Hi, everyone. As Lead for Investigations I would like to bring to the judge community a serious problem in our judging technique. One in which judges are assisting players to get DQ'ed, or else failing to stop players from getting DQ'ed.

We've had a large number of DQ's involving Bribery in which a player comes to a judge to ask about what he is allowed to say. The judge then makes some cryptic answer like “You can't say that. Please go play.” or “You can't bribe him.” or “You can't do X but you can do Y” Then the player goes back to the table, uses alternate language or mannerisms to avoid doing what the judge said was illegal, then that same judge DQ's him.

Here's the thing: players look for nuances, and if your reply to their REQUEST FOR HELP leaves them - in their minds - with leeway to explore nuances, then they will. Instead, be explicit and leave them with no good option that leads to DQ.

Example
Player comes privately and says “Judge, can I say to my opponent ‘I’m not interested in the prizes, I just want to get the qualification.” or “Judge, we are about to draw. What can I offer to opponent to resolve the draw?”

ANSWERS THAT ARE NOT SO GOOD
“No, you can't say that. Please go play.”
“You can't offer anything in exchange for a match result.”
“Don't bribe him.”
“You can offer prize splits.”

THE BEST ANSWER
“Look, you can't bribe him. I want to stress to you that there's no way around the rule by using any kind of cryptic sentences or words or actions. If you event hint at it, there is a possibility that a judge might think it is bribery, even if you try using indirect language. So, your best action is to avoid even LOOKING like it might be a bribe. You may concede and you may ask him once to concede; anything more or together with that could easily be a problem, and you would be acting at your own serious risk.”

This response takes about 1 minute, and it assures that if the player still proceeds, he does so with full knowledge of his possible fate.

This is NOT the time to answer with the short, technical rules answers that are designed to avoid coaching. You WANT to coach him here. Not to get around the rules, but to stay away from the bad line altogether.

Please, please, please. When they ask, or when you see them in extra turns talking, HELP THEM NOT TO GET DQ'ed. If you are DQ'ing them for Bribery and you had previosuly spoken to them in response to them asking, you should be VERY sure about this DQ.

Thanks!

Eric Shukan
Player Investigations Leader

<http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/>Metaphor:
Player asks: “Is there a shortcut I can take across this minefield marked ‘DANGER: KEEP OUT’?”
Judge thinks, ‘of course there could be one, but its highly risky and I’m not going in there with you as a guide, it's complicated'
Judge answers: "Its best for everyone if you just follow the normal route.

Philosophy - we should not be assisting players to bypass the intention of our rules, by attemping to guide them through. More importantly, we should be telling them clearly the intent and to stay away form behavior that could look like a serious violation.

FYI - this applies equally well to players who ask if mana-weaving is ok?

Andy

This seems like a great “soapbox” for me to climb on…

Please avoid “Judging, the Gotcha!” as your approach to helping players. What do I mean by that? How about examples!

Pete and Polly are about to draw, as they're in turn 4 or 5 with no obvious win conditions.

Gotcha: wait for one of them to offer a die roll, then DQ.

Worse Gotcha: wait for that, and the other to accept, 2-for-1 DQ, yay?! (No, not yay.)

Good approach: hey, it looks like you might end up in a draw - remember that you can't flip a coin or offer something to decide this match; either of you can concede if you feel that's the noble thing to do.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (July 16, 2015 03:11:07 AM)

Since we are on the topic, I wanted to ask a question about the bribery rules.

Aaron and Neville are participating in a 4 round event with prizes based on record, 4 boosters for a 3-1 record and 8 boosters for a 4-0 record. In the last round of the event, Aaron and Neville are both 3-0 and playing each other. Can Aaron and Neville choose to share prizes before the match and take 6 boosters each? Also, if so, Aaron says that he would like the planeswalker points from the match. Can Neville choose to concede to Aaron after the split has been offered, or must the result be put in as 0-0 draw?

If you combine asking for a result (which is what the PW points statement ultimately is) and asking for a particular distribution of prizes, you're going to have a bad time.

They can agree to a prize split and play it out if they'd like, but if they are combining prize split and concession it falls under bribery.

Edited John Jackson (July 16, 2015 04:55:46 AM)

Originally posted by John Jackson:

if they are combining prize split and concession it falls under bribery

Close… but this is a great example of why players shouldn't even try to “tiptoe the line” - there's a lot of misunderstanding, even among judges, and where one judge might allow something, another might DQ.

Currently, prize arrangements and match results can be *combined* but can not be *contingent* on each other.

OK:
A: wanna split prizes?
B: sure.
A: OK, I concede.

Not OK:
A: wanna split prizes?
B: nope.
A: how about if I concede?

Really murky example, with lots of variation by judges:
A: wanna split prizes?
B: hey, that sounds great - since you offered that, I'll concede.
(And no, I'm not going to try and help you or players tweak that example just enough to make it “OK”…)

Best to just guide them away from the precipice entirely. Don't try to help them edge too close to the line, where an otherwise innocent misstep might push them (and/or the opponent) over the edge.

One good technique, if you sense that a player wants to negotiate in the gray area - tell them “If you have questions, please ask me away from the table; don't ask in front of your opponent, as that may seem like an offer.”

Also, a (painful) lesson I've learned - general announcements don't help much. It's way too easy for players to only hear/understand part of what you say, then do what they think you will allow … and get DQ'd. Best to keep it simple: “Just play the game to decide who wins; if you have questions, ask a Judge away from the table.”

d:^D

Just so i get this right, let me make sure.
Is this ok?
A- wanna split prizes?
B- sure!
A- ok, i also need planeswalker points, do you mind if i take the win?
B- yeah thats fine i dont care about the points.
The reason I ask is this is a common occurence at my LGS that I work for, and there is a strong desire to “wrap up the event and go home” but I dont want to mislead my players and tell them something is ok, then have them use it at a larger event and have it bite them in the ass. Prize split happens all the time, but I want to know if putting down a winner for the PWP would cause an issue.

Also, sorry to hijack the.post, but thatnks for a great post that highlights an important facet that many L1s struggle with

Originally posted by Michael Bauman:

this is a common occurrence at my LGS

Yep, this is fairly common, all over. Towards the end of day 2 at GPs and PTs, players will discuss how many Pro Points they need to reach the next level, and concessions happen to help another player “level up”.

This is a very difficult topic; I assure you, it's even more difficult to craft language that will simplify it - except to prohibit all such agreements, and I'm not optimistic about that working out well…

d:^D

In general, I think it best to avoid making players ask for “Magical word choices that unlock Judge knowledge.”

If a player is asking a question in a game, try to understand what they are asking and determine if that is a strategic question or rules question. Answer what they ask, but don't frustrate them by giving a cryptic answer to a question.

Similarly, for bribery don't give a cryptic answer. Eric gives us a very straight-forward answer for what call the “Durwald dilemma.” If the intention is to bribe or illegally influence a result, it doesn't matter how they say it. A judge cannot help you legally bribe someone, and that should be clearly explained to the player.

Edited Evan Cherry (July 17, 2015 07:25:26 AM)

“If the intention is to bribe or illegally influence a result, it doesn't matter how they say it. A judge cannot help you legally bribe someone, and that should be clearly explained to the player.”

Evan, that is an ecellent way to put it. Nice sentence, sir!

-Eric