If he thought he was cheating, he would have beened DQed, there is no middle ground when it comes to cheating.

Yah, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and I thik the judge did the right thing. Not having been there, I can't swing my vote either way. What I mean is that there would certainly be more grounds for an investigation if that had gone un-noticed until later, and many a judge would game loss a player - if not DQ them - if the game state was unrepairable or the game was already over.

And that's because it was a questionable action, rather than a 'he said, she said' error.

As Ben explained, there is no difference in what a judge would 'assume' in either case. A judge must always come in with the attitude that players make honest mistakes... it maintains the environment of the game. In the PCQ example, it was most likely a mistake because there is only 1 recruit step... much like you only draw 2 cards. Therefore you try to fix the game state and move on. In your teammate's example, it could have been a mistake because if the opponent was intentionally misleading him, all that had to be done was read the card or call the judge.
That was not a 'shot' at your teammate. That was a response to your point about how players can mislead other players if judges don't punish them for said action. My solution was to prevent such events from happening -- it's easier to prevent a cold since you really can't cure it once you have it.
That is exactly my point... and the point of the article -- whenever in doubt, as a player or a spectator... call a judge. This inaction happens even to the best players (*cough* Jonesy *cough*). Let them sort out the differences between 'honest mistakes' and 'intentional cheating'... that's what they're paid... errr... volunteering their time for.

Any cheaters who know that opponents will call judges on them for any infractions will be wary of cheating because eventually they will get DQ'ed... and this all comes back around to maintaining the integrity of the game.

I simply disagree that either situation was as clear as many of you seem to think. I think that judging on %s is a terrible way to go.

We'll ignore this because there's a 70% chance he just misread the card.

We'll warn this player because there is a 60% chance he was cheating, and didn't just make a mistake.

We'll DQ this player because there is an 80% chance he cheated.

It doesn't make much sense to me. It seems like the situation is the only thing that dictates punishment. If a judge talks to a player during an 'investigation', it often times will bring to light the 'other side of the story'. Sometimes, a player will simply incriminate himself when asked about the situation. Sometimes, he will clear it up so that no action is necessary. Sometimes, he will shed no light either way.

Case in point, if I were to hear the PCQ situation completely out of context, I would think the player probably cheated. However, add that there were many spectators, and I begin to wonder. Why would he make such a blatently obvious cheat if there were so many spectators around? Is he just stupid to think NO ONE would catch it? Was he just caught in the game and forgot something simple? Ever watch a guy hit a baseball and run to 3rd base instead of 1st? I watched a college baseball player do it... However, then add in the fact that he got angry at his friend for catching and reporting him, and it kind of leans back towards cheating. My point is, how can you know without talking to people around the situation? What if the guy misrepresented the card, then went over and laughed about it with his friend and someone overheard? What is he went and told his friend "Dude, I completely screwed up how Green Goblin works." There is your tangible proof both ways.

I simply argue that there is no harm in tracking 'mistakes' or checking into things, at least on the surface. The fact that it is *unlikely* someone cheated or didn't cheat shouldn't influence if a situation is investigated. If the player misrepresents a card once in his career, or even twice, then he obviously is not cheating. If he does it continuously, then he probably is. How is it possible to know if the complaints are not logged? Simply saying "it is unlikely he was cheating" accomplishes nothing and shows naivity in my opinion.

Well, if it can be proven. My point was that if the judge thought it wasn't an honest error, but couldn't prove it he would have given him a game loss for causing an irrepairable game state and probably made sure to watch him in the future. Instead he was very leniant, so he obviously was of the mind that it was actually an "honest" mistake. Which it very well could have been. If cheating _can_ be proven, of course there's no middle ground, it's a simple issue. As well it should be.

-Mike

I agree with the point of the article. I agree with calling judges whenever there is a question. That is by far the easiest way to fix situations, I agree to that absolutely. However, sometimes players make mistakes. After what, 20 hours of VS or so played by the end of day 2, players will do that sometimes. His mistake was taking his opponent's word for the wording of a card. He accepts that, I accept that. The problem I have is, once the mistake was realized, there was no attempt by the judge to check into it or to log it. Like you said, hopefully if a judge is called on someone enough times, they'll be DQd. But, in an event the size of a PC, with what? 20 judges? How are they to know if someone has been questioned repeatedly if it is not logged in some way?

Cascade:

No one is saying that these type of incidents should not be logged. In fact, if I were the judge asked to investigate, I would indeed talk to both players to assess the situation. If the other player confirmed that he did say "combat phase" instead of "attack step", I would give BOTH players procedural errors and go to the scorekeeper to have that match marked as such. But... if the other player says "I don't recall" or "he misheard me"... how am I supposed to know exactly what went on without actually being present at the time this occured?

But again... I have no idea what the other judge was doing... maybe he had other more pressing in-match calls to attend to. That's no excuse, but they are only human (except The Chark). And in the event this does happen and the judge is unwilling to "check into it"... appeal to the head judge... because he would be best suited to deal with your situation anyways.

I think, then, that we are in agreement mostly.

It was the head judge.

A warning to both players, and a mark signifying such is exactly what was being asked.

If the other player said "I don't know" or refuted it in some other way, possibly there should be another type of marking. Instead of 'warning' being the lowest level of mark, mark a 'dispute' or some such. If a player racks up 6 disputes (as in, he said she said type things that judges hate), I'd say that would indicate a problem with the player.

"It was the head judge."

Well... there you go. Unfortunately, the head judge's decision is the final decision.

Remember... this is a new game and only the 2nd PC. As time goes on and as judges are trained in Player Management more than just Rules Knowledge (*ahem* Chad), things will get better.

These are the kind of topics that I like discussing because it deals with things that aren't as obvious in the CR or the Penalty Guidelines (well... to those of us who aren't named cdaniel... hehe). UDE watches these things and I'm sure any suggestions will be taken into consideration.

Just don't argue with me about Signal Flare or I'll DQ you.

^ Yes, which makes it important, in my opinion, to bring up situations we feel were handled incorrectly, or where there is no guideline to deal with the situation.

I do feel a mark less than a warning should be created...something to track potentially dishonest players, like the 'dispute' mark I mentioned above.

Cascade: the only problem with what you're saying is, what if I was an Evil Overlord and decided I wanted to get at someone ecause they irritated me? Or made fun of my costume? So I went to the (head?) judge and said 'that guy did this!' just so we'd both get a warning?

This is why it's always necessary to call a judge over. In this case, it is a 'he said/she said' situation, where one player asked another player a question rather than taking the time to red the card himself or call a judge. There is no way to backtrack, long after the game is over, and try to investigate this kind of scenario. Especially at a PC, when there is an draft event with a hundred-odd Day 2 players to run.

The PCQ case is different for two reasons:

1) it's a much smaller event, so it's easier to backtrack and investigate an incident.

2) But even that aside, it is a situation where a player performed a specific illegal action which changed the entire course of the game, and that action was witnessed by other, non-participating bystanders. In your friend's case, by accepting his opponent's word at face value, he is an accessory, and he essentially agreed to allow the mistake by not double-checking for himself. In the PCQ situation, the opponent should have been paying more attention, but didn't actively take part in the mistake.

I, personally, agree with Erick, and his 'benefit of the doubt is good for the integrity of the game'' statement. And I don't think either example is likely to be cheating and agree withboth judges' decisions.

But, in tems of retroactive investigations, it's not 'judging on percentages', it's a matter of investigating a situation based one someone's word that his opponent mislead him in a card's wording versus investigating someone who actively acted in a way that can be construed as cheating, with bystanders watching.

To give you an example from my own experience, at Origins, I played in a booster draft where my opponent clearly said 'I pass', and when i started to play, he said 'whoah!' and claimed he'd never passed. It seems to me that he realized he could win the game and wanted to do something he had forgotten to do.

I called a judge immediately over, and he ruled that it would rewind back to just before my opponent passed. I appealed to the head judge, and he agreed with the other judge.

I was rather shaken by the situation, because if there's one thing in iife I CANNOT abide, it is a cheater. And to this day, call it slanderous or not, I say that the kid cheated, because I clearly heard him say 'I pass'...and I am neither deaf nor senile nor is English a foreign tongue to me.

But the judges were right. They didn't see or hear this player, and there was absolutely nothing they could do about the situation but rewind it. It was my word against his, and unfortunately, by remaining neutral, they allowed my opponent to win, because they couldn't judge against my opponent simply on my word.

IN a 'he said/she said' situation, one can rarely, if ever, take sides or make a tangible decision against hearsay evidence.

The size of a tournament should not dictate what is and is not investigated. UDE places that significant number of judges on the floor of a PC for a reason.

Your 'lack of bystanders' argument, I feel, is irrelevant as well, as no one in a PC besides those in feature matches would have the benefit of bystanders, so no one could ever provide proof of cheating.

I have been in your situation as well. I have also judged for other games, and officiated many other events. He said/she said is the most annoying situation a judge can face. However, they are not unresolvable in all situations.

I always investigate, at least to merely ask the player in question "did this happen". Not often, but sometimes, he will do or say something that will incriminate himself.

Otherwise, this is why I propose the 'dispute' mark. Whenever a 'he said/she said' occurs and is disputed heavily by both players, put a 'dispute' mark on their record. If trends occur, then take action on the player.

I disagree. For something that is minor, in a tournament with hundreds of participants, often a judge or head judge cannot afford to take the time to investigate a minor infraction that wouldn't have any bearing on the tournament.

On the flipside, in a Hobby League or local tourneys, one needn't be as stringent when it comes to cracking down, and since the TO is likely to know the participants, often a word or two will solve problems without need for aninvestigation, and knowing the players will also determine very quickly if it was an honest mistake or a likely cheat/illegal play.

Quote

Your 'lack of bystanders' argument, I feel, is irrelevant as well, as no one in a PC besides those in feature matches would have the benefit of bystanders, so no one could ever provide proof of cheating.

First off, bystanders are 100% relevant. If you have witnesses, that provides tangible proof, and facilitates any investigation.

As well, in a PC if you don't call a judge over to deal with any questionable or suspicious behaviour, then now is a good time to get into the practice. because at that level you should know better.

There are also many more judges, so it's more likely that play problems will be witnessed by one. I've noticed a difference even on the $10K level, let alone the PC level.

If I was judging a PC and someone came to me with something like that, where a player said that another player told him incorrect information, I would have responded in the same way. 'If you ever have any concerns about a card or a play, read the card and call a judge.' And I would leave it at that.

Quote

I have been in your situation as well. I have also judged for other games, and officiated many other events. He said/she said is the most annoying situation a judge can face. However, they are not unresolvable in all situations.

I didn't say it was unresolvable. But the question is, is it worth the time and effort it would take to try and resolve an unrepairable game, based on hearsay, merely for the sake of the *possibility* of doling out a double warning? Especially when it means potentially delaying the tournament, which has a hundred-odd players still in it?

I'd say no, it's not

Quote

I always investigate, at least to merely ask the player in question "did this happen". Not often, but sometimes, he will do or say something that will incriminate himself.

Have you judged at a tournament with hundreds of participants? Not trying to be snide, and not a rhetorical question, but I'm honestly curious.

Quote

Otherwise, this is why I propose the 'dispute' mark. Whenever a 'he said/she said' occurs and is disputed heavily by both players, put a 'dispute' mark on their record. If trends occur, then take action on the player.

The question is, is such a 'dispute' mark easily abused? Say I'm in a team, and we have a couple of dozen member/friends. What if we dont like someone and go after him vigilante style? We could all 'claim' he did something and get him DQed on 'disputes'.

As well, does it raise logistical issues? How easy would it be to implement and keep track of something like that? How fair is it to all parties?

I feel like you are misinterpreting some of my points. Bystanders, I am saying are irrelevant at PCs, because only a very small percant of PC games actually have bystanders.

When you say 'unrepairable', I see 'unresolvable'. You ask if it is worth it to delay the tournament, while tournament rounds are already delayed 20 - 30 minutes each, mostly caused by people simply taking an extremely long time to play. I don't think the short amount of time it would take to ask a couple of questions to 1 or 2 people would increase that delay any amount.

To your question about my judging experience, yes, I have. The largest CCG tournament I have judged was a 'Power 9' of the Star Trek CCG world. The prizes were worth around $2000, which was substancial in that game, and around 110 people showed up.

I have also acted as lead official in 4 baseball tournaments for players age 15-16, that took place over 2 days and involved 20 teams of 20 players each + coaches + parents.

With enough support, nearly anything relevant to an individual game can be looked into, at least briefly.

I thought someone might bring up the abuse issue on a dispute mark, but I didn't want to just jump in with 'you might think this' comments. The most obvious issue would be teams attempting to get people DQd. Of course, that can happen with the Warning system already. However, what prevents it is a knowledge of the trend. First off, at the PC or 10k level, how likey is it that you will face multiple opponents of a single team? Take NJ 10k, with 215 people (about). Even if a team has 20 people, which is an enormous team, and a size I have not heard of in VS, that's a 1 in 10 shot of facing a team member every round. Facing a team member even 5 out of the 10 rounds nears ridiculous odds.

Even if a team does this over the long run, ie multiple tournaments, how many teams are so obscure that the judge looking at the dispute warning trend could not identify them as a team? Especially a team the size necessary to pull off what you are suggesting.

Logistically it shouldn't be that difficult. It can be a mark put on a player's record. They penalties could occur after tournaments, not during. The system would simply notify someone relevant (I don't know who that is at UDE) if a player got a certain number of marks, then they can take a few minutes and look the trend over, and possibly investigate. The system would be a deterrant as much as anything. It should cause next to no delay in the tournaments themselves.

Can you ever prove cheating? If in game, the error needs to be rolled back. If after a game they should both just get warnings and the player who got f'd needs to not let it happen again heh.

On another subject I'm surprised so many people say they'd call a judge when witnessing a mistake made in favor of a friend. I've never seen it happen and don't believe I know anyone who would. Whether right or wrong it just doesn't happen.