Rob McKenzie provided an excellent summary.

I would also approach Adam with something like “so, I've confirmed that Nicole did offer to roll a die, and you told me she hadn't - why?”

More than likely, Adam thought he was “doing the right thing”, which is a fine motivation, even if it was implemented poorly. Let him know that was a bad choice, and move along.

As Rob mentioned, if he knew something was wrong and was trying to cover it up *to protect himself*, that's seeking advantage as motivation, and reason enough to remove him from that tournament.

John Brian has already raised some subtle but key points - first, that a Judge was at the table; does that absolve Adam of any wrongdoing?

Also, the question of “social capital” (or even “peer pressure”) as “advantage” - I'd say it's definite that such may be seen as having sufficient value to motivate a Cheating offense. But let's be careful - even in this thread, I've seen some indication that we can stretch this concept way too far, to try and identify advantage.

The point of my other post, linked by John Brian, is that we don't have to understand the advantage they were seeking, we only have to believe that they were seeking some advantage. To be fair, the conversation with the person being DQd can be a little easier if we identify the advantage for them - and, in some cases, can lead to them correcting a misunderstanding and not being DQd. But policy doesn't say we have to know what advantage they were seeking, just that they were seeking some sort of beneficial outcome.

d:^D

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Marc Shotter
to avoid ‘telling’ on Nicole

How is this an advantage?

There are many ways this could be an advantage - perhaps he doesn't want a reputation as someone who “tells on” other players, or perhaps he's trying to protect Nicole because Nicole is his friend, because he believes the penalty is too harsh, or because it makes him feel good about himself.

He wouldn't be lying unless it gave him some kind of advantage.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

More than likely, Adam thought he was “doing the right thing”, which is a fine motivation, even if it was implemented poorly. Let him know that was a bad choice, and move along.

As Rob mentioned, if he knew something was wrong and was trying to cover it up *to protect himself*, that's seeking advantage as motivation, and reason enough to remove him from that tournament.

John Brian has already raised some subtle but key points - first, that a Judge was at the table; does that absolve Adam of any wrongdoing?

Also, the question of “social capital” (or even “peer pressure”) as “advantage” - I'd say it's definite that such may be seen as having sufficient value to motivate a Cheating offense. But let's be careful - even in this thread, I've seen some indication that we can stretch this concept way too far, to try and identify advantage.

So, to be clear it sounds like:

“I just wanted to do the right thing - I didn't want her to be DQ'd” = No DQ
“I thought you were going to DQ me too, and didn't want that” = DQ
“I don't people finding out that I got someone DQ'd after they scooped to me, since I'll look like a jerk” =…DQ? No DQ? Your last statement was a little ambiguous.

Just to chime in on the lying thing. I've heard that people tell an average of 1 lie every 10 minutes. Whether this is true or not it sets an idea that people lie a lot. Some people cant help it. Some people are not aware that they even do it. There are lots of “what ifs” when trying to figure out why some one lied. Don't dig too hard to find the advantage to why they lied. If you look hard enough you'll find it.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

“I don't people finding out that I got someone DQ'd after they scooped to me, since I'll look like a jerk” =…DQ? No DQ? Your last statement was a little ambiguous.

Sounds to me like you'd end up believing that they were seeking advantage. (For the record, I don't think I was at all ambiguous…)

There was a lot of effort in this thread to define what is or is not an advantage - that's irrelevant. What's relevant is if the player took an Unsporting-Cheating action (as defined in the IPG) because THEY thought there was an advantage to be gained. (And, as noted, knowing it was wrong.)

Nick's point is excellent - I'll expand & expound a bit: don't waste your effort looking for the advantage they were seeking, but instead determine if they were seeking one.

After all, if a player Cheats because they think it will benefit them, but it won't - is that any less Cheating than if they're right about the advantage they're seeking?

d:^D

I totally understand your point of view Marc and the DQ is covered by the IPG.

I just try to visualize what would have happened if you were called right away:

Round starts:
Adam: JUUUUUDDDGE
you arrive a the table:
Adam: Nicole just offered to roll a die !!
Nicole, obviously upset: No I didn't he is lying.

You investigate for 15 Minutes you can neither verify nor falsify Adams or Nicolss story. It is TOTALLY obvious that one of them is lying. Either Adam: to DQ Nicole because Top8 or Nicole: to save her skin…

In your case Adam is screwed either way. Either by not calling you right away OR by lying. Whereas when he called you right away both get away despite one being a cheat.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Denis Leber
<forum-19557-9136@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Whereas when he called you right away both get away despite one being a
> cheat.

It is possible and reasonably common for the head judge to come to a
conclusion about what happened that will DQ a player for this.

Also remember that calling a player a cheat (“one being a cheat”)
isn't what Improperly Determining A Winner is about, these are methods
of damaging the integrity of the event that don't involve cheating.

Originally posted by Denis Leber:

I just try to visualize what would have happened if you were called right away:

Round starts:
Adam: JUUUUUDDDGE
you arrive a the table:
Adam: Nicole just offered to roll a die !!
Nicole, obviously upset: No I didn't he is lying.

You investigate for 15 Minutes you can neither verify nor falsify Adams or Nicolss story. It is TOTALLY obvious that one of them is lying. Either Adam: to DQ Nicole because Top8 or Nicole: to save her skin…

In your case Adam is screwed either way. Either by not calling you right away OR by lying. Whereas when he called you right away both get away despite one being a cheat.

Yes, when he breaks the rules he's (to use your phrase) screwed - I'm not sure I have a problem with this.

In both your examples he's acting directly in contravention of the IPG either:
>USC-Cheating: Lying to a tournament official (we could argue about the advantage/knowledge it was illegal)
>USC-IDAW: Not calling a judge immediately when IDaW is offered

Both of these carry a DQ as a penalty.

Yes its possible that your opponent convinces the judge called that they didn't commit an error, but that could be true of any infraction, we still expect players to call them. The flip side is that if Nicole chooses to be honest (as she did in the example) she gets the DQ and his actions mean he's able to continue in the tournament.

Remember, that you can have two different stories without lying.
As I understand this scenario, Nicole asked James (our Judge at the table) if she could offer a dice roll. Since she never spoked directly to Adam, he could assume that she didn't proposed him anything and therefore, stated to you, that there was no offer at all. Based on provided informations, I don't see for now DQ material there for Adam, but I'm feeling a little bit wrong with Nicole asking that kind of question to Judge in front of her opponent.

Ok, thank you for clarifying the rules. I understand now that it is an obligation of a player to report ANY situation of that kind. That is the philosophy behind it to preserve the integrity of tournament play.

So - the following situation, deliberately exaggerated:

Nicole - being the person she is - loses the game, scoops and calls a judge.
N: I offered a die roll, Adam didn't call a judge, he said he would think about it… well he beat me, i still think this person is a danger to the integrity of the game…
A: Yes, she offered a die roll, i said “I'll think about it” in a way to get this from the table and start playing. I never intended to agree.

Result: DQ for both, same as original case meaning: it doesn't matter where the information is derived from. A player not calling a judge when offered a die roll is DQ'ed. Then we no longer have to look for a “gained advantage” in the lying scenario.

So, I originally asked that we discuss Adam's fate irrespective of Nicole to avoid getting bogged down, but since we've got some good answers on the core question, here's my thoughts on Nicole, since I've seen a few people going a different direction than I would:

I don't think that Nicole has committed an infraction.

People read some recent posts by Eric Shukan and others (as well as a famous DQ story from a player) that talked about how asking a judge, at the table, if you can bribe your opponent should be treated as bribery. The reason is pretty clear:

Aaron: Judge! Can I offer Natasha $100 if she scoops to me?
Judge: What?! No!
Aaron: Okay. I won't offer anything. Want to scoop to me anyway?
Natasha: Sure.
Aaron: Thanks.

Aaron has very clearly stated to Natasha how much he's offering for a concession. Just because he did so in the guise of asking a judge, he's still capable of paying off his bribe (or at least making it clear that he's willing to) after the match. Now take this scenario:

Aaron: Judge! Can we just roll a die to see who wins and makes Top 8?
Judge: What?! No!
Aaron: Okay. We won't roll a die. Want to scoop to me instead?
Natasha: Sure.
Aaron: Thanks.

Aaron and Natasha can't walk away from the table, roll a die, and have Natasha show up at the Top 8. What's more, since we're at the end of the match, we can assume that our judge is going to be hanging out there anyway after answering the question to snag the slip - even though Aaron has made it clear to Natasha that he wants to roll a die to determine a winner, he can't actually do and affect the match result.

I think that when a player asks you this question at the table, it's probably worth suggesting that, in the future, they ask away from it (because their next question might be “okay, so can I bribe them?”), but I'd argue that the IPG doesn't support a DQ for a player for asking me about IDAW in front of their opponent, because I don't think there's a reasonable chance that it will affect tournament integrity.

And, with his usual impeccable timing, Kevin Desprez has provided us with this new blog post!

d:^D