I have a few comments, but the most important one is the one I'll start with:
DO NOT DO THIS.A player's Warning history is personal data, and tracking or sharing that - esp. with any sort of identifying information - may be violating a number of local and national statutes. (Obviously, that varies by country.)
While there are ways to anonymize that data, it defeats the entire purpose, unless you violate that privacy at some point. Players consent to a number of written and unwritten policies (MTR, just for starters) when they enter a private event, but concerns about personally sensitive information is fairly global and general, and probably overrules any such “user agreement” in most jurisdictions.
For all of those reasons, it's probably clear why Wizards can not and will not share that data. On a local scale, this is still a very bad idea, and hopefully I've helped y'all understand why.
Before preparing this response, I sought advice from various people; here's some great advice:
Originally posted by Sean Catanese:
The event you're judging matters more than these concerns. Ask good questions, make well-reasoned decisions, and follow the DQ guidelines (which should include “write a good statement”).
I'd add to that my personal skepticism that having access to a player's Warning history could help us conduct a fair and effective investigation.
Also, I want to expand on what John Brian said (OK, twist it for my own purposes): you can file an investigation in Judge Apps even if you didn't DQ someone. Perhaps you learn something a day or two later, or even just an hour later but after the suspect left, or maybe you just weren't certain enough to DQ (49% instead of 51%?); you can share your concerns with the people who actually can use that data in an effective (yet still impartial and fair manner). Furthermore, the Player Investigation Committee has the right to use that data, as part of their role on that committee - and most of us do not have that right.
As an aside, I want to correct one thing that Milan said, or at least implied - that the study of accumulated penalty data is “mythical” or a “legend”. In fact, more than one player has been suspended due to accumulated penalties. Yes, those are extreme examples - and I'll argue that's as it should be, accumulated penalties shouldn't be acted on unless it's extreme. I'd even venture that, in the much more limited scope of a local accumulation of such data, it should
never be acted on.
d:^D
Edited Scott Marshall (Sept. 25, 2017 01:30:21 AM)