Some months ago I was involved in this situation at a Grand Prix and I would like to share it to see other judges' opinion.

You are a floor judge in a sealed Grand Prix with 1200+ players (split into two tournaments). Players are registering the pool they have opened and they have only 6 minutes left to do it.
One player, I will refer to him as Adam, calls for a judge and when you arrive Adam tells you he has finished registering the pool and asks you if he can go to smoke while the rest of players finish. Would you allow him to go to smoke? (Smoking is not allowed in the building and he will probably need almost 1 minute to get outside the building)
I'm not completely sure if what I did is correct and that's one of the things I'd like discuss in this topic. I told Adam that he could not go to smoke at that moment, he had to wait until he finished registering his deck. The reason was that I didn't want to affect the tournament by allowing Adam to go to smoke and make some players wait him for pool swap, pool check and register deck.
Adam accepts it without arguing and some seconds later another player, I will refer to him as Bob, asks you to go to the bathroom and you allow him to go (bathroom is next to the main event venue). While Bob is away, Adam calls you and tells you that he thinks that Bob is actually smoking.
When Bob comes back you see he is not coming from the bathroom, it looks like he comes from the outside of the building where he could smoke. You ask him why he is not coming from the bathroom and he tells you that he had a phone call while he was going to the bathroom and he went outside the building to answer it and he came back to his seat after the call. When you ask him why he did not go to the bathroom when he finished the call before coming back he tells you that he did not needed it any more.
Time to register decks was over so I told him to seat and follow instructions so that the tournament was not affected but I wanted to check with a L3+ if we should do anything else. I explained a L3 what had happened and he told me to talk with Bob making sure Adam was aware of it (they were seated quite close so Adam could hear me while I was talking with Bob). I can't remember exactly what I told Bob but it was something like he did not act correctly going outside the building since he was allowed to go to the bathroom.

Although Bob's version could be real, I felt like Bob told me he needed to go to the bathroom but actually he wanted to go to smoke. He could hear me when I told Adam that he could not go to smoke and that's why he lied me to go to smoke. But when I talked with the L3 neither of us felt like a player should be DQed because of this lie, it looks like that's too harsh but I also think that giving him a caution is like doing nothing.

I'd like to know your opinion about allowing Adam to go to smoke and also about how to handle Bob's behaviour.
Thanks!

Greetings,

Adam: I think it's reasonable to ask him to stay and be mindful of being able to be on time. If he insists he can be on time, I'd let him go.

Bob: He wasn't lying to gain an advantage from the USC - Cheating perspective. So, it's really just a matter of him wanting to go smoke despite knowing we just told Adam he can't. Encourage him to be honest with judges and we'll be honest with him. If he had told me “hey, I know you told that guy he couldn't go, but I really need a drag, and I can be back in time” then, again, I'd want to let him.

At a recent event, we had a player tell us he had to go to the bathroom, then after we turned around he walked to the dealer booth to buy something. He seemed to think “go to the bathroom” was like… code or something. You had to ask for that or you couldn't go. Not exactly the kind of impression we want to give!

Happy judging,

Mitchell

The IPG are fairly clear about this, if you believe the person went to get a smoke:

A person lies to a tournament official .
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.
  

In this case a player lied to a tournament official to gain an advantage (being able to smoke). Blatantly lying to a tournament official like this is not okay at all.

Edit: That said, this “feels” like it should be an Unsporting Conduct penalty, instead of “Cheating”.

Edited Sebastian Rittau (June 21, 2013 12:41:54 PM)

I would tend to agree with Mitchell on this. What advantage in the context of a game of Magic is the player attaining by going to smoke? I do not see any clear advantage by his action. I do not this type of thing should be classified as UTC - Cheating. I do not believe that these are the type of things we want to be policing either, as well as the type of negative impression that would give to players.

I'm not at all worried about the player gaining the advantage of being able to smoke, nor would I ever consider it for purposes of Cheating. I might consider such a lie as as form of USC, therefore, but not as Cheating.

IMO, there is absolutley no difference between a player going to smoke and a player going to the bathroom, ***if he is on his own time*** and returns in a timely fashion. If he is slow to return, I can deal with that in an appropriate fashion, possibly with USC - Major for Failing to Follow Specific Instruction.

I usually have a lot more things to worry about than how the players spend extra time on the registration clock. I might change my mind on this if I ever saw it to become sytematically problematic, but so far I have never seen this to be any problem at all.

Eric Shukan

Is there merit in giving someone who needs a break for either of these reasons a specific time limit so we have a better ground to stand on for USC-Major if needed?

Deck Checks already add 10 minutes; is that reasonable? Tell the person “you have 10 minutes, be back before then” and then if they're not back they get the USC-Major?

I have to say that disqualifying someone for going for a smoke having said he was going to the bathroom is not something I could ever see as being a reasonable action. This should probably be managed by asking the player not to do it again. Really though, if it is not going to disrupt the tournament for a player to go to the bathroom, then it also won't matter if he goes for a smoke, buys some sleeves, eats a candy bar, blows his nose, or phones his gf. As long as he is quiet in the vicinity of active deck builders/matches/etc., them all that needs to be said is “please make sure you're back in X minutes”.

The JaR ranks Lying as a serious offense. I think lying to tournament officials can never be tolerated.

For Comp REL

Definition

A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or … attention to it.

For me, this situation should be an example for Cheating. I'd assume the player knows he does something illegal (because he heard player B may not do so, and now lies about to get it) in order to gain an advantage (have his addiction served).

Tbh, I am inclined to DQ a player who lies to me in order to gain an advantage. I need very very good reasons to believe that he didn't know it's illegal because lying is like not accepted in any society. It's generally assumed lying is known to be illegal. The more I think about it, the more I DQ the smoker.

The problem isn't about allowing a player to goto smoke or not. It's about a player lying to do what he was forbidden.

Edited Philip Böhm (June 22, 2013 04:06:08 PM)

We all agree that he is lying and that he knows he is lying. The relevant question is what advantage does he gain?

Technically, anytime a person lies, they do it because they think it gains them something. Therefore, in a strict reading, all lies would be DQable.

So, what does the “to gain advantage” mean, then? It has to be related to some kind of competitive idea, or it would pretty much be an irrelevancy. Now, we can link competitiveness to lots of behaviors, but the ones that should concern us are the ones that could have consequences to games, matches, the tournament and the community.

When the are ten minutes left in registration, and you would allow him to go to the bathroom, are you really worried about him going to smoke? Both activities satisfy a physical need and have pretty much nothing at all to do with the tournament. I don't say to do nothing when he lies about the smoke, but you can handle that in several other ways to make your point. DQ tends to be our method of last resort to protect tourney integrity, and that integrity is not in jeopardy by this particular lie.

Now if his smoking delayed the tournament and in the course of an investigation (to determine if Slow Play or Tardiness is warranted) he lied to avoid a penalty, that would be a different matter.

Eric Shukan


On 06/22/13, Philip Böhm wrote:

The JaR ranks Lying as a serious offense. I think lying to tournament officials can never be tolerated.

For Comp REL

Definition

A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or … attention to it.

For me, this situation should be an example for Cheating. I'd assume the player knows he does something illegal (because he heard player B may not do so, and now lies about to get it) in order to gain an advantage (have his addiction served).

Tbh, I am inclined to DQ a player who lies to me in order to gain an advantage. I need very very good reasons to believe that he didn't know it's illegal because lying is like not accepted in any society. It's generally assumed lying is known to be illegal. The more I think about it, the more I DQ the smoker.

The problem isn't about al
lowing a player to goto smoke or not. It's about a player lying to do what he was forbidden.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/297015/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4718/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4718/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudge
s.org/profiles/edit

As others have said, his lying isn't hurting the event. Seems far better to teach him he doesn't have to lie.

Simple solution: tell him he needs to be back in his chair in X minutes. If he's not back, you could assess Tardiness (you gave him a time limit) or even UC-Major (he didn't follow your direct instructuoon). However, I'd make sure he knows that's likely BEFORE he leaves.

I'd be hesitant to suggest a time limit to any player who called me over and said that he or she needed to go to the bathroom, that is just not something I'd ever be comfortable doing. In reading this thread it seems like some of the judges are suggesting that we impose a time restriction for all requests to leave the match area. I think David's initial instincts to recognize a difference between a trip to the bathroom and a smoke break needs to exist. I cannot picture myself ever letting someone leave a match in progress to go for a cigarette break, for a bathroom break I have given permission many times. I cannot count the number of times I have told a player that there is no lunch break for an event and that he or she needs to get food after playing his or her match before the next round starts, the same would be true for cigarette breaks in my mind but not for a bathroom break.

As for the initial request, I too would be reluctant to let a player go for a cigarette break during the registration process, in part because I think the player can choose to take less time to build his or her deck to ensure that a cigarette break can be taken after that next stage of the event. However, I am swayed by others here to tell the player requesting to go take a cigarette break to be back before the deck swap and not worry about it unless he or she is not back in time.

Now regarding the lie, I am troubled by it, but I too don't think this lie is worthy of a DQ. I think it is worthy of a brief chat and that should be enough to convince the player that lying to a judge is not a good idea.

While I would probably not DQ the player who lied to get to smoke, I feel that I want to give him a penalty for it.
After a quick glance into the IPG, I found the following in USC - Minor:

A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants. It may affect the comfort level of those around the individual

.

By overhearing that another player was not allowed to smoke, then lying to actually do smoke and obviously doing so, he probably has affected the comfort level of that particular player quite a bit.

Besides this, I'd give him a stern caution and tell him that this could also have been interpreted as USC - Cheating, resulting in a DQ.

Why do I think it is important to give some penalty here?
Because of the message it sends. If I do not give him at least a Warning here, this will be locked into any present players mind as ‘If you want to do something the Judge won’t allow you, just tell him you need to use the bathroom. Even if the lie is discovered, he can't/won't do anything about it', and further, this might be talked about with these players friends, likely resulting in ‘Lying to a Judge to get what you want is not penalized’ through some stages of he said/she said.


Also, I wouldn't argue with any judge who would want to DQ the player. The advantage gained might not be as direct as in drawing extra cards, but statisfying someones addiction certainly improves ones play and concentration.

When the are ten minutes left in registration, and you would allow him to go to the bathroom, are you really worried about him going to smoke? Both activities satisfy a physical need and have pretty much nothing at all to do with the tournament

Statisfying your addiction is not something on one level with needing to go to the bathroom, for sure. You wouldn't allow an alcoholic to take a quick sip of whiskey from his flask at the venue, nor would you allow a drug-addict to shoot himself up (well, you probably wouldn't do that for other reasons as well). So why make a difference for tobaaco-addicted? Because it is commonly a socially accepted addiction?
Going to the bathroom is a human need. Smoking is not. And that is the big difference, and why I allow a player to use bathroom, but not to smoke, if there is even the remote chance it might delay the tournament or torpedoe its integrity.

On the same page of this: If a player comes to you just before the end of the round and tells you he needs to go to the bathroom and might be late for the next round, that is cool and we will not give him tardiness. Would we do the same thing for someone that wants to smoke? Probably - hopefully, really - not. And it is the exact same thing here. It *might* delay us, so it is not okay to smoke.

This player is not going to win any games by having a smoke. He's not gaining any in-game or in-tournament advantage. Please don't DQ a player in such a situation.

Enviado desde dispositivo móvil.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

While I would probably not DQ the player who lied to get to smoke, I feel that I want to give him a penalty for it.

You should stop right there. Full stop. Don't reverse engineer based on how you feel. Identify if an infraction has been committed, then infract and penalize appropriately.

To summarize:

If there's reasonable time, let them go. If not, explain why and tell them when the next chance will occur. Please don't DQ them as this lie is not within the context of the game/match.

I'm going to go ahead and close this thread. If someone still has issues with this, please contact one of the moderators.