PTQs are not much more "pro" than playing poker in someone's basement. The event doesnt exist without it being fun for the players.
I admit, I haven't been to a lot of PTQs. In the few that I have been to, the participants did not look like they were having fun nor did it look like they were there with the intent to have fun.
EDIT: I should also mention, as a casual player, whenever I go to a PTQ I'm not there with the intent to have fun either.
"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
Basically, making money is more important to them than maintaining the integrity of the competition. That is what I got from your previous post.
For WotC/Hasbro... yes.
Why does the NFL not have sensors in a football that tell them when the ball crosses the goal line? Why dont they digitally keep track of down and distance so they dont need a guy to "spot the ball" and chains to measure...
Because it's not that important. Sure it's important to the team that gets screwed by it... but the NFL isnt going to make extra money by implementing that kind of technology. Hell, they make more by having the possible controversy.
What percentage of sales do you think goes to the hardcore tourny players that realistically have a chance of going to the Pro Tour? I am willing to bet that most sales are from FNM players and Casuals. So who do they want to tailor the most events towards?
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.
Frankly, I don't care if any of you people trust me. All I care about is that the Judges did their jobs, and I know that they did. Any further discussion on it is moot, because the DCI is going to trust the judges on their calls.
My biggest mistake was that I got caught up in jousting people on the internet. No one wants to listen to a credible source that was there at the time of the incident.
And yes, everyone and his mother has told him about checking his list. He's been playing PTQs for over half a decade. Doesn't mean he can't make boneheaded mistakes with the best of 'em.
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.
I don't agree.
Moreso just because I don't know anything else about the player in terms of how he played and what else went on. That there's correlation between him winning the PTQ and making the mistakes he did doesn't mean there was an actual causation involved. Personally, I withhold judgment on that point, as I simply don't know.
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.
How did that happen here? How did the judge correct the error and leave the player in a better position as a result of that fix? Because the deck itself was fixed. And the player was issued a Game Loss. We have that from the account of the Head Judge.
It seems to me that what you want is for the judge to retroactively address the problem and evaluate "advantage" and affect a chance to handle that. I think that's a big difference in what you want versus what you say above. The two concepts are not synonymous.
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 don't agree with you, and I doubt that you and I will see eye to eye on that. I think the original problem was exacerbated between the time it was made and when it was caught, but it is still the same problem. A very, very unfortunate one to be certain. Moreso because no one else could detect the error.
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.
Again, I don't see how you can correlate the mistakes here with some kind of "direct effect" upon the final outcome. I don't see the causation between the two things. And, IMO, even then, the general philosophy for Competitive REL is that we still recognize the potential for unintetional errors to happen. And that we don't punish those severely.
IMO, if you want that philosophy to change, then you'll definitely want to push WotC to make that change. Just consider the ramifications of such a change.
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.
Then you might want to consider submitting feedback to WPN customer support regarding that. If you feel strongly that policy would be improved in that respect if such an approach were codified, then I would certainly take the time to submit that feedback. I've no idea if that would be entertained, or if it is even possible to implement in a reasonable fashion, but I do encourage you to submit that feedback.
And yes, everyone and his mother has told him about checking his list. He's been playing PTQs for over half a decade. Doesn't mean he can't make boneheaded mistakes with the best of 'em.
He's been playing in PTQ's for this long and makes this many boneheaded mistakes in ONE day?
Dude is a flat out cheater, period. The judges were either asinine or they were in on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
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.
Most deck checks dont happen until after a round or 2 (at least that's how it was a few years ago).... Should all of those rounds be retroactively changed for every player that miss-spells something or dropped his 4th lightning bolt in his bag between rounds/before the event?
I still want to know if he would have been given a match loss if they had found the Checklist infraction at the same time as the 6x Archdruids. 2x Losses in one match could have been backbreaking in his quest for the win. 2x losses spread between 2x matches he ended up winning...not so much.
It also feels wrong that he was allowed to make his deck whole with 2x Mystics. Seems like they should have been forests.
Moreso just because I don't know anything else about the player in terms of how he played and what else went on. That there's correlation between him winning the PTQ and making the mistakes he did doesn't mean there was an actual causation involved. Personally, I withhold judgment on that point, as I simply don't know.
How did that happen here? How did the judge correct the error and leave the player in a better position as a result of that fix? Because the deck itself was fixed. And the player was issued a Game Loss. We have that from the account of the Head Judge.
It seems to me that what you want is for the judge to retroactively address the problem and evaluate "advantage" and affect a chance to handle that. I think that's a big difference in what you want versus what you say above. The two concepts are not synonymous.
I don't agree with you, and I doubt that you and I will see eye to eye on that. I think the original problem was exacerbated between the time it was made and when it was caught, but it is still the same problem. A very, very unfortunate one to be certain. Moreso because no one else could detect the error.
But, I still see it as part of the same problem.
Again, I don't see how you can correlate the mistakes here with some kind of "direct effect" upon the final outcome. I don't see the causation between the two things. And, IMO, even then, the general philosophy for Competitive REL is that we still recognize the potential for unintetional errors to happen. And that we don't punish those severely.
IMO, if you want that philosophy to change, then you'll definitely want to push WotC to make that change. Just consider the ramifications of such a change.
Then you might want to consider submitting feedback to WPN customer support regarding that. If you feel strongly that policy would be improved in that respect if such an approach were codified, then I would certainly take the time to submit that feedback. I've no idea if that would be entertained, or if it is even possible to implement in a reasonable fashion, but I do encourage you to submit that feedback.
We get that you're a L3, but stop making excuses for bad judges and bad calls. The guy was clearly cheating, and he clearly won because of said cheat. You're very much in the minority here. If the guy had been DQ'd and thrown out of the PTQ, you'd be singing a different tune.
I still want to know if he would have been given a match loss if they had found the Checklist infraction at the same time as the 6x Archdruids. 2x Losses in one match could have been backbreaking in his quest for the win. 2x losses spread between 2x matches he ended up winning...not so much.
He would have gotten two game losses in the same match. He ended up losing that match anyway, without the 2nd game loss.
We get that you're a L3, but stop making excuses for bad judges and bad calls. The guy was clearly cheating, and he clearly won because of said cheat. You're very much in the minority here.
Just because he's in the minority doesn't mean he isn't correct.
Another thing.......how did the checklist mishap not become noticed in the original deckcheck? Do we chalk this one up to judge's error?
Doesn't that bring into question the validity of the judge's original ruling?
Additionally, after getting a game loss for his illegal deck, why didn't the player check his deck and realize his checkcards were unmarked?
This is so fishy that I can't really imagine how it could all go down the way it did - I mean this is truly messed up.
In a PTQ not all deck are deck checked. I am sure they just looked for number of copies after noticing the Archdruid problem. Also as noted on the previous page the player did lose that match anyway.... it was actually significantly worse for him to have the check card issue found later than it would have been to get both game losses at once.
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.
By definition, cheating has to be intentional for it to be called cheating. Webster's dictionary, take a look.
Point still stands. He could vacate his win and look good doing it. Would make the magic community as a whole look better. Instead, he'll be known as the guy you should request a deck check on every single match.
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.
In case you missed it, he was running archdruids in place of his 1-drop mana creatures.... That makes it hard to drop stuff 'till turn 3.
We get that you're a L3, but stop making excuses for bad judges and bad calls. The guy was clearly cheating, and you're very much in the minority here.
Being in the minority, if I even am, does not make my opinion wrong.
You're free to disagree with me on that, but the situation seems to be handled well within the scope of policy. As I wasn't there, I'm not going to make a judgment either way as to whether he cheated or not. That goes to intent of the player, which I simply don't (and can't) know, and I'm not going to speculate. Beyond that, I don't care what your (or anyone else's) opinion is of me. Think what you want, it isn't going to change my opinion on this situation.
That being said, if you and others feel that policy should change, then I encourage you to submit feedback to the DCI and suggest how you feel policy should change.
Just because he's in the minority doesn't mean he isn't correct.
MOB JUSTICE FOR EVERYONE
The whole story is fishier than a sardine factory.
The guy apparently owns no MTG cards, so he needs to buy an entire deck at the event.
The guy buys the deck from an employee who is "sloppy", sloppy enough to not only pull the wrong cards, but to pull 6 copies of a rare instead of 2 commons, and never double checked the order
The guy buys clear sleeves, the only sleeves that allow you to possibly see a marked card back, just because.
They guy sleeves his deck up at the event, and never noticed 6 Elvish Archdruids and 0 Elvish mystics.
The guy playtests the deck, and never noticed 6 Elvish Archdruids and 0 Elvish mystics.
The guy plays 10+ rounds of MTG, and never noticed 6 Elvish Archdruids and 0 Elvish mystics.
They guy runs an unmarked checklist card because he "forgot to mark it"
The guy makes multiple illegal blocks with Mutavault because "it's a tricky card"
The head judge knows him, but that has nothing to do with letting a guy reap the benefits of 6 rounds of play with an illegal deck
That's a mighty long list of "stupid mistakes" for a guy with a level of play skill good enough to win a PTQ. But I'm sure it was all completely innocent and they guy deserves the win and the PT invite.
One things for sure, if I'm ever in the Houston area, no way am I ever playing a Comp REL event around there if that's the level of chicanery that can pass a for "honest mistake" amoung the judges there. Seems to me like the HJ had a laundry list of awfully convenient excuses he was perfectly willing to throw out there for every single thing this guy did that was wrong.
That goes to intent of the player, which I simply don't (and can't) know
Which no one can know which gives every cheater a loophole in the rules big enough to sail a tanker through. All you got to do is say "Oops" and you're still in the tournament. With the egregious penalty that you need to play the actual deck for the rest of the event instead of the better copy you built with 6 of's in it. And that's considered "acceptable judging". Incredible.
Honest mistake guys! I thought I was just lucky I got 3 BTE on every opening hand.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
I admit, I haven't been to a lot of PTQs. In the few that I have been to, the participants did not look like they were having fun nor did it look like they were there with the intent to have fun.
EDIT: I should also mention, as a casual player, whenever I go to a PTQ I'm not there with the intent to have fun either.
For WotC/Hasbro... yes.
Why does the NFL not have sensors in a football that tell them when the ball crosses the goal line? Why dont they digitally keep track of down and distance so they dont need a guy to "spot the ball" and chains to measure...
Because it's not that important. Sure it's important to the team that gets screwed by it... but the NFL isnt going to make extra money by implementing that kind of technology. Hell, they make more by having the possible controversy.
What percentage of sales do you think goes to the hardcore tourny players that realistically have a chance of going to the Pro Tour? I am willing to bet that most sales are from FNM players and Casuals. So who do they want to tailor the most events towards?
Frankly, I don't care if any of you people trust me. All I care about is that the Judges did their jobs, and I know that they did. Any further discussion on it is moot, because the DCI is going to trust the judges on their calls.
My biggest mistake was that I got caught up in jousting people on the internet. No one wants to listen to a credible source that was there at the time of the incident.
And yes, everyone and his mother has told him about checking his list. He's been playing PTQs for over half a decade. Doesn't mean he can't make boneheaded mistakes with the best of 'em.
I don't agree.
Moreso just because I don't know anything else about the player in terms of how he played and what else went on. That there's correlation between him winning the PTQ and making the mistakes he did doesn't mean there was an actual causation involved. Personally, I withhold judgment on that point, as I simply don't know.
How did that happen here? How did the judge correct the error and leave the player in a better position as a result of that fix? Because the deck itself was fixed. And the player was issued a Game Loss. We have that from the account of the Head Judge.
It seems to me that what you want is for the judge to retroactively address the problem and evaluate "advantage" and affect a chance to handle that. I think that's a big difference in what you want versus what you say above. The two concepts are not synonymous.
I don't agree with you, and I doubt that you and I will see eye to eye on that. I think the original problem was exacerbated between the time it was made and when it was caught, but it is still the same problem. A very, very unfortunate one to be certain. Moreso because no one else could detect the error.
But, I still see it as part of the same problem.
Again, I don't see how you can correlate the mistakes here with some kind of "direct effect" upon the final outcome. I don't see the causation between the two things. And, IMO, even then, the general philosophy for Competitive REL is that we still recognize the potential for unintetional errors to happen. And that we don't punish those severely.
IMO, if you want that philosophy to change, then you'll definitely want to push WotC to make that change. Just consider the ramifications of such a change.
Then you might want to consider submitting feedback to WPN customer support regarding that. If you feel strongly that policy would be improved in that respect if such an approach were codified, then I would certainly take the time to submit that feedback. I've no idea if that would be entertained, or if it is even possible to implement in a reasonable fashion, but I do encourage you to submit that feedback.
He's been playing in PTQ's for this long and makes this many boneheaded mistakes in ONE day?
Dude is a flat out cheater, period. The judges were either asinine or they were in on it.
Most deck checks dont happen until after a round or 2 (at least that's how it was a few years ago).... Should all of those rounds be retroactively changed for every player that miss-spells something or dropped his 4th lightning bolt in his bag between rounds/before the event?
You're right. He should take responsibility for his boneheaded mistake and vacate his wins. He knows he cheated whether it was intentional or not.
UTron
BRGWLiving End
Commander
WRGBUSliver
It also feels wrong that he was allowed to make his deck whole with 2x Mystics. Seems like they should have been forests.
We get that you're a L3, but stop making excuses for bad judges and bad calls. The guy was clearly cheating, and he clearly won because of said cheat. You're very much in the minority here. If the guy had been DQ'd and thrown out of the PTQ, you'd be singing a different tune.
He would have gotten two game losses in the same match. He ended up losing that match anyway, without the 2nd game loss.
Doesn't that bring into question the validity of the judge's original ruling?
Additionally, after getting a game loss for his illegal deck, why didn't the player check his deck and realize his checkcards were unmarked?
This is so fishy that I can't really imagine how it could all go down the way it did - I mean this is truly messed up.
Just because he's in the minority doesn't mean he isn't correct.
MOB JUSTICE FOR EVERYONE
By definition, cheating has to be intentional for it to be called cheating. Webster's dictionary, take a look.
In a PTQ not all deck are deck checked. I am sure they just looked for number of copies after noticing the Archdruid problem. Also as noted on the previous page the player did lose that match anyway.... it was actually significantly worse for him to have the check card issue found later than it would have been to get both game losses at once.
It's not mob justice. It's an Internet forum. He decided to make excuses for bad calls and bad judges, so I'm calling him on it.
The player should've been DQ'd and promptly thrown out of the tournament, period.
Perfect Integrity!!!!
By the IPG, the situation was handeled correctly.
Fact, and Fact.
The idea that it's unfair to everyone he played against while idealistically makes sense, actually doesn't matter.
Fluffy, Valarian says that every time anyone makes any mistake on stream. Don't fuel his fire.
^Someone doesn't know what stream ghosting is.
I disagree. And I have a damn good feeling the DCI's investigation will back me up.
Point still stands. He could vacate his win and look good doing it. Would make the magic community as a whole look better. Instead, he'll be known as the guy you should request a deck check on every single match.
UTron
BRGWLiving End
Commander
WRGBUSliver
In case you missed it, he was running archdruids in place of his 1-drop mana creatures.... That makes it hard to drop stuff 'till turn 3.
Okay, cause that makes total sense for tournament, format, game, and brand health. Get a grip.
Being in the minority, if I even am, does not make my opinion wrong.
You're free to disagree with me on that, but the situation seems to be handled well within the scope of policy. As I wasn't there, I'm not going to make a judgment either way as to whether he cheated or not. That goes to intent of the player, which I simply don't (and can't) know, and I'm not going to speculate. Beyond that, I don't care what your (or anyone else's) opinion is of me. Think what you want, it isn't going to change my opinion on this situation.
That being said, if you and others feel that policy should change, then I encourage you to submit feedback to the DCI and suggest how you feel policy should change.
The whole story is fishier than a sardine factory.
That's a mighty long list of "stupid mistakes" for a guy with a level of play skill good enough to win a PTQ. But I'm sure it was all completely innocent and they guy deserves the win and the PT invite.
One things for sure, if I'm ever in the Houston area, no way am I ever playing a Comp REL event around there if that's the level of chicanery that can pass a for "honest mistake" amoung the judges there. Seems to me like the HJ had a laundry list of awfully convenient excuses he was perfectly willing to throw out there for every single thing this guy did that was wrong.
Which no one can know which gives every cheater a loophole in the rules big enough to sail a tanker through. All you got to do is say "Oops" and you're still in the tournament. With the egregious penalty that you need to play the actual deck for the rest of the event instead of the better copy you built with 6 of's in it. And that's considered "acceptable judging". Incredible.