lot of people need to consider what magic and the whole of the judging guidelines and ideals stand for, and what magic would be had they been different!
That's not what I'm reading... I'm seeing many like myself who are flabbergasted that you can play more than 4 of a card (especially the BEST card in your deck) @ a PTQ and NOT be DQed...
If anything this thread should serve as a launching pad to the petition the IMMEDIATE change to a seemingly absurd punishment by "common sense" standards.
This is our game and we should be able to speak our mind.
It's an instant speed 5/5 trampler for 4. Wtf do you people want seriously? It has applications in populate/ above the curve beats decks, or in Bant control/ flash. I seriously think anyone mad at this card for any reason other than losing an attacker to instant speed wurm, should go home and make their own awesome card game and leave the rest of us alone.
The evidence being that he played multiple rounds without noticing, only calling a judge when he knew his sly attempt to cheat was revealed to his opponent, then played with unmarked checklist cards and got caught too.
Intent can be assumed when so many blatant mistakes are made, it's called circumstantial evidence.
The DCI should probably make public the findings of the judges in order to squelch the popular concern, because right now this is blowing up on Twitter as well and the DCI is about to have a ****storm on its hands.
Where in those rounds would he notice he even had 5 of them in the deck, as previously stated one doesn't count the amount of a card you never sideboard out during sideboarding, and unless you see 5 of them you just think you are very lucky (magic games are very much part luck). unmarked checklist goes more to show he didn't even look at his deck and unless he had other of the DFC on him that weren't the ones he was using it gives him zero advantage and thus has no reason to do it on purpose (besides maybe wanting to use them for something else later).
The evidence being that he played multiple rounds without noticing, only calling a judge when he knew his sly attempt to cheat was revealed to his opponent, then played with unmarked checklist cards and got caught too.
You know, that brings up another curious point.
When the judges deckchecked him when the fifth Archdruid was discovered, why didn't they notice the unmarked checklist cards?
That judges here would rather dismiss players' concerns and repeat the rules as they exist, rather than consider that the rules might need changing, doesn't inspire confidence. Most posts by judges in this thread have seemed to imply that if Victor's rule breaking was a genuine accident then his PTQ win should stand, and I can't take that position seriously.
Actually, I am very interested in hearing player's concerns. However, that doesn't mean I immediately entertain every single one of them. Especially not when I balance out the perspectives of players on "both sides" of this situation. As well as those who aren't even aware this happened.
The player-judge relationship, and the policies that influence that, are very important to the general event experience. Both to ensure that judges can handle mistakes in an appropriate fashion, but also to ensure that players can trust us to handle such situations. Which is why this kind of situation is that frustrating and worrisome. Because, on the surface, it shows that somehow we're NOT doing our jobs.
I don't know about you, but I always get terribly concerned when that opinion exists. But, I also get terribly concerned at ensuring that the opinion is reasonable in the first place and a result of actual factual evidence that somehow something went terribly wrong. As opposed to a situation where accidents happened, and now it's being blown out of proportion. And I've sent plenty of those happen as well, where the rush to judgment resulted in not having the perspective.
If there's a need for a rule change or how policy handles such situations, then it will likely be discussed. Which actually happens with a lot of regularity; whether it happens at a GP or a PTQ. These kind of things do get passed up to the Level 4 and 5 judges who discuss these situations, especially if something gets passed through to WotC. Because that player feedback is very important to the organized play program.
In fact, the most important thing to say to anyone who was a player in that PTQ, is to give your feedback to WotC. Go through their WPN customer support and relay your concerns.
But, keep in mind that any change has to be thoroughly vetted, both pros and cons. And if anyone who paid attention to the MT policy changes over the last year, you should understand how important it is to get the policy right, but also how difficult it is to get the policy right for actual implementation.
I agree that this is generally the case. However, it is not always the case (such as with the current example) and the IPG should provide guidance as to what to do in these situations.
That's also discussed in section 1 of the MIPG...
The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance. Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc. The Rules Enforcement Level, round of the tournament, age or experience-level of the player, desire to educate the player, and certification level of the judge are NOT exceptional circumstances.
...having a player play with an illegal deck for multiple rounds isn't that significant or exceptional. And while it is an unfortunate circumstance, the policy does already consider the possibility.
If you disagree with that, and have a specific suggestion as to how policy could address that, then you should probably consider submitting feedback through WPN customer service. Just keep in mind, there are going to be pros and cons to such a system, and it may not have the effect you think it will have in actual implementation.
If this issue had only affected a single game (suppose this had happened r1g1), the penalty is the same (game loss) whether any actual advantage was gained or not.
So apply this standard to every game in which the player had 6 copies of the card and give him a game loss for each. It makes no sense for the player to get away with absolutely no penalty for each game in which he had an illegal deck rounds 1 to 5 just because it wasn't caught at the time.
If you can't retroactively give that many game losses, a DQ seems a reasonable substitute.
Let's entertain that thought for a moment, and apply it to something a little more innocuous. Let's say that you miss a trigger early in the event, say a Dark Confidant trigger, in game 3 and that you should have lost the game rather than win it. As a result of that win, you end up in the 2-0 bracket rather than the 1-1 bracket. And you proceed to win the PTQ.
What was the effect of that singular mistake? Did it affect that game only? Or did the benefit you experience actually go further than that? Should you be assessed a disqualification because of a mistake that is detected so much later, even when you perhaps made no other mistake for the rest of the day?
Because, that seems to be the system that people are suggesting. And I don't think you'd really like that system. Especially when people can review video from events and perhaps catch those very things.
Sorry, I wasn't precise. I meant that any penalty given, as an absolute minimum, needs to erase the unfair advantage gained by the rules violation by the player who committed the rules violation.
In general, penalties need to do 2 things:
1. Erase the unfair advantage gained by the one who broke the rules.
2. Punish the guilty player to dissuade them from breaking the rules again.
The first needs to depend on the actual advantage gained, while the second does not. This is the same reason we have separate compensatory and punitive damages in the justice system.
Well, then that still raises the question, what about errors where the player is disadvantaged and the opponent advantaged? Is there no penalty there? Is the opponent's gain "penalty enough"?
Which raises another question, what kind of behavior might this incentivize on the part of the opponent? Ignore any error unless the player is gaining an advantage? Wouldn't that be a form of cheating itself?
This is the strangest thing. I was literally at 3rd Coast Cards at the time Victor was making his purchase. I had bought a few cards for my fun little FNM deck, when he walked in with who I assume was his GF. I figured out this was the guy being discussed because the deck, his sleeves used, and his description matches who I saw.
He was looking up his list and entering it onto the form that 3CC requires you to fill out. There could have easily been a mistake made there, or as some have metnioned, by the clerk.
I remember him getting his cards and sleeves from the clerk, and then proceeded to sleeve up the cards. He asked if I had a standard deck, and I told him that I needed to sleeve mine up and I'd be ready. What I don't remember during this time, is him checking to see if he received the proper number of cards, since we were talking the entire time he was sleeving. After he sleeved, he went looking for a playmat, couldn't find one, and then proceeded to shuffle. I don't think he put 6 archdruids in there on purpose, and I can attest to him being rusty when he played. He even mentioned just getting back into it. He took 2 of 3 games when we playtested, and I do remember multiple druids on the games he won, but thought nothing of it. We also never sideboarded.
Basically, it is an error that could have been easily prevented. He may have looked through his deck more thouroughly if there was not someone there to immediately playtest, but since he did well against me, he probably just kept it shuffled the way it was and assumed it was good to go. That being said, even though I believe it was unintentional, it creates an unfair advantage for him, and he should not have been allowed to win the PTQ.
lets just say i'm glad you're not a judge where i am. you're attitude is poor, and it seems to me you've gotten fat and happy with your judge promos and boxes, and don't seem to care.:o
Ask any judge how many magic players make stupid mistakes. The answer will no doubt surprise you.
The surprising part is the level of handwaving done using the "stupid mistake" excuse. It's shocking. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to rob a vendor at gunpoint and a judge said it was just an honest mistake since the guy could have been reaching for a stick of chewing gum and offering it to the vendor and tripped and stuck his hand on the cash register to catch himself. Hey, everyone trips sometimes, right?
"It was an honest mistake" should never be allowed as input into breaking the rules at Comp REL events. If you are still making honest mistakes, that's what FNM's are for.
The level of apologism that goes on simply invites cheaters and shenanigans to these kinds of events. It's practically foolhardy NOT to try and get away with something. The longer the rules allow a player to gain a massive advantage with minimal risk, the more playing by the rules is going to increasingly become a liability
Due to how there are different versions on what the person claims happened, I wouldn't be sure of any assumptions, one parts talks about missing cards from a friend which is almost 100% unbelievable, and the other talks about getting the wrong cards from a store or something. Due to how the 1st one is presented it could be reasonable to conclude bis-ism at least a little, or misinformation thru source changing. I do not agree with everyone concluding everything here as absolute fact when you can't really see sources that show exactly what is said to happened (I am not arguing his illegal deck, but happened at the time it was realized to be illegal.
We can only debate on the assertions made in this thread, everybody knows this so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.
The one thing that is not in question: he had six copies of a powerful card in his deck. Unless they were covertly placed in his after deck registration and the players meeting then, then the responsibility was his, and not performing such a basic task as verifying your deck (as instructed to during the players meeting) is so negligent that it is as bad as intentional cheating.
That's not actually how it works. In a situation such as mentioned by the OP (presuming we're getting an accurate report from the OP), a judge can and should consider the circumstances as part of the investigation process to actually arrive at the determination of what infraction has occured here. A judge doesn't have to ignore this at all.
Because the question really is just about the infraction that was committed. And if a judge has to decide between "accidental" or "intentional", considering whether this is a Deck/Decklist Problem or Cheating, then the nature of the error is going to play a significant part of that investigation. Whomever handles such a situation really will consider that as part of the process.
I was under the impression that Judges were not to consider whether something was beneficial or not, because as our knowledge of Magic currently stands there's no way to prove whether something is in fact beneficial or not (e.g. mindslaver can negate any strictly better argument, is a missed bob trigger beneficial or not).
If this is incorrect, then I retract my statement regarding judges forced to ignore their knowledge of the game, but instead ask, how could the head judge not see the advantage gained by including these cards in the deck and interpret that as cheating?
The other thing to consider why the penalties aren't harsher than they are, is because we do want players to call judges when possible. Why? Because sometimes we do find those innocuous errors that really are signals of more problematic behavior. And we do want to separate the honest mistakes from the intentional ones. If we issued a Game Loss for every problem, then players would likely call judges a lot less. (Plus, a Game Loss for every problem also makes it easier for players to get wins from accidents, and there's even incentive to sit on problems to ensure that "free win".) And, if we went even further?
I understand that this kind of situation gets people upset. It certainly gets me upset to see not only a bad experience by the OP or the other players from the event, as well as to see the reaction from the community. Because this kind of situation does put a bad mark on an otherwise reasonable approach to the player-judge relationship, and how we try to make policy reasonable. Because judges really do want to separate and handle the accidents separately from the intentional situations. We want the play experience as good as possible at EVERY event.
But, escalating penalties will not accomplish that. That system will not accomplish what people really want. Because it would make for a more exhausting play experience, let alone one that would discourage play as a general rule.
I'm not suggesting that game losses should be given out for minor infractions, but the current penalties appear to be too lenient to discourage cheating.
While removing benefit of the doubt would reduce (probably) the amount of planned cheating that occurs, it would definitely cause a very large increase in cheats of opportunity. Let's take the following situation:
Player A is playing at a PTQ and when de-sideboarding, misses a card. He and his opponent shuffle the deck, then he draws his hand of seven cards and sees that a sideboard card was left in his deck. Under the current rules, he is incentivized to call a judge as soon as he sees it, because the Game Loss penalty will most likely be downgraded (in accordance with the IPG) to a Warning, fix it, and forced mulligan.
Under an IPG where there is no benefit of the doubt, this player would receive a game loss no matter the circumstances. Since there is no incentive for him to call the penalty on himself, he keeps quiet, thus committing a cheat of opportunity.
I've been a judge for a long time, and a competitive player for even longer. I remember the times when players were "allowed one free cheat", and the times when tapping land for mana before announcing spells led to penalties (a player got DQ'ed from the finals of a PT for repeated instances of this). The current IPG is a vast upgrade to either of those two days of a bygone era.
I very much doubt failing to de-sideboard at competitive rel would be downgraded. You're getting a gameloss even if you call it on yourself, the supposed more strict penalty is that if you don't call it and it is discovered later that you noticed the discrepancy (and that this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law or something) and didn't call a judge (and make a statement to the effect that you didn't call the judge on purpose because you were cheating) then this can be upgraded to cheating, otherwise the benefit of the doubt will be given and you'll get your game loss same as if you had called the judge immediately.
The surprising part is the level of handwaving done using the "stupid mistake" excuse. It's shocking. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to rob a vendor at gunpoint and a judge said it was just an honest mistake since the guy could have been reaching for a stick of chewing gum and offering it to the vendor and tripped and stuck his hand on the cash register to catch himself. Hey, everyone trips sometimes, right?
"It was an honest mistake" should never be allowed as input into breaking the rules at Comp REL events. If you are still making honest mistakes, that's what FNM's are for.
The level of apologism that goes on simply invites cheaters and shenanigans to these kinds of events. It's practically foolhardy NOT to try and get away with something. The longer the rules allow a player to gain a massive advantage with minimal risk, the more playing by the rules is going to increasingly become a liability
DING DING DING DING!
WE HAVE A WINNER
maybe the rest of us competitive types will just have to start doing this to affect change, b/c apparently some people dont give a **** if you cheat
The surprising part is the level of handwaving done using the "stupid mistake" excuse. It's shocking. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to rob a vendor at gunpoint and a judge said it was just an honest mistake since the guy could have been reaching for a stick of chewing gum and offering it to the vendor and tripped and stuck his hand on the cash register to catch himself. Hey, everyone trips sometimes, right?
"It was an honest mistake" should never be allowed as input into breaking the rules at Comp REL events. If you are still making honest mistakes, that's what FNM's are for.
The level of apologism that goes on simply invites cheaters and shenanigans to these kinds of events. It's practically foolhardy NOT to try and get away with something. The longer the rules allow a player to gain a massive advantage with minimal risk, the more playing by the rules is going to increasingly become a liability
Why do you assume judges just accept sorry, no one says that, in any comp tourney the judge is going to ask questions regarding what happened and make sure it was an honest mistake, instead of just being like oh you said that well play on.
"The longer the rules allow a player to gain a massive advantage with minimal risk, the more playing by the rules is going to increasingly become a liability"
That about says it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
Why do you assume judges just accept sorry, no one says that, in any comp tourney the judge is going to ask questions regarding what happened and make sure it was an honest mistake, instead of just being like oh you said that well play on.
I think you're overestimating the ability of Magic judges to tell whether or not someone is telling the truth.
Bluffing is a big part of Magic (and an even bigger part of Poker, which a lot of Magic players play). If you can bluff well to your opponents who's to say you can't lie well to a judge?
The problem with this is the guy played with an unfair advantage through the first 5 rounds of the tournament, and even if it's an accidental unfair advantage, it's still an unfair advantage.
The reason that he doesn't deserve the invite is not because of any malicious intent, but it's simply because if he didn't have that advantage in the beginning of the tournament, than there's a significant chance that he wouldn't have made it as far as he did.
Why do you assume judges just accept sorry, no one says that, in any comp tourney the judge is going to ask questions regarding what happened and make sure it was an honest mistake, instead of just being like oh you said that well play on.
Because accepting "honest mistake" as an excuse for anything is huge flaw in the rules.
I also don't believe that someone in a PTQ could go 10+ games without noticing 6 copies of a card. I also find it far too convenient that the extra card just happened to be the main engine of his deck. I also think it was pretty shady how he used unmarked checklist cards, clear sleeves, tried to get away with not revealing his 5th copy of his card off the Garruk, and how he made multiple illegal blocks with Mutavault.
Even if it is totally innocent (not that I believe that for a second), you think THAT ^^ level of play deserves to be on the Pro Tour? That level of play would probably get you DQ'd from an FNM. Any of those would get you kicked out of a casual game. But at the highest level of Rules Enforcement, you can win an event with it. It's simply appalling.
I was under the impression that Judges were not to consider whether something was beneficial or not, because as our knowledge of Magic currently stands there's no way to prove whether something is in fact beneficial or not (e.g. mindslaver can negate any strictly better argument, is a missed bob trigger beneficial or not).
Well, I think you're looking at the situation a bit differently than I. Because when I speak about investigating a situation, I'm talking about the process of figuring out what happened. That is, did an infraction take place or not? If so, what was the infraction? That part of the process will often consider a lot of things, as it requires judgment to identify the error as being genuinely accidental versus intentional.
That's why judges are judges. Because this piece of the process is one that requires a lot of skill at separating the real problems from the accidents.
However, once I decide upon an infraction, then the MIPG spells out the rest of the process. That is, the application of the penalty and any remedy. That part is a bit more spelled out, as we do have to adhere to certain standard approaches when actually assessing the infraction. But the part that gets us to assess an infraction is a much more open ended process. And one that no judge should ever just apply in a boilerplate fashion.
You may mean a lot more of the second part, than the first part. And that's understandable; very few judges explain why we ask the questions we do, or even what it is we're trying to do. But, the part of the process where we're trying to figure things out? That's where we're trying to find out whether we need to really scrutinize the problem. And if something looks like it could give you a real benefit? Yes, that will merit more questions.
But, once the decision has been made to go with GPE--GRV versus Cheating... Then I can't apply a judgment in terms of "How much benefit?" when it comes to applying a penalty. That's just not something a judge is allowed to do.
If this is incorrect, then I retract my statement regarding judges forced to ignore their knowledge of the game, but instead ask, how could the head judge not see the advantage gained by including these cards in the deck and interpret that as cheating?
I don't know either. But, none of us do, because none of us have actually heard the Head Judge's story. And it's very questionable to apply judgment of someone we've never met as to not having done his or her job in the situation, and understanding how he or she arrived at that judgment.
I'm not suggesting that game losses should be given out for minor infractions, but the current penalties appear to be too lenient to discourage cheating.
But, that raises the question of what penalty is appropriate to "discourage cheating"? And should the system actively try to accomplish that? At what threshold does the system need to address the infraction versus changing behavior?
I don't know that there's an easy answer to that question. But, I do know, that opinions are varied on the subject if my own discussions with other judges and players are evidence of the broader opinions from the community.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]...having a player play with an illegal deck for multiple rounds isn't that significant or exceptional. And while it is an unfortunate circumstance, the policy does already consider the possibility.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]If you disagree with that, and have a specific suggestion as to how policy could address that, then you should probably consider submitting feedback through WPN customer service. Just keep in mind, there are going to be pros and cons to such a system, and it may not have the effect you think it will have in actual implementation.[/SIZE]
I'd say that something like this which causes the integrity of the tournament (and the extension MTG competitive play) reasonably into question counts as significant.
I'm not certain at this point what the best policy for these situations is. What does seems clear at this point is that the current policy (assuming what actually happened represents it, which appears to be the case) fails the basic sanity test.
Let's entertain that thought for a moment, and apply it to something a little more innocuous. Let's say that you miss a trigger early in the event, say a Dark Confidant trigger, in game 3 and that you should have lost the game rather than win it. As a result of that win, you end up in the 2-0 bracket rather than the 1-1 bracket. And you proceed to win the PTQ.
What was the effect of that singular mistake? Did it affect that game only? Or did the benefit you experience actually go further than that? Should you be assessed a disqualification because of a mistake that is detected so much later, even when you perhaps made no other mistake for the rest of the day?
Because, that seems to be the system that people are suggesting. And I don't think you'd really like that system. Especially when people can review video from events and perhaps catch those very things.
I don't get the relevance of this example. I don't have any issue with how the IPG handles violations when the violation only directly affected a single game. My problem is with violations where the scope of the violation extended to multiple rounds.
I'm okay with ignoring indirect effects of violations. I'm not okay with treating "had an illegal deck for 6 rounds" as "had an illegal deck for 1 game".
Well, then that still raises the question, what about errors where the player is disadvantaged and the opponent advantaged? Is there no penalty there? Is the opponent's gain "penalty enough"?
There still needs to be a punitive action, so a penalty is still justified. I'm saying that the penalty must be sufficient on both the punitive and compensatory aspects.
But, that raises the question of what penalty is appropriate to "discourage cheating"? And should the system actively try to accomplish that? At what threshold does the system need to address the infraction versus changing behavior?
Apparently a lower threshold than exists now, given the amount of stories we get around all these "honest mistakes" at high level events. Apparently the 11 year old kids at my FNM play tighter Magic than PTQ winners, if you believe all the "Gosh, sorry, honest mistake!" stuff.
Because accepting "honest mistake" as an excuse for anything is huge flaw in the rules.
I also don't believe that someone in a PTQ could go 10 rounds without noticing 6 copies of a card. I also find it far to convenient that the extra card just happened to be the main engine of his deck. I also think it was pretty shady how he used unmarked checklist cards, clear sleeves, tried to get away with not revealing his 5th copy of his card, and how he made multiple illegal blocks with Mutavault.
Even if it is totally innocent (not that I believe that for a second), you think THAT ^^ level of play deserves to be on the Pro Tour? Any of those would get you kicked out of a casual game. But at the highest level of Rules Enforcement, you can win an event with it. It's simply appalling.
It is easy to forget mutavault can't block noble, as the interaction is new to standard and easy to forget (his opp did it as well so he should be banned from going to ptq), I see nothing that says he didn't want to reveal the 5th copy that I see as a legitimate source (as one source says he called the judge on himself). Clear sleeves are only odd if the cards have marking on them, doesn't make them auto distinguishable for being clear. Unmarked checklist cards isn't shady at all if you only have 1 dfc in your deck, not like your opp can't ask which it is? (It is a general rule for when it could be a prob). The player does not look like a Pro tour level player, but if someone gets lucky they have the right to go to the pro tour. Not dicussing whether or not he cheated cause I wasn't there, only that don't assume things when you don't have the full story.
Lastly your casual games are really competitive if those things are getting you kicked out.
edit: forgot to say that tho they don't mean you are cheating clear sleeves should be avoided if possible due to how easy it is to allow it. But the head judge is the final call on sleeves.
The one thing that is not in question: he had six copies of a powerful card in his deck. Unless they were covertly placed in his after deck registration and the players meeting then, then the responsibility was his, and not performing such a basic task as verifying your deck (as instructed to during the players meeting) is so negligent that it is as bad as intentional cheating.
I think you are missing a very important point here.
It should not be the judges responsibility to make decisions based on the power level of cards. That's an insane level of responsibility. Even the development team sometimes puts out cards which they themselves call a mistake. I suspect that there are only 20-30 people in the world who would even do a good job at determining which cards are "good" or bad.
Consider the case you present.
"Having 6 Elvish Archdruids in this deck is clearly cheating because its the best card."
I don't buy it. This is not a clear cut situation. Maybe the curve gets messed up by not having 8 1 mana dorks. What if he played against a ton of naya blitz and gruul decks and the extra acceleration is absolutely necessary. I am not saying that 6 druids isn't the better version of the deck I am saying that the situation is not clear and a judge should not have to make such a tough decision in the middle of a tournament. (The decision being is this clearly an advantageous position and therefore almost certainly cheating)
It is easy to forget mutavault can't block noble, as the interaction is new to standard and easy to forget (his opp did it as well so he should be banned from going to ptq), I see nothing that says he didn't want to reveal the 5th copy that I see as a legitimate source (as one source says he called the judge on himself). Clear sleeves are only odd if the cards have marking on them, doesn't make them auto distinguishable for being clear. Unmarked checklist cards isn't shady at all if you only have 1 dfc in your deck, not like your opp can't ask which it is? (It is a general rule for when it could be a prob). The player does not look like a Pro tour level player, but if someone gets lucky they have the right to go to the pro tour.
That level of apologism could be used to defend almost ANYTHING. At that point, why bother having rules and infractions at all? We just chalk everything up to "Eh, people make mistakes" and let the chips fall where they may. Which turns into "the cheater who doesn't get caught wins"
The message from this is clear: It is advantageous to illegally stack your deck with extra copies of cards. This guy did it and won the PTQ. Why shouldn't anyone else do it in the next PTQ? What's the downside? If I was playing in a PTQ next week with a Naya Blitz deck, why not jam a couple extra BTE's and Ghor Clan Rampagers in there? It makes the deck's lethality WAY more consistant, there's a decent chance I can rattle off 4-5 rounds before anyone notices, and as long as I don't play anything that reveals cards in my hand, I have a good shot at playing the hole day and never get noticed. And here's the kicker, worst case if I do get noticed, all that happens is I play with the normal version of the deck from that point forward! Incredible!
(The decision being is this clearly an advantageous position and therefore almost certainly cheating)
The only decision should be "Is this an illegal deck or not?" And the IPG rules need to be much harsher against playing an illegal deck.
I'd say that something like this which causes the integrity of the tournament (and the extension MTG competitive play) reasonably into question counts as significant.
A lot of people throw around the phrase "affects the integrity of the tournament", and I know I've weighed a lot of my own time on how a situation "affects the integrity of the tournament". And sometimes I wonder if we've fallen in love with that phrase. I know, some people are going to be aghast that I suggest that, but speaking candidly: What exactly does the phrase mean? What does it suggest? Where does the integrity of a single play, a single game, or the entire event begin and end?
That is, how much does a single mistake actually influence the event?
I'm not certain at this point what the best policy for these situations is. What does seems clear at this point is that the current policy (assuming what actually happened represents it, which appears to be the case) fails the basic sanity test.
How so? Because I'm not sure I understand what constitutes the "basic sanity test" here. At least not what you mean by the statement.
I don't get the relevance of this example. I don't have any issue with how the IPG handles violations when the violation only directly affected a single game. My problem is with violations where the scope of the violation extended to multiple rounds.
My point is to draw some parallel between what appears to a singular mistake and how much effect it has on the actual event.
With the Dark Confidant example, did you winning a game you should have lost dramatically affect the integrity of the event? You ended up in the "winners bracket" for Swiss rather than the "losers bracket". Hypothetically, did you benefit from that beyond the scope of that single game? Did you get put in a better position, and thus make Top 8? When you may not have made it at all, and thus never won the PTQ?
That's much what I see this in the OP situation. The error was a singular one. It was caught late in the Swiss rounds. How much impact did that error have on the integrity of the event? How much benefit did the player receive? Can that be quantified in any way? How can a system consider that in an objective fashion?
There still needs to be a punitive action, so a penalty is still justified. I'm saying that the penalty must be sufficient on both the punitive and compensatory aspects.
And I would argue that the existing system, by and large, accomplishes that. Most penalties where we issue a Game Loss for the infraction, considers precisely this. Other situations, the penalty is a Warning, because the "advantage" isn't as significant. Likewise, we consider infractions like Failure to Maintain Game State to encourage the opponent's diligence as well.
The OP's situation seems a bit more extreme than that. Is that something that can reasonably discouraged in policy? And what system would ensure a reasonable approach or application in practice?
Apparently a lower threshold than exists now, given the amount of stories we get around all these "honest mistakes" at high level events. Apparently the 11 year old kids at my FNM play tighter Magic than PTQ winners, if you believe all the "Gosh, sorry, honest mistake!" stuff.
I doubt it. I think that more people at Competitive REL notice the mistakes, versus at Regular REL. Or, that players at Regular REL simply fix the mistake and move on, rather than at Competitive REL where the stakes are higher.
From my experience, I actually see more hand waiving of very serious problems at Regular REL than at Competitive REL. Such as bribery, theft, or even random match determination. People are far more willing to overlook those kind of behaviors, than are those who want to hand waive mistakes like the one discussed by the OP.
Apparently a lower threshold than exists now, given the amount of stories we get around all these "honest mistakes" at high level events. Apparently the 11 year old kids at my FNM play tighter Magic than PTQ winners, if you believe all the "Gosh, sorry, honest mistake!" stuff.
You also thought mistakenly dropping an extra land towards the end of a game in the Pro Tour quarters was blatant cheating and required a DQ.....
I agree that this is generally the case. However, it is not always the case (such as with the current example) and the IPG should provide guidance as to what to do in these situations.
If this issue had only affected a single game (suppose this had happened r1g1), the penalty is the same (game loss) whether any actual advantage was gained or not.
So apply this standard to every game in which the player had 6 copies of the card and give him a game loss for each. It makes no sense for the player to get away with absolutely no penalty for each game in which he had an illegal deck rounds 1 to 5 just because it wasn't caught at the time.
If you can't retroactively give that many game losses, a DQ seems a reasonable substitute.
Sorry, I wasn't precise. I meant that any penalty given, as an absolute minimum, needs to erase the unfair advantage gained by the rules violation by the player who committed the rules violation.
In general, penalties need to do 2 things:
1. Erase the unfair advantage gained by the one who broke the rules.
2. Punish the guilty player to dissuade them from breaking the rules again.
The first needs to depend on the actual advantage gained, while the second does not. This is the same reason we have separate compensatory and punitive damages in the justice system.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The evidence being that he played multiple rounds without noticing, only calling a judge when he knew his sly attempt to cheat was revealed to his opponent, then played with unmarked checklist cards and got caught too.
Intent can be assumed when so many blatant mistakes are made, it's called circumstantial evidence.
The DCI should probably make public the findings of the judges in order to squelch the popular concern, because right now this is blowing up on Twitter as well and the DCI is about to have a ****storm on its hands.
Intent should have much less influence on Magic's rules enforcement at competitive+ REL than it evidently does.
That's not what I'm reading... I'm seeing many like myself who are flabbergasted that you can play more than 4 of a card (especially the BEST card in your deck) @ a PTQ and NOT be DQed...
If anything this thread should serve as a launching pad to the petition the IMMEDIATE change to a seemingly absurd punishment by "common sense" standards.
This is our game and we should be able to speak our mind.
Where in those rounds would he notice he even had 5 of them in the deck, as previously stated one doesn't count the amount of a card you never sideboard out during sideboarding, and unless you see 5 of them you just think you are very lucky (magic games are very much part luck). unmarked checklist goes more to show he didn't even look at his deck and unless he had other of the DFC on him that weren't the ones he was using it gives him zero advantage and thus has no reason to do it on purpose (besides maybe wanting to use them for something else later).
You know, that brings up another curious point.
When the judges deckchecked him when the fifth Archdruid was discovered, why didn't they notice the unmarked checklist cards?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Actually, I am very interested in hearing player's concerns. However, that doesn't mean I immediately entertain every single one of them. Especially not when I balance out the perspectives of players on "both sides" of this situation. As well as those who aren't even aware this happened.
The player-judge relationship, and the policies that influence that, are very important to the general event experience. Both to ensure that judges can handle mistakes in an appropriate fashion, but also to ensure that players can trust us to handle such situations. Which is why this kind of situation is that frustrating and worrisome. Because, on the surface, it shows that somehow we're NOT doing our jobs.
I don't know about you, but I always get terribly concerned when that opinion exists. But, I also get terribly concerned at ensuring that the opinion is reasonable in the first place and a result of actual factual evidence that somehow something went terribly wrong. As opposed to a situation where accidents happened, and now it's being blown out of proportion. And I've sent plenty of those happen as well, where the rush to judgment resulted in not having the perspective.
If there's a need for a rule change or how policy handles such situations, then it will likely be discussed. Which actually happens with a lot of regularity; whether it happens at a GP or a PTQ. These kind of things do get passed up to the Level 4 and 5 judges who discuss these situations, especially if something gets passed through to WotC. Because that player feedback is very important to the organized play program.
In fact, the most important thing to say to anyone who was a player in that PTQ, is to give your feedback to WotC. Go through their WPN customer support and relay your concerns.
But, keep in mind that any change has to be thoroughly vetted, both pros and cons. And if anyone who paid attention to the MT policy changes over the last year, you should understand how important it is to get the policy right, but also how difficult it is to get the policy right for actual implementation.
That's also discussed in section 1 of the MIPG...
...having a player play with an illegal deck for multiple rounds isn't that significant or exceptional. And while it is an unfortunate circumstance, the policy does already consider the possibility.
If you disagree with that, and have a specific suggestion as to how policy could address that, then you should probably consider submitting feedback through WPN customer service. Just keep in mind, there are going to be pros and cons to such a system, and it may not have the effect you think it will have in actual implementation.
Let's entertain that thought for a moment, and apply it to something a little more innocuous. Let's say that you miss a trigger early in the event, say a Dark Confidant trigger, in game 3 and that you should have lost the game rather than win it. As a result of that win, you end up in the 2-0 bracket rather than the 1-1 bracket. And you proceed to win the PTQ.
What was the effect of that singular mistake? Did it affect that game only? Or did the benefit you experience actually go further than that? Should you be assessed a disqualification because of a mistake that is detected so much later, even when you perhaps made no other mistake for the rest of the day?
Because, that seems to be the system that people are suggesting. And I don't think you'd really like that system. Especially when people can review video from events and perhaps catch those very things.
Well, then that still raises the question, what about errors where the player is disadvantaged and the opponent advantaged? Is there no penalty there? Is the opponent's gain "penalty enough"?
Which raises another question, what kind of behavior might this incentivize on the part of the opponent? Ignore any error unless the player is gaining an advantage? Wouldn't that be a form of cheating itself?
He was looking up his list and entering it onto the form that 3CC requires you to fill out. There could have easily been a mistake made there, or as some have metnioned, by the clerk.
I remember him getting his cards and sleeves from the clerk, and then proceeded to sleeve up the cards. He asked if I had a standard deck, and I told him that I needed to sleeve mine up and I'd be ready. What I don't remember during this time, is him checking to see if he received the proper number of cards, since we were talking the entire time he was sleeving. After he sleeved, he went looking for a playmat, couldn't find one, and then proceeded to shuffle. I don't think he put 6 archdruids in there on purpose, and I can attest to him being rusty when he played. He even mentioned just getting back into it. He took 2 of 3 games when we playtested, and I do remember multiple druids on the games he won, but thought nothing of it. We also never sideboarded.
Basically, it is an error that could have been easily prevented. He may have looked through his deck more thouroughly if there was not someone there to immediately playtest, but since he did well against me, he probably just kept it shuffled the way it was and assumed it was good to go. That being said, even though I believe it was unintentional, it creates an unfair advantage for him, and he should not have been allowed to win the PTQ.
The surprising part is the level of handwaving done using the "stupid mistake" excuse. It's shocking. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to rob a vendor at gunpoint and a judge said it was just an honest mistake since the guy could have been reaching for a stick of chewing gum and offering it to the vendor and tripped and stuck his hand on the cash register to catch himself. Hey, everyone trips sometimes, right?
"It was an honest mistake" should never be allowed as input into breaking the rules at Comp REL events. If you are still making honest mistakes, that's what FNM's are for.
The level of apologism that goes on simply invites cheaters and shenanigans to these kinds of events. It's practically foolhardy NOT to try and get away with something. The longer the rules allow a player to gain a massive advantage with minimal risk, the more playing by the rules is going to increasingly become a liability
We can only debate on the assertions made in this thread, everybody knows this so it's pointless to keep bringing it up.
The one thing that is not in question: he had six copies of a powerful card in his deck. Unless they were covertly placed in his after deck registration and the players meeting then, then the responsibility was his, and not performing such a basic task as verifying your deck (as instructed to during the players meeting) is so negligent that it is as bad as intentional cheating.
I was under the impression that Judges were not to consider whether something was beneficial or not, because as our knowledge of Magic currently stands there's no way to prove whether something is in fact beneficial or not (e.g. mindslaver can negate any strictly better argument, is a missed bob trigger beneficial or not).
If this is incorrect, then I retract my statement regarding judges forced to ignore their knowledge of the game, but instead ask, how could the head judge not see the advantage gained by including these cards in the deck and interpret that as cheating?
I'm not suggesting that game losses should be given out for minor infractions, but the current penalties appear to be too lenient to discourage cheating.
I very much doubt failing to de-sideboard at competitive rel would be downgraded. You're getting a gameloss even if you call it on yourself, the supposed more strict penalty is that if you don't call it and it is discovered later that you noticed the discrepancy (and that this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law or something) and didn't call a judge (and make a statement to the effect that you didn't call the judge on purpose because you were cheating) then this can be upgraded to cheating, otherwise the benefit of the doubt will be given and you'll get your game loss same as if you had called the judge immediately.
DING DING DING DING!
WE HAVE A WINNER
maybe the rest of us competitive types will just have to start doing this to affect change, b/c apparently some people dont give a **** if you cheat
Why do you assume judges just accept sorry, no one says that, in any comp tourney the judge is going to ask questions regarding what happened and make sure it was an honest mistake, instead of just being like oh you said that well play on.
That about says it.
Bluffing is a big part of Magic (and an even bigger part of Poker, which a lot of Magic players play). If you can bluff well to your opponents who's to say you can't lie well to a judge?
The reason that he doesn't deserve the invite is not because of any malicious intent, but it's simply because if he didn't have that advantage in the beginning of the tournament, than there's a significant chance that he wouldn't have made it as far as he did.
Because accepting "honest mistake" as an excuse for anything is huge flaw in the rules.
I also don't believe that someone in a PTQ could go 10+ games without noticing 6 copies of a card. I also find it far too convenient that the extra card just happened to be the main engine of his deck. I also think it was pretty shady how he used unmarked checklist cards, clear sleeves, tried to get away with not revealing his 5th copy of his card off the Garruk, and how he made multiple illegal blocks with Mutavault.
Even if it is totally innocent (not that I believe that for a second), you think THAT ^^ level of play deserves to be on the Pro Tour? That level of play would probably get you DQ'd from an FNM. Any of those would get you kicked out of a casual game. But at the highest level of Rules Enforcement, you can win an event with it. It's simply appalling.
Well, I think you're looking at the situation a bit differently than I. Because when I speak about investigating a situation, I'm talking about the process of figuring out what happened. That is, did an infraction take place or not? If so, what was the infraction? That part of the process will often consider a lot of things, as it requires judgment to identify the error as being genuinely accidental versus intentional.
That's why judges are judges. Because this piece of the process is one that requires a lot of skill at separating the real problems from the accidents.
However, once I decide upon an infraction, then the MIPG spells out the rest of the process. That is, the application of the penalty and any remedy. That part is a bit more spelled out, as we do have to adhere to certain standard approaches when actually assessing the infraction. But the part that gets us to assess an infraction is a much more open ended process. And one that no judge should ever just apply in a boilerplate fashion.
You may mean a lot more of the second part, than the first part. And that's understandable; very few judges explain why we ask the questions we do, or even what it is we're trying to do. But, the part of the process where we're trying to figure things out? That's where we're trying to find out whether we need to really scrutinize the problem. And if something looks like it could give you a real benefit? Yes, that will merit more questions.
But, once the decision has been made to go with GPE--GRV versus Cheating... Then I can't apply a judgment in terms of "How much benefit?" when it comes to applying a penalty. That's just not something a judge is allowed to do.
I don't know either. But, none of us do, because none of us have actually heard the Head Judge's story. And it's very questionable to apply judgment of someone we've never met as to not having done his or her job in the situation, and understanding how he or she arrived at that judgment.
But, that raises the question of what penalty is appropriate to "discourage cheating"? And should the system actively try to accomplish that? At what threshold does the system need to address the infraction versus changing behavior?
I don't know that there's an easy answer to that question. But, I do know, that opinions are varied on the subject if my own discussions with other judges and players are evidence of the broader opinions from the community.
I'd say that something like this which causes the integrity of the tournament (and the extension MTG competitive play) reasonably into question counts as significant.
I'm not certain at this point what the best policy for these situations is. What does seems clear at this point is that the current policy (assuming what actually happened represents it, which appears to be the case) fails the basic sanity test.
I don't get the relevance of this example. I don't have any issue with how the IPG handles violations when the violation only directly affected a single game. My problem is with violations where the scope of the violation extended to multiple rounds.
I'm okay with ignoring indirect effects of violations. I'm not okay with treating "had an illegal deck for 6 rounds" as "had an illegal deck for 1 game".
There still needs to be a punitive action, so a penalty is still justified. I'm saying that the penalty must be sufficient on both the punitive and compensatory aspects.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Apparently a lower threshold than exists now, given the amount of stories we get around all these "honest mistakes" at high level events. Apparently the 11 year old kids at my FNM play tighter Magic than PTQ winners, if you believe all the "Gosh, sorry, honest mistake!" stuff.
It is easy to forget mutavault can't block noble, as the interaction is new to standard and easy to forget (his opp did it as well so he should be banned from going to ptq), I see nothing that says he didn't want to reveal the 5th copy that I see as a legitimate source (as one source says he called the judge on himself). Clear sleeves are only odd if the cards have marking on them, doesn't make them auto distinguishable for being clear. Unmarked checklist cards isn't shady at all if you only have 1 dfc in your deck, not like your opp can't ask which it is? (It is a general rule for when it could be a prob). The player does not look like a Pro tour level player, but if someone gets lucky they have the right to go to the pro tour. Not dicussing whether or not he cheated cause I wasn't there, only that don't assume things when you don't have the full story.
Lastly your casual games are really competitive if those things are getting you kicked out.
edit: forgot to say that tho they don't mean you are cheating clear sleeves should be avoided if possible due to how easy it is to allow it. But the head judge is the final call on sleeves.
I think you are missing a very important point here.
It should not be the judges responsibility to make decisions based on the power level of cards. That's an insane level of responsibility. Even the development team sometimes puts out cards which they themselves call a mistake. I suspect that there are only 20-30 people in the world who would even do a good job at determining which cards are "good" or bad.
Consider the case you present.
"Having 6 Elvish Archdruids in this deck is clearly cheating because its the best card."
I don't buy it. This is not a clear cut situation. Maybe the curve gets messed up by not having 8 1 mana dorks. What if he played against a ton of naya blitz and gruul decks and the extra acceleration is absolutely necessary. I am not saying that 6 druids isn't the better version of the deck I am saying that the situation is not clear and a judge should not have to make such a tough decision in the middle of a tournament. (The decision being is this clearly an advantageous position and therefore almost certainly cheating)
3-3 record in Iron Chef Salvation
That level of apologism could be used to defend almost ANYTHING. At that point, why bother having rules and infractions at all? We just chalk everything up to "Eh, people make mistakes" and let the chips fall where they may. Which turns into "the cheater who doesn't get caught wins"
The message from this is clear: It is advantageous to illegally stack your deck with extra copies of cards. This guy did it and won the PTQ. Why shouldn't anyone else do it in the next PTQ? What's the downside? If I was playing in a PTQ next week with a Naya Blitz deck, why not jam a couple extra BTE's and Ghor Clan Rampagers in there? It makes the deck's lethality WAY more consistant, there's a decent chance I can rattle off 4-5 rounds before anyone notices, and as long as I don't play anything that reveals cards in my hand, I have a good shot at playing the hole day and never get noticed. And here's the kicker, worst case if I do get noticed, all that happens is I play with the normal version of the deck from that point forward! Incredible!
The only decision should be "Is this an illegal deck or not?" And the IPG rules need to be much harsher against playing an illegal deck.
A lot of people throw around the phrase "affects the integrity of the tournament", and I know I've weighed a lot of my own time on how a situation "affects the integrity of the tournament". And sometimes I wonder if we've fallen in love with that phrase. I know, some people are going to be aghast that I suggest that, but speaking candidly: What exactly does the phrase mean? What does it suggest? Where does the integrity of a single play, a single game, or the entire event begin and end?
That is, how much does a single mistake actually influence the event?
How so? Because I'm not sure I understand what constitutes the "basic sanity test" here. At least not what you mean by the statement.
My point is to draw some parallel between what appears to a singular mistake and how much effect it has on the actual event.
With the Dark Confidant example, did you winning a game you should have lost dramatically affect the integrity of the event? You ended up in the "winners bracket" for Swiss rather than the "losers bracket". Hypothetically, did you benefit from that beyond the scope of that single game? Did you get put in a better position, and thus make Top 8? When you may not have made it at all, and thus never won the PTQ?
That's much what I see this in the OP situation. The error was a singular one. It was caught late in the Swiss rounds. How much impact did that error have on the integrity of the event? How much benefit did the player receive? Can that be quantified in any way? How can a system consider that in an objective fashion?
That's my point.
And I would argue that the existing system, by and large, accomplishes that. Most penalties where we issue a Game Loss for the infraction, considers precisely this. Other situations, the penalty is a Warning, because the "advantage" isn't as significant. Likewise, we consider infractions like Failure to Maintain Game State to encourage the opponent's diligence as well.
The OP's situation seems a bit more extreme than that. Is that something that can reasonably discouraged in policy? And what system would ensure a reasonable approach or application in practice?
I doubt it. I think that more people at Competitive REL notice the mistakes, versus at Regular REL. Or, that players at Regular REL simply fix the mistake and move on, rather than at Competitive REL where the stakes are higher.
From my experience, I actually see more hand waiving of very serious problems at Regular REL than at Competitive REL. Such as bribery, theft, or even random match determination. People are far more willing to overlook those kind of behaviors, than are those who want to hand waive mistakes like the one discussed by the OP.
You also thought mistakenly dropping an extra land towards the end of a game in the Pro Tour quarters was blatant cheating and required a DQ.....