Hello judges, and welcome to another Knowledge Pool! This Knowledge Pool scenario is ranked SILVER, which requires a strong knowledge of policy. We'd like to encourage L2s and experienced L1s to discuss this scenario, but everyone should fee free to chime in!

Read the blog post here!

Aaron, Abby, and Acton are teammates in a Team Sealed Grand Prix. It’s late in the round; Abby and Acton have finished their matches and are watching Aaron’s match intently. He finishes Game 1, shuffles, and presents for Game 2. At this point, one of the players on the opposing team calls for a judge and says, “I think Aaron was mana-weaving”, so you investigate, and get the following statements:

From Team Aliens:
Aaron: “At the end of game 1, I had about 10 lands in play. I didn’t want them to all get clumped up so I kinda just slipped them randomly into the rest of the deck. I did a few overhand shuffles, and presented… Oh, I can’t do that? Crap, I’ve been doing that all tournament!”

Abby: “I didn’t even know he was doing anything wrong. Aaron and I are playing in our first tournament ever! Our big brother Acton convinced Mom and Dad to let us play in this tournament with him. Acton’s so cool, he’s been on the Pro Tour!”

Acton: “Yeah, I saw him mana-weaving. But I figured, it’s his first tournament ever, why ruin his day by having him get mana-screwed. We weren’t planning on doing well in this tournament anyway.”

From Team Nobodies (the opponents):
Ned (Aaron’s opponent): “I didn’t want to be the guy who called out a 9-year-old for mana-weaving. I saw it, but I figured I was going to win anyway. But he sure did beat me pretty handily Game 1!”

Nellie (Ned’s teammate): “I didn’t really see how Aaron was shuffling before Game 1, because I was chatting with my opponent. I started watching as they were shuffling for Game 2, and that’s when I called you over.”

Are any of the players at fault here? If so, what is the Infraction/Procedure/Fix?

EDIT: Corrected the name mismatch. Thanks to Nathaniel Lawrence for pointing that out. (Also corrected “end of game 1” instead of “end of game 2” - Josh)

Edited Josh Stansfield (March 12, 2013 12:45:39 PM)

Aaron hasn't erred in simply de-clumping his lands, only in not sufficiently shuffling his deck afterwards. Had Aaron been aware that he was committing Insufficient Shuffling, this would be a clear cut case of Cheating. As investigation reveals that he clearly wasn't aware, Aaron is warned for Insufficient Shuffling and instructed to shuffle his deck thoroughly.

Abby has committed no infraction as she was unaware of Aaron's shuffling pattern or any tournament rule thus violated.

Acton, unfortunately, was aware of Aaron's violation and deliberately withheld bringing it to a judge's attention to Aaron's advantage. Acton is accountable for rule violations committed by his teammates, and he is thus guilty of Cheating. Acton is disqualified, and Abby and Aaron are dropped from the tournament as well (though they don't get the Cheating penalty for reporting purposes).

Nellie, similar to Abby, has committed no infraction by virtue of being unaware of the shuffling violation. Ned, assuming that he sufficiently shuffled Aaron's deck, has also committed no infraction here; while Ned was aware that Aaron's shuffle was insufficient, he did not withhold this information to gain an advantage for himself or his team.

There are some name/number consistency issues in the text here, but I'll ignore them and go with the first mention of each name and substitute where it seems obviously appropriate to bring things into alignment.

It seems like we ought to first first determine whether we need to jump straight to Cheating for anybody involved, so let me see if I can break down each player's obvious offenses as they tilt around the notion of USC-Cheating as the IPG defines it:

- Aaron was definitely trying to “fix” his deck, which is gaining an advantage, but didn't know it was wrong.
- Abby didn't know it was wrong either, and is pretty caught up in the excitement - it seems fairly clear she's new at this, so we've got good cause to believe hers and Aaron's story.
- Acton backs up the newbie story further; but he saw it, knew it was wrong, and “didn't want to ruin Aaron's day by getting him mana screwed” - this last bit might be construed as gaining an advantage, especially since it's for his own team.
- Ned saw it, knew it was wrong, but didn't believe it would affect his match outcome. I'd probably probe a bit further here looking for any evidence that he tried to “unweave” the cards or “correct” the mana weaving (short of just standard legitimate shuffling techniques). If it doesn't seem like there's anything untoward, then we can probably operate assuming he wasn't trying to gain an advantage.
- Nellie is clean in all this, she has every right to call a judge here.

So at the very least, Aaron is getting a Warning for TE-Insufficient Shuffling. I don't see any infractions on Team Nobodies' side.

Acton…hmm. I feel like I'm stretching it to call his statement evidence of an attempt to gain advantage. But if it is, he's pretty squarely in the USC-Cheating category. Ultimately I think we'd have to call it Cheating though, as we definitely do not want to give a pass to that sort of action for any reason. Acton is Disqualified, and his team is dropped from the tournament.

The puppies. :(

Given the competitive nature of th'event I can't disagree with the DQ +
drop. However, depending on how well they were doing and what round it was,
I'd consider discussing with the TO the possibility of returning part of
their entry fee and suggest side events.


2013/3/11 Aaron Huntsman <forum-3323@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Aaron Huntsman:

Acton is disqualified, and Abby and Aaron are dropped from the tournament as well (though they don't get the Cheating penalty for reporting purposes).

If you go this way, be aware that WER currently doesn't allow you to give a penalty to only one player, but only to the whole team. You'll have to make clear in the description of the infraction that you only want Anton to be DQed, and of course, to only enter a Disqualification Report on him and not his teammates.

First off, Aaron should be talking about “the end of game 1” not “the end of game 2.” ;)

Now, in regards to the actual infractions…

Aaron seems to have shuffled insufficiently. Shoving the lands into random places of his deck doesn't sound like mana-weaving to me. Also, since he was not aware that he was violating the rules, he doesn't meet all the criteria for USC - Cheating. That means he gets a TE-Insufficient shuffling and a Warning.

Here's where the feelbad part comes. Both Acton and Ned saw Aaron commit an infraction and didn't say anything. It may have been insufficient shuffling, and not mana weaving (cheating) like they thought, but they both saw another player do something he shouldn't be and kept quiet about it. Now, they both know they should've said something about it, having said to some measure that they didn't want to ruin Aaron's day, so we need to see if they were gaining any advantage. Acton can clearly gain an advantage, as he's Aaron's teammate. I'd question Ned further about how he shuffled Aaron's deck after he presented during game 1. I'd be tempted to DQ him as well, as it's almost the textbook example the IPG gives us, but I can't really see what advantage Ned might be trying to obtain here.

In summary: TE - Insufficient Shuffling: Warning for Aaron (bookkeeping purposes) and a USC - Cheating: DQ for Acton (and his team drops); no infraction for team Nobodies. I would sit down with everyone involved and let them know how important it is to call a Judge when they see *anyone* do something they shouldn't be. I'd make a special effort to make sure everyone knows that the main problem here was not so much that Aaron “mana weaved,” but more that he failed to shuffle properly AND neither Ned nor Acton called a Judge when they first noticed the infraction.


As a comment, it feels… awkward… to not have an infraction that handles Ned's silence. The IPG clearly states that we cannot consider cheating if the player is not actively seeking to gain an advantage, even if they are aware that they are doing something illegal. It's not a GPE, and the current TE infractons don't deal with it. It *might* fall under USC-Minor as an “action that is disruptive to the tournament,” but that feels like a stretch. I don't know. Maybe we should consider adding more weight to the “aware they're doing something illegal” part of the USC-Cheating infraction?

Aaron is at fault for failing to randomize his deck properly. He gets a warning for TE-Insufficient Shuffling.

Abby had no idea what Aaron was doing wrong, so she just gets cautioned to watch the game more carefully for any future instances of insufficient shuffling.

Acton and Ned both admit to witnessing Aaron “mana weave” and not calling a judge because of his age/experience level. I would need to ask more questions to each of them to see if they witnessed Aaron shuffle insufficiently before I decide to issue penalties or not. A player can still mana weave to improve his luck without a problem as long as his deck is brought to a complete random state upon presenting it to his opponent.

My question is does the term “I saw him mana weave”, in Acton's definition, mean “I saw him order the position of cards in the deck AND not shuffle enough so that the relative order of those cards is almost the same as it were before the shuffle”. If that is the case, then Acton is guilty of USC-Cheating (DQ) because he saw insufficient randomization, knew it was bad, and said nothing to not ruin Aaron's day but in reality it gives him and his team an unfair advantage because he can anticipate the positions of cards in the deck.

If Ned also saw the insufficient shuffle and didn't report it despite knowing it's wrong to let it happen, then he is also guilty of cheating and will be disqualified since he can have the same advantage as Acton.

(edit: added line spacing)

Edited Eric Paré (March 12, 2013 09:32:35 PM)

I do not think that Ned has committed Cheating here, as he was not trying to gain advantage. Under the new definition, attempting to gain advantage is required for an infraction to be Cheating.

"Thanks for your comments, everyone. Let's look at the original scenario again:

Aaron, Abby, and Acton are teammates in a Team Sealed Grand Prix. It’s late in the round; Abby and Acton have finished their matches and are watching Aaron’s match intently. He finishes Game 1, shuffles, and presents for Game 2. At this point, one of the players on the opposing team calls for a judge and says, “I think Aaron was mana-weaving”, so you investigate, and get the following statements:

From Team Aliens:
Aaron: “At the end of game 1, I had about 10 lands in play. I didn’t want them to all get clumped up so I kinda just slipped them randomly into the rest of the deck. I did a few overhand shuffles, and presented… Oh, I can’t do that? Crap, I’ve been doing that all tournament!”

Abby: “I didn’t even know he was doing anything wrong. Aaron and I are playing in our first tournament ever! Our big brother Acton convinced Mom and Dad to let us play in this tournament with him. Acton’s so cool, he’s been on the Pro Tour!”

Acton: “Yeah, I saw him mana-weaving. But I figured, it’s his first tournament ever, why ruin his day by having him get mana-screwed. We weren’t planning on doing well in this tournament anyway.”

From Team Nobodies (the opponents):
Ned (Aaron’s opponent): “I didn’t want to be the guy who called out a 9-year-old for mana-weaving. I saw it, but I figured I was going to win anyway. But he sure did beat me pretty handily Game 1!”

Nellie (Ned’s teammate): “I didn’t really see how Aaron was shuffling before Game 1, because I was chatting with my opponent. I started watching as they were shuffling for Game 2, and that’s when I called you over.”

Here is the solution (and props to Aaron Huntsman for getting it right away):

With the new IPG, there is a new penalty called ”Unsporting Conduct - Cheating“. This replaced the old infractions, Fraud, Hidden Information Violation, and Manipulation of Game Materials. In order for an infraction to be USC - Cheating, it must fit the following definition:

4.8. Unsporting Conduct —Cheating
Definition
A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.
Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:
• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

With that in mind, let's examine each player's actions and intent to see if he/she has committed Cheating.

Aaron intentionally ”mana-weave"d, but was not aware that he was doing something illegal. - Not Cheating (but instead, Warning for TE - Insufficient Shuffling)
Abby did not know Aaron was doing anything illegal. - Not Cheating
Acton noticed that Aaron was committing an offense, was attempting to gain an advantage from it, and knew it was illegal. - Cheating
Ned noticed Aaron was committing an offense, knew it was illegal, but was not attempting to gain an advantage from it. - Not Cheating
Nellie noticed Aaron was committing an offense, knew it was illegal, and immediately called a judge over. - Not Cheating

Because Acton was Cheating, he will be Disqualified from the tournament, and Team Aliens will be dropped as a result. Team Nobodies win the current match.

Thanks again, everyone!

Edited Jason Wong (March 19, 2013 04:20:57 PM)

Hi, was looking through the KP blog and just want to point out that this answer has not been updated in it. :)

Updated. Thanks for the reminder! :)