Hi everyone,

There's currently a large debate raging on my local Magic Facebook group. A local store is running a Regular REL event with a $10 entry and all money going into prizes.

A player raised the question of requiring decklists, at least for sideboards, as they were concerned that running extra cards would be easy to conceal. Regardless of the decklists or no question, this led to a large debate about if a TO/Judge participating in the event should ever be allowed to view a player's deck who has had suspicions raised about their deck's contents.

A couple of vocal players are adamant that this would bestow an unfair advantage on the TO if they were to then play that player in a later round, and are suggesting that if there is no non-participating TO, that any suspicious deck cannot be reviewed by anyone other than merely counting the cards facedown.

This is obviously dealing in hypotheticals, but what are the thought processes here? Obviously with that large of prizes I think the store might want to consider running the event at Competitive REL anyways, but what's the consensus on the unfortunate possibility of a judge, participating in a Regular REL event, needing to check another player's deck for potential problems? It seems to me the integrity maintained by investigating someone's deck who other's have raised concerns about far outweighs the potential advantage gained by the TO/judge.

Thanks!

If you are running a Regular REL event, do not use decklists.
If you want to use decklist, run the event at Comp REL.

This solves the problem.

In any Regular event, the judge should only be playing if he has the trust
of the players. If he doesn't then players are never going to trust his
rulings, regardless of decklists being used.

As you mentioned, you should run the event at Competitive REL if stakes are high (10$/person prize pool seems really high stakes for me). In this case, tournament officials cannot play at that event. (It must be Regular when officials are also player)

If you want run the event at Regular anyway, at first, you can explain to players that we can catch deck-related cheating even without decklist. If you see unreasonable card in game 1 (such as “exile target white permanent”), you can watch that player for a few matches and correct reasonable proof for cheating. (“You played the card A in game 1 of previous match. However, in this match, there is no card A in your maindeck. I want to hear the reason for this from you”)

The other method is, making two or more TO/Player. They can watch each other. We had “3 judges system” long long ago, which is made from this concept (they can watch each other, and when they play each other, the third judge will come).

Anyway, my recommendation: Run in Competitive. If not possible, there is some way.

On what REL to run the event is a TO decision, whether to use decklists and/or check decks is a Judge decision. However, as pointed out above, you as a Judge might advise the TO about what REL suits the prizes.

When you don't feel comfortable playing and judging at the same time (regardless whether this is fair/legit), just don't, would be my advise. Maybe you can run and play a draft simultaneously with the Constructed event, which would solve all problems.

But if your players don't trust you and/or the TO, there might be even more serious problems going on; in that case, I would encourage you to get your RC involved and look for a more fundamental solution.

Thanks for the insight so far everyone! I definitely agree that decklists were not appropriate at Regular REL, my big concern was a very vocal player or two being very adamant that, if suspicions were raised about someone's deck composition, the TO/judge playing in the event would not be allowed to view the contents of their deck, with one saying they would flat out refuse to have their deck be examined.

The situation itself is somewhat beyond my reach as this event and discussion is occurring on my city's catch-all Magic group about an event being at a store that I rarely am at. I agree that if there are players that concerned about the TO seeing their deck then there are likely other things to be concerned about.

In my experience, you basically never have to actually check someone's deck.

I can see how as a player I could be concerned about letting a potential
opponent look through their deck. If I was in such a situation (which is
very unlikely to happen, how often does one look through a suspicious deck
at regular REL? Let alone get paired against them later) and my opponent
felt they were at a substantial disadvantage I'd probably just offer my
deck for them to look through before we begin play.

This isn't a matter of trust, it is just the fact that in carrying out my
duties I gained information that later became valuable to me. Doing
something simple and quick to make everything look honest is a small price
to pay.

This shouldn't be policy, but it is a simple measure that if the situation
ever occured would help establish the trust in judges that the community
needs.

BTW: if winning the event is important enough to the judge that they
wouldn't be happy to give up that information in this unlikely situation
then I recommend not playing and judging that event. Pick one.

Originally posted by John Winter:

Thanks for the insight so far everyone! I definitely agree that decklists were not appropriate at Regular REL, my big concern was a very vocal player or two being very adamant that, if suspicions were raised about someone's deck composition, the TO/judge playing in the event would not be allowed to view the contents of their deck, with one saying they would flat out refuse to have their deck be examined.

I judge and play at my LGS's regular REL events most weeks (Standard on Wednesday, Limited on Friday), and have, in the past, reviewed a fellow player's deck when I sufficient reason to believe that I'd find a problem. I've only once had a player complain and, as Gareth did, I offered that he was welcome to review my deck as well if he wanted. Players know that I'm not reviewing their deck to gain an advantage, I'm doing so so I can tell whoever suspects they're cheating that they're not (unless, of course, they are cheating, in which case I'm not gaining an advantage anyway, since they'll be going home before I get paired against them).

It may help that I'm a terrible Magic player who generally wouldn't remember their secret sideboard tech anyway :)

If I had a player who absolutely refused to let me or any other judge review the contents of their deckbox, I'd probably speak to the TO about dropping them from the event. While I wouldn't file a DQ without enough evidence of cheating, I don't think we could let them continue in the tournament without resolving the question that made us want to review the deckbox to start with, and when they're refusing that adamantly, I feel the tournament integrity demands that they either relent or drop.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (Feb. 25, 2014 09:43:31 PM)

This situation is a reasonably good illustration of why Regular REL events with significant prizes are not a good idea - odd situations like this come up which policy does not handle well.

Having a judge or TO present who is not also a player in the tournament is really the only way to resolve this conflict quietly. As John suggested, there is also the option of removing people who refuse to let player-judges look at their deck from the tournament, but I predict that will end up causing a lot more trouble.

Another thing to note is that at Regular REL, you can assign no penalties after reviewing a deck anyway, unless you are disqualifying the player… I appreciate that this is not your local store, but if you could get in touch with their normal judge and persuade them to heavily recommend to the TO that the event is run at Competitive REL (which gives many more tools to handle player errors etc. when there are sognificant prizes at stake), it would probably be better for everyone.

In LGS in my area, we run events up to 10 or 15 € without judges, of course at Regular REL.

I can fully understand a player who complains about you being a judge and a player and therefore able to gain an unfair advantage by looking at decklists.

The only fair solution here is: if you're the judge, you can't play at the event. Beware of letting the TO (assuming he's not a judge himself) doing deckchecks and you playing and judging: a lot of situations could arise in which you have an advantage. You might have to look to some player's hand. A player might have to ask you questions as a judge when you are playing against him.

In low stakes playing, that's acceptable. The higher the prizes, the worse for playing & judging.

In your situation, I'd clearly be there as a judge, but not play. That will smooth the event, as judge calls don't delay it excessively :)

Edited Joaquín Pérez (March 7, 2014 05:20:56 PM)

Regular REL events should not use decklists. Events using decklists should be run at Competitive (or Professional) REL, and in such events, judges cannot play.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

Regular REL events should not use decklists. Events using decklists should be run at Competitive (or Professional) REL, and in such events, judges cannot play.

Any reference for this, please?? It's more than usual in my LGS. Decklists are collected, but deckchecks are rare.

> Thomas Ralph
> Regular REL events should not use decklists. Events using decklists should be run at Competitive (or Professional) REL, and in such events, judges cannot play.
>
> Any reference for this, please?? It's more than usual in my LGS. Decklists are collected, but deckchecks are rare.
>
The MTR requires Decklists at competitive and professional. They are allowed at HJ discretion at Regular.
However it is considered a “best practice” to not have them at Regular. The paperwork is contrary to the laid back/fun atmosphere of regular, and can be intimidating to new players who just want to show up and play.

It is a tool you can use to curb cheating if you have reason to, or if the player base insist on it. But otherwise, cost to benefit ratio is way off.

There's no technical rule that says Regular REL can't use decklists, but the general philosophy is that if you are in a situation where you believe decklists are necessary, then you should be running the event at Competitive REL.

You are allowed to use decklists in any tournament and as head judge even have the option of doing deck checks at Regular REL, if you choose (MTR 2.7 and 2.8), but it isn't a particularly useful tactic at Regular unless you are actively seeking to enforce higher standards. There is, after all, no penalty for a “D/DLP” at Regular. It also hampers the goal of many Regular REL events, which is to maintain a fun, educational, friendly environment.

The only source for this “rule” is the Judging At Regular REL document (pg 1, 4th paragraph).

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (Feb. 28, 2014 07:57:29 AM)

If I remember correctly, a lot of prereleases in Italy are with registration (just the pool) to avoid people adding cards by mistake (maybe because they played more than one prerelease etc).

Personally, I think ti's a good middle ground to use in limited (only register the Pool) if you really think it's necessary. Having a Decklist for constructed is somewhat less obvious but could help resolve cheating arguments. It's very difficult to disprove a cheating accusation if you don't have a decklist and will ruin the mood of the tournament as well. Ensuring everyone gives you a decklist (without doing deckcheck, just for investigation purposes) might help.