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 don't know either, but at the very least I would I think that infractions that jeopardize the integrity of the tournament should be treated with a heavier hand.
And this tolerance of "honest mistakes" at the competitive rel should be seriously rethought. I mean we're talking about an "honest mistake" here that threatens the integrity of the tournament but is about as fundamental to playing competitive magic as remembering to wear pants to the tournament center.
So I guess I can go to the next tournament with 6 Farseeks or 6 Thragtusks and I'll be ok as long as I have some believable story about how I didn't pack my own bags before boarding the plane?
Sweet! Cheating is easy!
Thanks for setting the precedent, Houston PTQ!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
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?
Presenting and playing with an illegal deck should be an immediate DQ offense. I'm willing to bet that if that rule were in place, this guy would have checked to make sure his deck was legal before sitting down and rattling off 6 wins with an illegal deck.
It's not going to address all the problems with misplays and unfair advantages at Comp REL, but it would certainly eliminate that one.
There's a reason a lot more people jaywalk than rob banks. the severity of the punishment absolutely influences behavior.
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.....
If you are talking about the whole DeTora thing, I thought a GL would be more appropriate. IIRC, nothing at all happened.
I mean we're talking about an "honest mistake" here that threatens the integrity of the tournament but is about as fundamental to playing competitive magic as remembering to wear pants to the tournament center.
Hey, who doesn't forget to wear pants once in a while? It's an honest mistake officer, I swear!
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.
You should look up the word "fun" in a dictionary. Then you should think about how "fun" would be absent from a tournament when increasing the penalties for an illegal deck.
As someone who has gotten a game loss for an illegal deck I am glad that all my previous matches were not called into question because my opponent accidentally took a card from a deck in a previous round.
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.
Clearly the opp was cheating then as well, because he let him block with the mutavault, so lets dq them both. And the other cases show that there is no inherent advantage with the other things that you said show he is cheating, when it is very clear you need to be gaining an advantage to be cheating.
Yes the one case where someone MIGHT have gotten away with it clearly shows that you will never be caught cheating. I mean if every time someone got dq from a ptq for cheating turned into a massive thread on the internet, maybe it wouldn't. A single case demonstrates nothing besides it is possible that it could happen, not that it is easy or worth the risk.
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)
The four-of rule has been a fundamental component of competitive Magic for 20 years. Although nobody has proven mathematically that more than four of a powerful card is advantageous, it is a generally accepted concept and that's why it is still a part of the rules.
Certainly, it may not be true in certain edge cases, but those edge cases are few and obvious when looked at by a reasonable person. This case of six archdruids does not appear to be a case that requires a mathematical proof or significant observation.
Ever hear of the "card drop" cheat, wherein some players get the opponent a gameloss by dropping one of their cards under the table and "discovering" that they have a 59 card deck?
Now it's even better value, since they win the match.
I don't know either, but at the very least I would I think that infractions that jeopardize the integrity of the tournament should be treated with a heavier hand.
This is already true. For those infractions that have been identified as being a big enough problem, we issue a Game Loss rather than a Warning or even just educating against the behavior. What I suspect is that people want a higher baseline for expectations on this line. And that's just not reasonable for a game as complicated as Magic, where the technical requirements to play a game aren't nearly as necessary as are the functional aspects of the game.
I agree, it's distressing when some situations seem to get a "hand waive". That is extremely problematic, and does point to where judges can be doing a better job. That does concern me, provided the level of scrutiny is reasonable.
Presenting and playing with an illegal deck should be an immediate DQ offense. I'm willing to bet that if that rule were in place, this guy would have checked to make sure his deck was legal before sitting down and rattling off 6 wins with an illegal deck.
That's a possibility. It's also a possibility that players would refrain from calling a judge in such situations, and hoping that they simply weren't caught. It may also incentivize the opponent to perhaps manipulate the deck on the off chance that dropping a card while shuffling after presentation might go unnoticed, thus ensuring the opponent presented a 59 card deck, which is illegal.
You should look up the word "fun" in a dictionary. Then you should think about how "fun" would be absent from a tournament when increasing the penalties for an illegal deck.
As someone who has gotten a game loss for an illegal deck I am glad that all my previous matches were not called into question because my opponent accidentally took a card from a deck in a previous round.
This was a Competitive REL right?
You should look up "Competitive" in the dictionary I don't think the definition contains the word "fun"
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.
The guy broke one of the most fundamental rules of Magic for five rounds and went on to win an invite to the PT. The reason this incident has got the attention that it has is that most Magic players seem to be pretty shocked to find out that that's possible. I know I was.
You have to be more familiar with how Magic judging works than the average PTQ player to understand how the ruling the HJ made is even remotely possible. That's a pretty good indication that it fails on basic sanity.
You should look up the word "fun" in a dictionary. Then you should think about how "fun" would be absent from a tournament when increasing the penalties for an illegal deck.
When there are thousands of dollars on the line and an invite to a tournament with a quarter million dollar prize pool, "fun" becomes a little less of a top priority than "fairness". If you want to play for fun, play FNM.
Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. Not "fun" enforcement level.
This guys opponents were at a disadvantage by playing by the rules. That is not fair and should not be tolerated. If this guys win stands, it will show that playing by the rules is a liability at Comp REL.
This guys opponents were at a disadvantage by playing by the rules. That is not fair and should not be tolerated. If this guys win stands, it will show that playing by the rules is a liability at Comp REL.
Or is it an advantage that playing by the rules means zero chance of being disqualified? I think you're ignoring the aspect of risk cheaters must take.
Oh, I thought he was talking about playing a spell that is countering a spell with counters on it as it comes into play, but I see you guys were just discussing whether he was flashing a creature with flash in order to flash a flashback or just flashing a creature with flash but not needing flash in order to flashback a spell without flash.
True facts. The game is fun when you play by the rules. We don't need lax penalties towards the lazy and the cheaters to make it "more fun."
But having to worry that your opponent might slide a card out of your deck while "cutting" to get you DQ'd is very un-fun. Being so worried about making a silly mistake and getting DQ'd, that you cant play properly is un-fun.
Here is the deal... if roughly 10% of players get deck checked at an event, and this somehow leads to an explosion of players trying to sneak in extra copies of key cards... It's going to be known and it can be dealt with then. If however, judges dont see a sharp increase in these kind of mistakes I see no reason to believe that this event is going to cause a steep increase in "cheating".
There have been a number of allegations made about the winner of the 7/27 Houston PTQ Theros. As the Head Judge at this event, I think it is important for me to make a few statements about what did (and did not ) happen. This will be my only statement on the issue, because arguing further seems futile.
First and foremost, the biggest complaint about the player in question is that he played too many copies of Elvish Archdruid. At one point, the player in question did have multiple Archdruids in play and revealed one for a +1 activation of Garruk. This much is true. After this point, the facts of what happened have already started to break down. There is some speculation from those not involved in the call that, at this point, the player tried to hide things. This is simply not true. What happened was that, a judge was called and upon comparison with the deck list, 6 copies of the archrduid were found where it was listed as a 4/4 split between Elvish Archdruids and Elvish Mystics. (NOT Avacyn's pilgrims, BTW, as white mana is useless in this mono-green deck.) Both players waited for the ruling, and nothing was hidden or shuffled away. The judge said that the current game was over (which was correct, since the penalty for a deck list problem is a GL) and THEN the players started to shuffle. The deck was also corrected at this point, so the rest of the event was played with a deck that was legal and matched the list.
As an aside... some would like to point out the significance of the Archdruids here, but I think that's overstated. Archdruid can't drop until turn 3. This deck likes to play turn a threat turn 2, like predator ooze. That can't happen without a 1-drop mana creature. This is not to say that Archdruids are not quality, and do not have an impact on the game--just that I think the particular significance is being overstated.
How did this happen? The player stated that he bought the deck in its entirety the day before. He sent his list to a store, got the cards and just sleeved it. Seems a bit of a stretch at first, but how many players have you heard had a friend hand them a deck? Further, I had an employee for the store in question on my staff. Talking with that employee, the question was raised of whether this is an understandable error. The answer is that the person who pulls cards has been known to be quite sloppy. Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.
A second complaint about the player is that he had his deck in clear sleeves. These were not just penny sleeves, mind you--they were the nice ultra-pro or dragon shield sleeves. I've been a judge for a long time; I'm no stranger to marked cards or sleeves. Let me tell you: these cards were not marked in any way. Just about every deck in the room playing solid color sleeves looked much worse than these cards. In fact, I had several players who were very unhappy to receive game loss penalties because I could see their transform cards through their sleeves during the day--but I digress. The cards were not marked.
During the top 4 I picked up his SB to look through it. This was not for any particular reason. I tend to do this while waiting on top X matches; I'll grab a sideboard that's on the table and look at it. What I found surprised me: 17 cards. I looked more closely, and noticed 2 copies of Garruk and 2 checklist cards. OK, 17 makes sense; you can't play the Garruk in clear sleeves, so there are checklist cards. Then I looked at those checklist cards... and they had nothing marked. I really wish we had caught this at the same time we caught the other issue, but the fact is that we didn't. I saw no reason in this case to deviate from policy. I knew he had no other transform cards, I knew we had missed it earlier, and I still issued a game loss in the Top 4. Bam, go to game 3.
I've heard complaints of illegal blocks made by the same player during the day--Mutavault blocking Stromkirk Noble, for example. Yes, this was illegal. Mistakes happen, and this is an easy one to miss or forget when your deck doesn't (ostensibly) contain any humans. Guess what? The opponent didn't say anything and didn't call a judge when it happened, so obviously his opponents missed it too. I guess this came up in conversation later, because someone pointed it out and we (as judges) DID hear about it. A floor judge talked to the player, and we believe it to have been missed. Also, because we talked with him it wouldn't happen again--or, if it did, we knew he had been told--but we couldn't help until someone told a judge.
I've heard complaints, too, that he "always seemed to have his sideboard cards." Well, guess what? I watched him side as many as 8 in. When you side in 8 cards, you're going to draw at least a couple. In the final game, he drew 2 copies of Plummet. His opponent drew 2 Olivias. It was a perfect foil, but how did he know his opponent would have 2 copies of Olivia? If that had been 2 copies Huntmaster of the Fells instead, those 2 Plummets would have been dead draws.
At the end of the day, the player received 2 game losses during the day, with one of them during the Top 4. The player STILL managed to win through 9 rounds of swiss and the top 8. Did he do it with dumb errors? Yes. Did he do it with some "run good" ? Sure, but I'm not about to start disqualifying players simply because "they're running too hot" or because they do dumb things like not verifying their purchased decks. Those who know me, know that I won't hesitate to remove someone from my events. I had no cause to do so at this event, and we have a winner.
As a final note... I think it's shameful that, as a community, we don't report errors when they happen but instead wait to tear someone down when they're on top. If you are concerned about something happening at an event, report it immediately. If you're going to wait and complain on forums, expect to be treated the same way should you ever manage to climb to the top. After all, to make the top 8 at a 9 round PTQ, "you have really good luck, or you cheat."
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?
In the context of the current example, I'd say it means the following. There's a high probability that a player won this PTQ because he broke the rules. If he had played by the rules, it is likely that he would not have won.
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 basic sanity test is that when a judge corrects a violation with an enforcement action, it should not have a high chance of leaving the guilty player in a better position than he or she would have been if the player had not committed the violation.
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.
I don't think your characterization of the error as a "singular mistake" is completely accurate. Yes, it originated as a single mistake. However, in another sense the player broke the rules each of the 10-20 times he presented the illegal deck. So in that sense it is far more than a single mistake.
I agree with you that a single mistake can have many indirect effects and that it's hard for a rules system to deal with these. However, I think that in this case the advantages in all of the previous games are best considered direct effects, so your example isn't really relevant.
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 think a general policy of upgrading penalties if the judge is reasonably certain that the same violation occurred in previous rounds would be an improvement.
Beyond that...since we want to encourage people not to break the rules even accidentally, perhaps the tiebreak system could be adjusted to give a bonus to people who haven't been hit with game loss penalties.
I'm a good player, but I'm not on the same level as someone who can actually win a PTQ.
Apparently, that's because you aren't cheating enough.
I read up to page 10 before I got tired.
I played in lots of tournaments prior to Tempest. I played in a few since then, but I'm mostly casual now. As a casual player, it makes sense to me that this type of decklist error should result in a DQ at competitive REL. As a casual player, I find it odd that judges and tournament organizers are being so lenient in how they run their tournaments. Although I primarily play casual, I expect tournament play to be held to a higher standard than what I have seen discussed so far in this thread.
Going back to the quote above, I have to wonder if the reason I haven't done so well in the few tournaments I have participated in lately is because I'm actually playing by the rules. As a casual player I say the situation described by the OP certainly makes participation in tournaments even less appealing to me.
The only reason I can think of for TOs and Judges to be so lax in administering tournaments is because they are afraid of discouraging casuals from participating. As a casual player, I find that attitude revolting.
"A rich man thinks all other people are rich, and an intelligent man thinks all other people are similarly gifted. Both are always terribly shocked when they discover the truth of the world. You, my dear brother, are a pious man." - Strahd von Zarovich
When there are thousands of dollars on the line and an invite to a tournament with a quarter million dollar prize pool, "fun" becomes a little less of a top priority than "fairness". If you want to play for fun, play FNM.
Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. Not "fun" enforcement level.
This guys opponents were at a disadvantage by playing by the rules. That is not fair and should not be tolerated. If this guys win stands, it will show that playing by the rules is a liability at Comp REL.
Whether you like it or not it's a game. The game is produced by a company that wants to make money. This company makes money by having people play the game not by sending 1% of the player population to cool events. They dont make money streaming the games on TV. The company wants to do whatever it can to make the events accessible to as many players as possible in a way that drives sales (needing to keep on on the latest deck lists). Making the rules so hardassed that new players are too intimidated to try playing will not drive sales, it will turn away players.
There have been a number of allegations made about the winner of the 7/27 Houston PTQ Theros. As the Head Judge at this event, I think it is important for me to make a few statements about what did (and did not ) happen. This will be my only statement on the issue, because arguing further seems futile.
First and foremost, the biggest complaint about the player in question is that he played too many copies of Elvish Archdruid. At one point, the player in question did have multiple Archdruids in play and revealed one for a +1 activation of Garruk. This much is true. After this point, the facts of what happened have already started to break down. There is some speculation from those not involved in the call that, at this point, the player tried to hide things. This is simply not true. What happened was that, a judge was called and upon comparison with the deck list, 6 copies of the archrduid were found where it was listed as a 4/4 split between Elvish Archdruids and Elvish Mystics. (NOT Avacyn's pilgrims, BTW, as white mana is useless in this mono-green deck.) Both players waited for the ruling, and nothing was hidden or shuffled away. The judge said that the current game was over (which was correct, since the penalty for a deck list problem is a GL) and THEN the players started to shuffle. The deck was also corrected at this point, so the rest of the event was played with a deck that was legal and matched the list.
As an aside... some would like to point out the significance of the Archdruids here, but I think that's overstated. Archdruid can't drop until turn 3. This deck likes to play turn a threat turn 2, like predator ooze. That can't happen without a 1-drop mana creature. This is not to say that Archdruids are not quality, and do not have an impact on the game--just that I think the particular significance is being overstated.
How did this happen? The player stated that he bought the deck in its entirety the day before. He sent his list to a store, got the cards and just sleeved it. Seems a bit of a stretch at first, but how many players have you heard had a friend hand them a deck? Further, I had an employee for the store in question on my staff. Talking with that employee, the question was raised of whether this is an understandable error. The answer is that the person who pulls cards has been known to be quite sloppy. Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.
A second complaint about the player is that he had his deck in clear sleeves. These were not just penny sleeves, mind you--they were the nice ultra-pro or dragon shield sleeves. I've been a judge for a long time; I'm no stranger to marked cards or sleeves. Let me tell you: these cards were not marked in any way. Just about every deck in the room playing solid color sleeves looked much worse than these cards. In fact, I had several players who were very unhappy to receive game loss penalties because I could see their transform cards through their sleeves during the day--but I digress. The cards were not marked.
During the top 4 I picked up his SB to look through it. This was not for any particular reason. I tend to do this while waiting on top X matches; I'll grab a sideboard that's on the table and look at it. What I found surprised me: 17 cards. I looked more closely, and noticed 2 copies of Garruk and 2 checklist cards. OK, 17 makes sense; you can't play the Garruk in clear sleeves, so there are checklist cards. Then I looked at those checklist cards... and they had nothing marked. I really wish we had caught this at the same time we caught the other issue, but the fact is that we didn't. I saw no reason in this case to deviate from policy. I knew he had no other transform cards, I knew we had missed it earlier, and I still issued a game loss in the Top 4. Bam, go to game 3.
I've heard complaints of illegal blocks made by the same player during the day--Mutavault blocking Stromkirk Noble, for example. Yes, this was illegal. Mistakes happen, and this is an easy one to miss or forget when your deck doesn't (ostensibly) contain any humans. Guess what? The opponent didn't say anything and didn't call a judge when it happened, so obviously his opponents missed it too. I guess this came up in conversation later, because someone pointed it out and we (as judges) DID hear about it. A floor judge talked to the player, and we believe it to have been missed. Also, because we talked with him it wouldn't happen again--or, if it did, we knew he had been told--but we couldn't help until someone told a judge.
I've heard complaints, too, that he "always seemed to have his sideboard cards." Well, guess what? I watched him side as many as 8 in. When you side in 8 cards, you're going to draw at least a couple. In the final game, he drew 2 copies of Plummet. His opponent drew 2 Olivias. It was a perfect foil, but how did he know his opponent would have 2 copies of Olivia? If that had been 2 copies Huntmaster of the Fells instead, those 2 Plummets would have been dead draws.
At the end of the day, the player received 2 game losses during the day, with one of them during the Top 4. The player STILL managed to win through 9 rounds of swiss and the top 8. Did he do it with dumb errors? Yes. Did he do it with some "run good" ? Sure, but I'm not about to start disqualifying players simply because "they're running too hot" or because they do dumb things like not verifying their purchased decks. Those who know me, know that I won't hesitate to remove someone from my events. I had no cause to do so at this event, and we have a winner.
As a final note... I think it's shameful that, as a community, we don't report errors when they happen but instead wait to tear someone down when they're on top. If you are concerned about something happening at an event, report it immediately. If you're going to wait and complain on forums, expect to be treated the same way should you ever manage to climb to the top. After all, to make the top 8 at a 9 round PTQ, "you have really good luck, or you cheat."
Whether you like it or not it's a game. The game is produced by a company that wants to make money. This company makes money by having people play the game not by sending 1% of the player population to cool events. They dont make money streaming the games on TV. The company wants to do whatever it can to make the events accessible to as many players as possible in a way that drives sales (needing to keep on on the latest deck lists). Making the rules so hardassed that new players are too intimidated to try playing will not drive sales, it will turn away players.
Competitive REL is explicitly made to prevent that lazy way of thinking destroy that game.
For the relevance it has, Comp REL as defined on IPG
Competitive
Competitive events are usually those with significant cash prizes or invitations awarded to Professional events.
Players are expected to know the game’s rules—but not to a technically detailed level—and be familiar with the
policies and procedures, but unintentional errors are not punished severely. These are events that protect the interests
of all players by providing event integrity while also recognizing that not all players are intimately familiar with
Professional-level event structure, proper procedures, and rules.
most might be confusing it with
Professional
Professional level events offer large cash awards, prestige, and other benefits that draw players from great distances.
These events hold players to a higher standard of behavior and technically correct play than Competitive events.
The only reason I can think of for TOs and Judges to be so lax in administering tournaments is because they are afraid discouraging casuals from participating. As a casual player, I find that attitude revolting.
That is entirely false. The rules and judging community have come to the current regulations after many many tournaments, seeing errors, and weighing how to balance mistakes occurring to how severe each penalty should be to maintain an orderly tournament environment. There are thousands upon thousands of mistakes that occur at any given tournament and if every single perceived one was a DQ-able offense as it seems you want the tournament would have no winner.
Your reasoning is false and ignores the fact that hundreds of tournaments are run successfully every week; proof that the system is working quite well. You've presented no philosophy, no evidence, and no reasonable fix for anything.
I only read like 10 pages but let me get this straight as I may have read it wrong, I can play +4 of the same card and keep on playing on the tourney without getting DQed? Thats a great plan! Go combo!
I don't know either, but at the very least I would I think that infractions that jeopardize the integrity of the tournament should be treated with a heavier hand.
And this tolerance of "honest mistakes" at the competitive rel should be seriously rethought. I mean we're talking about an "honest mistake" here that threatens the integrity of the tournament but is about as fundamental to playing competitive magic as remembering to wear pants to the tournament center.
Sweet! Cheating is easy!
Thanks for setting the precedent, Houston PTQ!
Presenting and playing with an illegal deck should be an immediate DQ offense. I'm willing to bet that if that rule were in place, this guy would have checked to make sure his deck was legal before sitting down and rattling off 6 wins with an illegal deck.
It's not going to address all the problems with misplays and unfair advantages at Comp REL, but it would certainly eliminate that one.
There's a reason a lot more people jaywalk than rob banks. the severity of the punishment absolutely influences behavior.
If you are talking about the whole DeTora thing, I thought a GL would be more appropriate. IIRC, nothing at all happened.
Hey, who doesn't forget to wear pants once in a while? It's an honest mistake officer, I swear!
You should look up the word "fun" in a dictionary. Then you should think about how "fun" would be absent from a tournament when increasing the penalties for an illegal deck.
As someone who has gotten a game loss for an illegal deck I am glad that all my previous matches were not called into question because my opponent accidentally took a card from a deck in a previous round.
3-3 record in Iron Chef Salvation
Clearly the opp was cheating then as well, because he let him block with the mutavault, so lets dq them both. And the other cases show that there is no inherent advantage with the other things that you said show he is cheating, when it is very clear you need to be gaining an advantage to be cheating.
Yes the one case where someone MIGHT have gotten away with it clearly shows that you will never be caught cheating. I mean if every time someone got dq from a ptq for cheating turned into a massive thread on the internet, maybe it wouldn't. A single case demonstrates nothing besides it is possible that it could happen, not that it is easy or worth the risk.
The four-of rule has been a fundamental component of competitive Magic for 20 years. Although nobody has proven mathematically that more than four of a powerful card is advantageous, it is a generally accepted concept and that's why it is still a part of the rules.
Certainly, it may not be true in certain edge cases, but those edge cases are few and obvious when looked at by a reasonable person. This case of six archdruids does not appear to be a case that requires a mathematical proof or significant observation.
Now it's even better value, since they win the match.
This is already true. For those infractions that have been identified as being a big enough problem, we issue a Game Loss rather than a Warning or even just educating against the behavior. What I suspect is that people want a higher baseline for expectations on this line. And that's just not reasonable for a game as complicated as Magic, where the technical requirements to play a game aren't nearly as necessary as are the functional aspects of the game.
I agree, it's distressing when some situations seem to get a "hand waive". That is extremely problematic, and does point to where judges can be doing a better job. That does concern me, provided the level of scrutiny is reasonable.
That's a possibility. It's also a possibility that players would refrain from calling a judge in such situations, and hoping that they simply weren't caught. It may also incentivize the opponent to perhaps manipulate the deck on the off chance that dropping a card while shuffling after presentation might go unnoticed, thus ensuring the opponent presented a 59 card deck, which is illegal.
This was a Competitive REL right?
You should look up "Competitive" in the dictionary I don't think the definition contains the word "fun"
Ya people only play ptq for money, no one goes to have fun with a chance at making money.
You have to be more familiar with how Magic judging works than the average PTQ player to understand how the ruling the HJ made is even remotely possible. That's a pretty good indication that it fails on basic sanity.
When there are thousands of dollars on the line and an invite to a tournament with a quarter million dollar prize pool, "fun" becomes a little less of a top priority than "fairness". If you want to play for fun, play FNM.
Competitive Rules Enforcement Level. Not "fun" enforcement level.
This guys opponents were at a disadvantage by playing by the rules. That is not fair and should not be tolerated. If this guys win stands, it will show that playing by the rules is a liability at Comp REL.
Or is it an advantage that playing by the rules means zero chance of being disqualified? I think you're ignoring the aspect of risk cheaters must take.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
-regarding Snapcaster Mage.
But having to worry that your opponent might slide a card out of your deck while "cutting" to get you DQ'd is very un-fun. Being so worried about making a silly mistake and getting DQ'd, that you cant play properly is un-fun.
Here is the deal... if roughly 10% of players get deck checked at an event, and this somehow leads to an explosion of players trying to sneak in extra copies of key cards... It's going to be known and it can be dealt with then. If however, judges dont see a sharp increase in these kind of mistakes I see no reason to believe that this event is going to cause a steep increase in "cheating".
First and foremost, the biggest complaint about the player in question is that he played too many copies of Elvish Archdruid. At one point, the player in question did have multiple Archdruids in play and revealed one for a +1 activation of Garruk. This much is true. After this point, the facts of what happened have already started to break down. There is some speculation from those not involved in the call that, at this point, the player tried to hide things. This is simply not true. What happened was that, a judge was called and upon comparison with the deck list, 6 copies of the archrduid were found where it was listed as a 4/4 split between Elvish Archdruids and Elvish Mystics. (NOT Avacyn's pilgrims, BTW, as white mana is useless in this mono-green deck.) Both players waited for the ruling, and nothing was hidden or shuffled away. The judge said that the current game was over (which was correct, since the penalty for a deck list problem is a GL) and THEN the players started to shuffle. The deck was also corrected at this point, so the rest of the event was played with a deck that was legal and matched the list.
As an aside... some would like to point out the significance of the Archdruids here, but I think that's overstated. Archdruid can't drop until turn 3. This deck likes to play turn a threat turn 2, like predator ooze. That can't happen without a 1-drop mana creature. This is not to say that Archdruids are not quality, and do not have an impact on the game--just that I think the particular significance is being overstated.
How did this happen? The player stated that he bought the deck in its entirety the day before. He sent his list to a store, got the cards and just sleeved it. Seems a bit of a stretch at first, but how many players have you heard had a friend hand them a deck? Further, I had an employee for the store in question on my staff. Talking with that employee, the question was raised of whether this is an understandable error. The answer is that the person who pulls cards has been known to be quite sloppy. Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.
A second complaint about the player is that he had his deck in clear sleeves. These were not just penny sleeves, mind you--they were the nice ultra-pro or dragon shield sleeves. I've been a judge for a long time; I'm no stranger to marked cards or sleeves. Let me tell you: these cards were not marked in any way. Just about every deck in the room playing solid color sleeves looked much worse than these cards. In fact, I had several players who were very unhappy to receive game loss penalties because I could see their transform cards through their sleeves during the day--but I digress. The cards were not marked.
During the top 4 I picked up his SB to look through it. This was not for any particular reason. I tend to do this while waiting on top X matches; I'll grab a sideboard that's on the table and look at it. What I found surprised me: 17 cards. I looked more closely, and noticed 2 copies of Garruk and 2 checklist cards. OK, 17 makes sense; you can't play the Garruk in clear sleeves, so there are checklist cards. Then I looked at those checklist cards... and they had nothing marked. I really wish we had caught this at the same time we caught the other issue, but the fact is that we didn't. I saw no reason in this case to deviate from policy. I knew he had no other transform cards, I knew we had missed it earlier, and I still issued a game loss in the Top 4. Bam, go to game 3.
I've heard complaints of illegal blocks made by the same player during the day--Mutavault blocking Stromkirk Noble, for example. Yes, this was illegal. Mistakes happen, and this is an easy one to miss or forget when your deck doesn't (ostensibly) contain any humans. Guess what? The opponent didn't say anything and didn't call a judge when it happened, so obviously his opponents missed it too. I guess this came up in conversation later, because someone pointed it out and we (as judges) DID hear about it. A floor judge talked to the player, and we believe it to have been missed. Also, because we talked with him it wouldn't happen again--or, if it did, we knew he had been told--but we couldn't help until someone told a judge.
I've heard complaints, too, that he "always seemed to have his sideboard cards." Well, guess what? I watched him side as many as 8 in. When you side in 8 cards, you're going to draw at least a couple. In the final game, he drew 2 copies of Plummet. His opponent drew 2 Olivias. It was a perfect foil, but how did he know his opponent would have 2 copies of Olivia? If that had been 2 copies Huntmaster of the Fells instead, those 2 Plummets would have been dead draws.
At the end of the day, the player received 2 game losses during the day, with one of them during the Top 4. The player STILL managed to win through 9 rounds of swiss and the top 8. Did he do it with dumb errors? Yes. Did he do it with some "run good" ? Sure, but I'm not about to start disqualifying players simply because "they're running too hot" or because they do dumb things like not verifying their purchased decks. Those who know me, know that I won't hesitate to remove someone from my events. I had no cause to do so at this event, and we have a winner.
As a final note... I think it's shameful that, as a community, we don't report errors when they happen but instead wait to tear someone down when they're on top. If you are concerned about something happening at an event, report it immediately. If you're going to wait and complain on forums, expect to be treated the same way should you ever manage to climb to the top. After all, to make the top 8 at a 9 round PTQ, "you have really good luck, or you cheat."
Anyone who makes a mistake must be lazy, I mean humans only make mistakes when they are lazy, not when they are in a hurry or deep in thought.
True facts. the game is fun when you play by the rules, but sucks when you get waste your entire weekend due to an accident.
In the context of the current example, I'd say it means the following. There's a high probability that a player won this PTQ because he broke the rules. If he had played by the rules, it is likely that he would not have won.
My basic sanity test is that when a judge corrects a violation with an enforcement action, it should not have a high chance of leaving the guilty player in a better position than he or she would have been if the player had not committed the violation.
I don't think your characterization of the error as a "singular mistake" is completely accurate. Yes, it originated as a single mistake. However, in another sense the player broke the rules each of the 10-20 times he presented the illegal deck. So in that sense it is far more than a single mistake.
I agree with you that a single mistake can have many indirect effects and that it's hard for a rules system to deal with these. However, I think that in this case the advantages in all of the previous games are best considered direct effects, so your example isn't really relevant.
I think a general policy of upgrading penalties if the judge is reasonably certain that the same violation occurred in previous rounds would be an improvement.
Beyond that...since we want to encourage people not to break the rules even accidentally, perhaps the tiebreak system could be adjusted to give a bonus to people who haven't been hit with game loss penalties.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Apparently, that's because you aren't cheating enough.
I read up to page 10 before I got tired.
I played in lots of tournaments prior to Tempest. I played in a few since then, but I'm mostly casual now. As a casual player, it makes sense to me that this type of decklist error should result in a DQ at competitive REL. As a casual player, I find it odd that judges and tournament organizers are being so lenient in how they run their tournaments. Although I primarily play casual, I expect tournament play to be held to a higher standard than what I have seen discussed so far in this thread.
Going back to the quote above, I have to wonder if the reason I haven't done so well in the few tournaments I have participated in lately is because I'm actually playing by the rules. As a casual player I say the situation described by the OP certainly makes participation in tournaments even less appealing to me.
The only reason I can think of for TOs and Judges to be so lax in administering tournaments is because they are afraid of discouraging casuals from participating. As a casual player, I find that attitude revolting.
Whether you like it or not it's a game. The game is produced by a company that wants to make money. This company makes money by having people play the game not by sending 1% of the player population to cool events. They dont make money streaming the games on TV. The company wants to do whatever it can to make the events accessible to as many players as possible in a way that drives sales (needing to keep on on the latest deck lists). Making the rules so hardassed that new players are too intimidated to try playing will not drive sales, it will turn away players.
Competitive REL is explicitly made to prevent that lazy way of thinking destroy that game.
Competitive
Competitive events are usually those with significant cash prizes or invitations awarded to Professional events.
Players are expected to know the game’s rules—but not to a technically detailed level—and be familiar with the
policies and procedures, but unintentional errors are not punished severely. These are events that protect the interests
of all players by providing event integrity while also recognizing that not all players are intimately familiar with
Professional-level event structure, proper procedures, and rules.
most might be confusing it with
Professional
Professional level events offer large cash awards, prestige, and other benefits that draw players from great distances.
These events hold players to a higher standard of behavior and technically correct play than Competitive events.
That is entirely false. The rules and judging community have come to the current regulations after many many tournaments, seeing errors, and weighing how to balance mistakes occurring to how severe each penalty should be to maintain an orderly tournament environment. There are thousands upon thousands of mistakes that occur at any given tournament and if every single perceived one was a DQ-able offense as it seems you want the tournament would have no winner.
Your reasoning is false and ignores the fact that hundreds of tournaments are run successfully every week; proof that the system is working quite well. You've presented no philosophy, no evidence, and no reasonable fix for anything.
I find that far more revolting.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands