Wotc could root out/deter a lot of cheaters by requiring people to record #of mulligans on match slips and analyze that data. There should be no pattern to a players own mulligans or his opponents mulligans. If there's a pattern, someone is cheating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Magic Enthusiast
Professor
Powered 540 Cube fully foiled and altered
Legacy: Death and Taxes / RUG Delver
Vintage: Shops
All that would accomplish is creating far more data entry and delays between rounds than is required. I doubt very many cheaters are skilled enough to consistently force mulligans, and if they are they can probably just use that tactic during bad match ups only. Most people who cheat while shuffling do it like Jared, they simple put one land on top during the middle of the game, as opposed to multiple lands during the start of the game.
More so, certain decks would create really weird skews of mulligans, because against a Dredge deck it's not incorrect to mulligan if you think you can draw a cage/leyline earlier or something of the nature. This would mean that a player running Dredge would have multiple mulligans against him throughout the day, despite not cheating at all.
Recording mulligans would simply be busy work that yields little to no results in the grand scheme of things.
"Law science has nothing to do with science". Hmmm... Green chairs are not chairs? Apple computers are not computers? This red magic the gathering card has nothing to do with magic the gathering? Me. Is. Confused.
<So I have this minor stiffness in my foot sometimes when I wake up the muscle is very tense... Can you give me a diagnosis? I mean you're a doctor right, and we go see doctors about these kind of things. >
Please keep the discussion on topic as requested by a moderator. -Cythare
So we get the enemy colored painlands and not the allied color ones? Well that's reverse of the norm, but I thought Wizards was planning to do full 10 land cycles from now on.
Enemy pains could indicate allied Fetches in the next set, to offset the colour imbalance. It would also make sense since it would allow Modern to have access to all 10 Fetches as opposed to only 5.
Or you could read the article, and now that's not true.
Could this whole type of thing not be easily avoided by a deck being required to be cut at least once as the final action prior to it being returned to its owner, or if the deck is not cut that the owner of the deck may perform a cut as the final action?
I know it's been the same forever where your opponent randomizes your deck and once they give it to you that's the end of it, but that leaves the door wide open for these types of shenanigans. Sure the unscrupulous player may try to force a few bad cards to the middle of the deck and try to cut to it but that's a lot more difficult to do with any degree of consistency than to stack the top of an uncut deck.
Why do people keep saying this? Let's go to the extreme here. I use my deck stacking to put all of your lands on top and all of your spells on bottom. Any cut of this deck below halfway is instant mulligan.
You want a certain distribution of lands and spells. Trick shuffling ruins this if it is done to any extent whatsoever.
What they should do is standardize shuffling. There's no need to allow for variety there. Say you require at the beginning of the game when handed your opponent's deck, pile, riffle x 3, pile, cut. The piles undo both you and your opponent's stacking, with the riffles undoing any "anti-pile" stackings your opponent does.(such as putting all lands together and then all spells).
Like, it doesn't have to be exactly that, but a standard this this this for competitive play.
Pile shuffling for anything other than counting cards is a complete waste of time. The only way to properly shuffle your and your opponents deck is to riffle or, if you can't riffle, do a lot of mashing.
Could this whole type of thing not be easily avoided by a deck being required to be cut at least once as the final action prior to it being returned to its owner, or if the deck is not cut that the owner of the deck may perform a cut as the final action?
I know it's been the same forever where your opponent randomizes your deck and once they give it to you that's the end of it, but that leaves the door wide open for these types of shenanigans. Sure the unscrupulous player may try to force a few bad cards to the middle of the deck and try to cut to it but that's a lot more difficult to do with any degree of consistency than to stack the top of an uncut deck.
Why do people keep saying this? Let's go to the extreme here. I use my deck stacking to put all of your lands on top and all of your spells on bottom. Any cut of this deck below halfway is instant mulligan.
You want a certain distribution of lands and spells. Trick shuffling ruins this if it is done to any extent whatsoever.
What they should do is standardize shuffling. There's no need to allow for variety there. Say you require at the beginning of the game when handed your opponent's deck, pile, riffle x 3, pile, cut. The piles undo both you and your opponent's stacking, with the riffles undoing any "anti-pile" stackings your opponent does.(such as putting all lands together and then all spells).
Like, it doesn't have to be exactly that, but a standard this this this for competitive play.
The problem is that some people just cannot perform a riffle shuffle. I, personally, cannot do it with sleeved cards. I've tried to practice it over and over but I simply do not have the necessary dexterity or hand-eye coordination or motor skills to do it. I either spill the cards all over the place or simply jam them together at their edges without actually mixing them.
The only shuffles I am capable of performing on sleeved cards are pile shuffle and mash shuffle. Instituting a rule that standardizes shuffling by forcing players to do some amount of riffle shuffling would exclude a number of people like myself from ever playing in paper Magic tournaments.
All that would accomplish is creating far more data entry and delays between rounds than is required. I doubt very many cheaters are skilled enough to consistently force mulligans, and if they are they can probably just use that tactic during bad match ups only. Most people who cheat while shuffling do it like Jared, they simple put one land on top during the middle of the game, as opposed to multiple lands during the start of the game.
More so, certain decks would create really weird skews of mulligans, because against a Dredge deck it's not incorrect to mulligan if you think you can draw a cage/leyline earlier or something of the nature. This would mean that a player running Dredge would have multiple mulligans against him throughout the day, despite not cheating at all.
Recording mulligans would simply be busy work that yields little to no results in the grand scheme of things.
Science says you're wrong. ohhhh the irony is just too much to handle lol.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for trolling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Magic Enthusiast
Professor
Powered 540 Cube fully foiled and altered
Legacy: Death and Taxes / RUG Delver
Vintage: Shops
Could this whole type of thing not be easily avoided by a deck being required to be cut at least once as the final action prior to it being returned to its owner, or if the deck is not cut that the owner of the deck may perform a cut as the final action?
I know it's been the same forever where your opponent randomizes your deck and once they give it to you that's the end of it, but that leaves the door wide open for these types of shenanigans. Sure the unscrupulous player may try to force a few bad cards to the middle of the deck and try to cut to it but that's a lot more difficult to do with any degree of consistency than to stack the top of an uncut deck.
Why do people keep saying this? Let's go to the extreme here. I use my deck stacking to put all of your lands on top and all of your spells on bottom. Any cut of this deck below halfway is instant mulligan.
You want a certain distribution of lands and spells. Trick shuffling ruins this if it is done to any extent whatsoever.
What they should do is standardize shuffling. There's no need to allow for variety there. Say you require at the beginning of the game when handed your opponent's deck, pile, riffle x 3, pile, cut. The piles undo both you and your opponent's stacking, with the riffles undoing any "anti-pile" stackings your opponent does.(such as putting all lands together and then all spells).
Like, it doesn't have to be exactly that, but a standard this this this for competitive play.
The problem is that some people just cannot perform a riffle shuffle. I, personally, cannot do it with sleeved cards. I've tried to practice it over and over but I simply do not have the necessary dexterity or hand-eye coordination or motor skills to do it. I either spill the cards all over the place or simply jam them together at their edges without actually mixing them.
The only shuffles I am capable of performing on sleeved cards are pile shuffle and mash shuffle. Instituting a rule that standardizes shuffling by forcing players to do some amount of riffle shuffling would exclude a number of people like myself from ever playing in paper Magic tournaments.
Anteaterking is right.
1st of all, a significant percentage of those who could not riffle shuffle would learn how to riffle shuffle on own initiative.
2nd of all, there does not need to be a high bar for approving what is a good enough riffle shuffle at tournament scenes.
3d of all, people will learn that in cases where a player plainly isn't skilled enough to riffle shuffle the shuffling will be done by the
other player under supervision of the non-riffling opponent ofc. It is also possible to do "joint" shuffles where the player puts 60 cards into 20 piles "randomly" and the other player decides how the 3 card piles go on top of each other. The more I write now the more stuff gets awkwarder and awkwarder.
1 solves 50 percent, 2 solves 40 percent and 3 solves 10 percent, thats 100 percent of a problem that today is at 5 percent of the player base. This means that there will be a 0.5 percentage of players that will need to be aided by opponent/judge in "joint" shuffle situations. In turn this means that there will be 10 players in a 2000player GP that needs aid - if someone calls that a problem then I will call that intolerancy.
Could this whole type of thing not be easily avoided by a deck being required to be cut at least once as the final action prior to it being returned to its owner, or if the deck is not cut that the owner of the deck may perform a cut as the final action?
I know it's been the same forever where your opponent randomizes your deck and once they give it to you that's the end of it, but that leaves the door wide open for these types of shenanigans. Sure the unscrupulous player may try to force a few bad cards to the middle of the deck and try to cut to it but that's a lot more difficult to do with any degree of consistency than to stack the top of an uncut deck.
Why do people keep saying this? Let's go to the extreme here. I use my deck stacking to put all of your lands on top and all of your spells on bottom. Any cut of this deck below halfway is instant mulligan.
You want a certain distribution of lands and spells. Trick shuffling ruins this if it is done to any extent whatsoever.
What they should do is standardize shuffling. There's no need to allow for variety there. Say you require at the beginning of the game when handed your opponent's deck, pile, riffle x 3, pile, cut. The piles undo both you and your opponent's stacking, with the riffles undoing any "anti-pile" stackings your opponent does.(such as putting all lands together and then all spells).
Like, it doesn't have to be exactly that, but a standard this this this for competitive play.
The problem is that some people just cannot perform a riffle shuffle. I, personally, cannot do it with sleeved cards. I've tried to practice it over and over but I simply do not have the necessary dexterity or hand-eye coordination or motor skills to do it. I either spill the cards all over the place or simply jam them together at their edges without actually mixing them.
The only shuffles I am capable of performing on sleeved cards are pile shuffle and mash shuffle. Instituting a rule that standardizes shuffling by forcing players to do some amount of riffle shuffling would exclude a number of people like myself from ever playing in paper Magic tournaments.
Anteaterking is right.
1st of all, a significant percentage of those who could not riffle shuffle would learn how to riffle shuffle on own initiative.
Bad rifle shuffling can damage or bend cards/sleeves. I wouldn't want someone to rifle shuffle my legacy deck. This wouldnt work.
They should have arrested him, 46 month ban? please... thats a joke. He should be in jail right now with other criminals. You cheat at gambling people break your legs, MTG should be no different.
For what? Cheating at MTG does not break any laws.
The ban is sufficient enough.
He didnt break any laws but he did get prizes from many events that he won by cheating, he might get striped from his title but the money/product is long gone, he should be obliged to give it back or fine him for that amount.
You know you have to prove also the past cases here? You can't just go "Well you cheated today but we know you're playing since '96, I bet you cheated all the trades and stores to get the cards you got, it's sure as the fact that sun's shinning there at 1 P.M. in California, so give them back or we will handle it the hard way...ya know, really hard one!"
It's ridiculous what you're propousing. Stop spitting enormous amounts of hate and just think logical for a moment.
They should have arrested him, 46 month ban? please... thats a joke. He should be in jail right now with other criminals. You cheat at gambling people break your legs, MTG should be no different.
For what? Cheating at MTG does not break any laws.
The ban is sufficient enough.
He didnt break any laws but he did get prizes from many events that he won by cheating, he might get striped from his title but the money/product is long gone, he should be obliged to give it back or fine him for that amount.
You know you have to prove also the past cases here? You can't just go "Well you cheated today but we know you're playing since '96, I bet you cheated all the trades and stores to get the cards you got, it's sure as the fact that sun's shinning there at 1 P.M. in California, so give them back or we will handle it the hard way...ya know, really hard one!"
It's ridiculous what you're propousing. Stop spitting enormous amounts of hate and just think logical for a moment.
I usually dont feed the trolls but I'll fall for this one.
I was referring mostly to the tournament he won/placed high enough to earn money using his cheating tactics. if there's more evidence (which they claimed they have) that shows him using the same scummy ways in more tournaments he can be held accountable for that too. Good try though, I'll give you 6/10 and put you on my ignore from now on.
Professor
Powered 540 Cube fully foiled and altered
Legacy: Death and Taxes / RUG Delver
Vintage: Shops
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.
More so, certain decks would create really weird skews of mulligans, because against a Dredge deck it's not incorrect to mulligan if you think you can draw a cage/leyline earlier or something of the nature. This would mean that a player running Dredge would have multiple mulligans against him throughout the day, despite not cheating at all.
Recording mulligans would simply be busy work that yields little to no results in the grand scheme of things.
<So I have this minor stiffness in my foot sometimes when I wake up the muscle is very tense... Can you give me a diagnosis? I mean you're a doctor right, and we go see doctors about these kind of things. >
Please keep the discussion on topic as requested by a moderator. -Cythare
Oh... Ok... Clearly.
Why do people keep saying this? Let's go to the extreme here. I use my deck stacking to put all of your lands on top and all of your spells on bottom. Any cut of this deck below halfway is instant mulligan.
You want a certain distribution of lands and spells. Trick shuffling ruins this if it is done to any extent whatsoever.
What they should do is standardize shuffling. There's no need to allow for variety there. Say you require at the beginning of the game when handed your opponent's deck, pile, riffle x 3, pile, cut. The piles undo both you and your opponent's stacking, with the riffles undoing any "anti-pile" stackings your opponent does.(such as putting all lands together and then all spells).
Like, it doesn't have to be exactly that, but a standard this this this for competitive play.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
The problem is that some people just cannot perform a riffle shuffle. I, personally, cannot do it with sleeved cards. I've tried to practice it over and over but I simply do not have the necessary dexterity or hand-eye coordination or motor skills to do it. I either spill the cards all over the place or simply jam them together at their edges without actually mixing them.
The only shuffles I am capable of performing on sleeved cards are pile shuffle and mash shuffle. Instituting a rule that standardizes shuffling by forcing players to do some amount of riffle shuffling would exclude a number of people like myself from ever playing in paper Magic tournaments.
Science says you're wrong. ohhhh the irony is just too much to handle lol.
Professor
Powered 540 Cube fully foiled and altered
Legacy: Death and Taxes / RUG Delver
Vintage: Shops
1st of all, a significant percentage of those who could not riffle shuffle would learn how to riffle shuffle on own initiative.
2nd of all, there does not need to be a high bar for approving what is a good enough riffle shuffle at tournament scenes.
3d of all, people will learn that in cases where a player plainly isn't skilled enough to riffle shuffle the shuffling will be done by the
other player under supervision of the non-riffling opponent ofc. It is also possible to do "joint" shuffles where the player puts 60 cards into 20 piles "randomly" and the other player decides how the 3 card piles go on top of each other. The more I write now the more stuff gets awkwarder and awkwarder.
1 solves 50 percent, 2 solves 40 percent and 3 solves 10 percent, thats 100 percent of a problem that today is at 5 percent of the player base. This means that there will be a 0.5 percentage of players that will need to be aided by opponent/judge in "joint" shuffle situations. In turn this means that there will be 10 players in a 2000player GP that needs aid - if someone calls that a problem then I will call that intolerancy.
Bad rifle shuffling can damage or bend cards/sleeves. I wouldn't want someone to rifle shuffle my legacy deck. This wouldnt work.
You know you have to prove also the past cases here? You can't just go "Well you cheated today but we know you're playing since '96, I bet you cheated all the trades and stores to get the cards you got, it's sure as the fact that sun's shinning there at 1 P.M. in California, so give them back or we will handle it the hard way...ya know, really hard one!"
It's ridiculous what you're propousing. Stop spitting enormous amounts of hate and just think logical for a moment.
I usually dont feed the trolls but I'll fall for this one.
I was referring mostly to the tournament he won/placed high enough to earn money using his cheating tactics. if there's more evidence (which they claimed they have) that shows him using the same scummy ways in more tournaments he can be held accountable for that too. Good try though, I'll give you 6/10 and put you on my ignore from now on.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands