lso, 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.
And...we have our answer.
A friendly head judge who knows the offender, all too common, allows him to get away with blatant cheating.
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.
I don't expect judges to be experts on the metagame, but saying such an obviously false statement as "Archdruid can't drop until turn 3" in a deck which runs 1-drop mana creatures (as you acknowledge a couple sentences later) really does not make you look good.
While what's being presented sounds shaddy, I wasn't there and I believe in Judge's discretion when making rulings. Stupid mistakes happen. I got a game loss at a 5k for a deck registration error because I was playing R/G aggro and wrote Stromkirk on my deck reg sheet instead of Stromkirk noble.
Obviously not cheating, obviously a stupid mistake and some would argue to harsh a penalty but that's just the way **** goes. Judge followed the rules, used his discretion and that's fine with me. As someone who's played lots of magic in my life, I can believe the head judges statement and I don't actually think having 6 archdruids is better then having 8 manadorks so even though this does seem shady, I don't think there was any malicious cheating going on(unless the player in question is an idiot which seems unplausible seeing as he went 11-1 in matches).
LP, I'm checking your article out as well. Behind all of your swag is the brain of one of the most intelligent Magic players I've ever known. I guess that's one more thing for you to add to the wall of ego that is your Sally sig.
I can go with that. LK, you are the Mace Windu of red mages...cool, tempered logic in deliberation, but capable of just flat kicking tail when the situation warrants it.
A friendly head judge who knows the offender, all too common, allows him to get away with blatant cheating.
Plz stop stating what you think happened, as facts. A player's reputation should be put into consideration when determining if it was intentional cheating.
I don't expect judges to be experts on the metagame, but saying such an obviously false statement as "Archdruid can't drop until turn 3" in a deck which runs 1-drop mana creatures (as you acknowledge a couple sentences later) really does not make you look good.
I think he meant the player would ideally turn 2 an Ooze before Turn 3 Archdruid, which is obviously pretty ridiculous. T2 druid seems ideal.
I don't expect judges to be experts on the metagame, but saying such an obviously false statement as "Archdruid can't drop until turn 3" in a deck which runs 1-drop mana creatures (as you acknowledge a couple sentences later) really does not make you look good.
But if it was on purpose why take out 2 of the 1-drop mana dorks needed to play the card he was using extra of? I am sure there would have been much more beneficial cards to leave out...
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.
And this is why many of the former tournament players I know stopped taking tournaments seriously and moved to casual.
"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
A friendly head judge who knows the offender, all too common, allows him to get away with blatant cheating.
While I don't agree with your abrasive tone, that is the vibe I'm getting from the one post from the head judge and others who have defended the winner. "He's cool, we know him" isn't good enough. An investigation which blames the local stock boy doesn't seem to be weighing facts in an objective manner, i.e. why was a deck purchased yesterday not checked last night or this morning or during any of the five previous rounds. If this player had been from farther away, would he have been dealt with harsher? That seems to be what I'm hearing.
And this is why many of the former tournament players I know stopped taking tournaments seriously and moved to casual.
Weird... when I played in tournaments I just did it for fun. When it started costing $400 to keep up on Standard is when I decided I wasnt that serious and quit.
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.
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.
At competitive it's not a game anymore. People pay to enter a tournament and win money. Some people make a living out of it. It's as much a game as poker and sports, they have their "pro" variant that changes all of this.
The judge even said that he bought the deck and sleeved it. So he missed 6 druids while sleeving the whole deck?
Sure why not? if it wasnt organized and he was just sleeving a shuffled mess why would he notice? Especially if he was doing something else like talk to someone or watch TV while sleeving.
Weird... when I played in tournaments I just did it for fun. When it started costing $400 to keep up on Standard is when I decided I wasnt that serious and quit.
Basically, making money is more important to them than maintaining the integrity of the competition. That is what I got from your previous post.
"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
A friendly head judge who knows the offender, all too common, allows him to get away with blatant cheating.
I'm going to only say this once, regarding L3 Judge David Hibbs: the man is BEYOND reproach when it comes to judging. I've played in countless tourneys that he has judged (HJ or not), from PTQs to prereleases and local tourneys, to GPs. He does not refrain from DQing someone from a tournament if he feels it is warranted, regardless of whether he knows the person or not. I find it extremely offensive that anyone would implicate him with aiding and abetting a cheater, especially someone who has never played in one of his events.
Even if the judges had been completely different people, and hadn't known Victor, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different than what actually occurred. Victor received the harshest punishment called for by the IPG: a game loss. The judges did their due diligence, and meted the appropriate penalty. You have a problem with that penalty? Take it up with the DCI. Nothing else said on this issue (especially by people who are hearing it 3rd hand) matters.
Sure why not? if it wasnt organized and he was just sleeving a shuffled mess why would he notice? Especially if he was doing something else like talk to someone or watch TV while sleeving.
No. He had just been handed a deck pulled by someone at a store, not picked willy nilly from a shoebox. His archdruids probably were stacked one on top of each other. While some guy claims to be randomly in the store and playtesting and talking with him immediately after he bought the deck, I still don't buy it. I'm glancing at my cards while sleeving, because I can't sleeve without looking very well.
I'm going to only say this once, regarding L3 Judge David Hibbs: the man is BEYOND reproach when it comes to judging. I've played in countless tourneys that he has judged (HJ or not), from PTQs to prereleases and local tourneys, to GPs. He does not refrain from DQing someone from a tournament if he feels it is warranted, regardless of whether he knows the person or not. I find it extremely offensive that anyone would implicate him with aiding and abetting a cheater, especially someone who has never played in one of his events.
Even if the judges had been completely different people, and hadn't known Victor, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different than what actually occurred. Victor received the harshest punishment called for by the IPG: a game loss. The judges did their due diligence, and meted the appropriate penalty. You have a problem with that penalty? Take it up with the DCI. Nothing else said on this issue (especially by people who are hearing it 3rd hand) matters.
That answers my question, I'll make my Modern Burn made entirely out of Lightning Bolts and say I was watching TV while sleeving, give me that Game Loss.
At competitive it's not a game anymore. People pay to enter a tournament and win money. Some people make a living out of it. It's as much a game as poker and sports, they have their "pro" variant that changes all of this.
Not even close. When you talk about pro poker or sports now, the money being made is on viewership. The NFL would not exist if there werent people watching it. PTQs are not much more "pro" than playing poker in someone's basement. The event doesnt exist without it being fun for the players. WotC is not going to keep supporting PTQs if attendance drops below 100 because the only way it is good for business is if the masses try to compete. If you keep the FNM players out of PTQs then they have no reason to build PTQ worthy decks they can get away with spending less to compete at FNM. If that happens sales drop because suddenly less people need that chase rare and the price goes down so less product is opened.
"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
That answers my question, I'll make my Modern Burn made entirely out of Lightning Bolts and say I was watching TV while sleeving, give me that Game Loss.
After your first game, you might play a deck that resembles the following
That answers my question, I'll make my Modern Burn made entirely out of Lightning Bolts and say I was watching TV while sleeving, give me that Game Loss.
And you would be DQ'd for cheating. Running 6 Archdruids is a far cry from running 40 Bolts, and the judges would see it as such. With Victor, its not nearly so cut and dry.
While I appreciate what you're trying to say, you do know that what you're saying amounts to, "He's cool, trust me."
Do you know what I remember about my first PTQ? The advice about my decklist. My player friends were adamant about it. Check your list. Double check your list. Lay out all your cards and check it again. Do it again right before you turn in your list. Guess this guys friends forgot to tell him all that.
I'm going to only say this once, regarding L3 Judge David Hibbs: the man is BEYOND reproach when it comes to judging. I've played in countless tourneys that he has judged (HJ or not), from PTQs to prereleases and local tourneys, to GPs. He does not refrain from DQing someone from a tournament if he feels it is warranted, regardless of whether he knows the person or not. I find it extremely offensive that anyone would implicate him with aiding and abetting a cheater, especially someone who has never played in one of his events.
Even if the judges had been completely different people, and hadn't known Victor, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different than what actually occurred. Victor received the harshest punishment called for by the IPG: a game loss. The judges did their due diligence, and meted the appropriate penalty. You have a problem with that penalty? Take it up with the DCI. Nothing else said on this issue (especially by people who are hearing it 3rd hand) matters.
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.
Good explanation but everything becomes moot right there. I think that it's not fair for players that lost to him before his deck was fixed. This is why he needs a DQ. You can't rewind 6 rounds of PTQ, you can't give back the victories to the guys that lost against a misconstructed deck. At least you can remove the guy from the prize pool.
Dumb mistake or not, it's just not fair to the others and intent shouldn't matter.
And you would be DQ'd for cheating. Running 6 Archdruids is a far cry from running 40 Bolts, and the judges would see it as such. With Victor, its not nearly so cut and dry.
So run 6 bolts and see what happens. Or run 6x Burning Tree in Standard. Honest mistakes. I should mention that a player has been banned from my local store for running 5x copies of some card in a dinky Sunday tournament and being exposed when he revealed a fifth during a game, in a very similar manner to this fellow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And...we have our answer.
A friendly head judge who knows the offender, all too common, allows him to get away with blatant cheating.
I don't expect judges to be experts on the metagame, but saying such an obviously false statement as "Archdruid can't drop until turn 3" in a deck which runs 1-drop mana creatures (as you acknowledge a couple sentences later) really does not make you look good.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Obviously not cheating, obviously a stupid mistake and some would argue to harsh a penalty but that's just the way **** goes. Judge followed the rules, used his discretion and that's fine with me. As someone who's played lots of magic in my life, I can believe the head judges statement and I don't actually think having 6 archdruids is better then having 8 manadorks so even though this does seem shady, I don't think there was any malicious cheating going on(unless the player in question is an idiot which seems unplausible seeing as he went 11-1 in matches).
Plz stop stating what you think happened, as facts. A player's reputation should be put into consideration when determining if it was intentional cheating.
I think he meant the player would ideally turn 2 an Ooze before Turn 3 Archdruid, which is obviously pretty ridiculous. T2 druid seems ideal.
But if it was on purpose why take out 2 of the 1-drop mana dorks needed to play the card he was using extra of? I am sure there would have been much more beneficial cards to leave out...
And this is why many of the former tournament players I know stopped taking tournaments seriously and moved to casual.
While I don't agree with your abrasive tone, that is the vibe I'm getting from the one post from the head judge and others who have defended the winner. "He's cool, we know him" isn't good enough. An investigation which blames the local stock boy doesn't seem to be weighing facts in an objective manner, i.e. why was a deck purchased yesterday not checked last night or this morning or during any of the five previous rounds. If this player had been from farther away, would he have been dealt with harsher? That seems to be what I'm hearing.
Weird... when I played in tournaments I just did it for fun. When it started costing $400 to keep up on Standard is when I decided I wasnt that serious and quit.
This is absurd. I just don't even...
At competitive it's not a game anymore. People pay to enter a tournament and win money. Some people make a living out of it. It's as much a game as poker and sports, they have their "pro" variant that changes all of this.
Sure why not? if it wasnt organized and he was just sleeving a shuffled mess why would he notice? Especially if he was doing something else like talk to someone or watch TV while sleeving.
Basically, making money is more important to them than maintaining the integrity of the competition. That is what I got from your previous post.
I'm going to only say this once, regarding L3 Judge David Hibbs: the man is BEYOND reproach when it comes to judging. I've played in countless tourneys that he has judged (HJ or not), from PTQs to prereleases and local tourneys, to GPs. He does not refrain from DQing someone from a tournament if he feels it is warranted, regardless of whether he knows the person or not. I find it extremely offensive that anyone would implicate him with aiding and abetting a cheater, especially someone who has never played in one of his events.
Even if the judges had been completely different people, and hadn't known Victor, I don't believe the outcome would have been any different than what actually occurred. Victor received the harshest punishment called for by the IPG: a game loss. The judges did their due diligence, and meted the appropriate penalty. You have a problem with that penalty? Take it up with the DCI. Nothing else said on this issue (especially by people who are hearing it 3rd hand) matters.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
No. He had just been handed a deck pulled by someone at a store, not picked willy nilly from a shoebox. His archdruids probably were stacked one on top of each other. While some guy claims to be randomly in the store and playtesting and talking with him immediately after he bought the deck, I still don't buy it. I'm glancing at my cards while sleeving, because I can't sleeve without looking very well.
That answers my question, I'll make my Modern Burn made entirely out of Lightning Bolts and say I was watching TV while sleeving, give me that Game Loss.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Not even close. When you talk about pro poker or sports now, the money being made is on viewership. The NFL would not exist if there werent people watching it. PTQs are not much more "pro" than playing poker in someone's basement. The event doesnt exist without it being fun for the players. WotC is not going to keep supporting PTQs if attendance drops below 100 because the only way it is good for business is if the masses try to compete. If you keep the FNM players out of PTQs then they have no reason to build PTQ worthy decks they can get away with spending less to compete at FNM. If that happens sales drop because suddenly less people need that chase rare and the price goes down so less product is opened.
PTQ is different than a Pro Tour.
Hahaha! Do dumb things, win at tournament Magic! Wow, I wasted so much effort on trying to play smart and avoid mistakes...
After your first game, you might play a deck that resembles the following
4 lightning bolt
And you would be DQ'd for cheating. Running 6 Archdruids is a far cry from running 40 Bolts, and the judges would see it as such. With Victor, its not nearly so cut and dry.
Do you know what I remember about my first PTQ? The advice about my decklist. My player friends were adamant about it. Check your list. Double check your list. Lay out all your cards and check it again. Do it again right before you turn in your list. Guess this guys friends forgot to tell him all that.
Good explanation but everything becomes moot right there. I think that it's not fair for players that lost to him before his deck was fixed. This is why he needs a DQ. You can't rewind 6 rounds of PTQ, you can't give back the victories to the guys that lost against a misconstructed deck. At least you can remove the guy from the prize pool.
Dumb mistake or not, it's just not fair to the others and intent shouldn't matter.
So run 6 bolts and see what happens. Or run 6x Burning Tree in Standard. Honest mistakes. I should mention that a player has been banned from my local store for running 5x copies of some card in a dinky Sunday tournament and being exposed when he revealed a fifth during a game, in a very similar manner to this fellow.