<rant>The Legacy event which ran at Comp REL held yesterday got me so frustrated. It was round 4 of 6 in Swiss, with 10 minutes left on the clock, and I was watching over a table, and checked on their score when time was almost up. Player B was paired up to Player K.

They were at Game 2 and Player K was at 1-0. I turned around to handle a judge call, and when I got back, that table submitted their results, and it showed Player B having won 2-1 instead. Player B needed the win to make the cut.

Both players were playing Countertop/Stoneblade variants. Now, we're looking at Tropical Islands, Modern Master boxes, and Tabernacle as top 8 prizes.

I had a talk with Player K but he just said that he conceded because he was asked to concede by Player B and nothing else. After the event ended, Player B passed Player K a fair amount of money, and claimed that he was just returning money that was borrowed. The thing is, I know that Player K and Player B are not close friends to be able to just lend out that much money, much less be in contact to do so.

This is VERY frustrating.</rant>

You do not need 100% certainty to DQ for Cheating - Bribery. If you have enough suspicion, you may submit a DQ and trigger an investigation.

keep in mind that it's only illegal if they explicitly offer something for
the concession – if player K concedes, and player B sees fit to give him
$100, there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by James Do Hung Lee:

You do not need 100% certainty to DQ for Cheating - Bribery. If you have enough suspicion, you may submit a DQ and trigger an investigation.

James, do you suggest that floor judges err on the side of ruling DQs to ensure that they are investigated by the head judge? This came up in a tournament that I was working in and I wish that I had just ruled USC-Cheating in order to bring a more experienced judge in to make the ruling.

The floor judge should not rule it as cheating. That would be a disaster. If you believe it is cheating then ask the players to pause and get the head judge to instigate an investigation.

I'm not going to answer for James here, but I will simply suggest this: All of the offenses that have DQ attached to them are difficult. There is a lot of emotion wrapped up in DQing (or even just potentially DQing) both for players and judges. This is an area where I feel that judges should not be afraid to work as a team. These happen infrequently enough that consulting with one or more additional/experienced judges before a ruling is delivered is (imo) completely OK.

My advice to anyone who feels that they're in over their heads due to lack of practical experience is to get another set of eyes and ears on the situation as quickly as possible. A lot of learning can take place in observing and following up with someone who has been down the DQ road before, but, more importantly, it increases the likelihood that the “correct” outcome will be reached.

Jason Ness
Calgary Canada

Subject: Re: This is so frustrating (Test Forum)
From: forum-4927-1f19@apps.magicjudges.org
To: snoman321@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 04:46:13 +0000

James Do Hung Lee
You do not need 100% certainty to DQ for Cheating - Bribery. If you have enough suspicion, you may submit a DQ and trigger an investigation.
James, do you suggest that floor judges err on the side of ruling DQs to ensure that they are investigated by the head judge? This came up in a tournament that I was working in and I wish that I had just ruled USC-Cheating in order to bring a more experienced judge in to make the ruling.



——————————————————————————–
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/forum/post/27401/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4927/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4927/

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

Thanks for your input. My head judge asked me to deliver the ruling and seemed to be unhappy that I had paused the game and come to him before issuing a ruling.

Perhaps the way that these are handled differ between head judges?

(To be clear, I think my head judge was great and helped me learn as much as possible through the investigation. However, he did put the onus of making a ruling squarely on my shoulders.)

DQs should absolutely be issued by the HJ. If the HJ isn't involved in the
investigation, or aware of its results, then something is wrong.

Jason should always feel free and happy to answer for me! :D

All that has been said is true. Any possible DQ should always involve the HJ. If a situation should ever seem to be a DQ, the judge on the scene should immediately involve the HJ. When possible, while the game is paused, some other judge should be keeping an eye on the match and players to ensure that no other shenanigans occur while they are waiting for the HJ to intervene and investigate. Sometimes this may mean you need to stay at the match and send another judge to fetch the HJ.

Originally posted by Cameron Bachman:

Thanks for your input. My head judge asked me to deliver the ruling and seemed to be unhappy that I had paused the game and come to him before issuing a ruling.

Perhaps the way that these are handled differ between head judges?

(To be clear, I think my head judge was great and helped me learn as much as possible through the investigation. However, he did put the onus of making a ruling squarely on my shoulders.)

In some organized games/sports/competitions, it is normal for the front-line official who witnesses an infraction to make a ruling in all cases without involving his or her superiors, even when the penalty is very serious. In this case, a superior official, or the chief official, is only called when the player lodges an appeal against the ruling of the front-line official.

But, the above system is NOT used in Magic: The Gathering. In fact, any significant Magic ruling that involves a Game Loss or higher penalty should only be issued by the head judge (or in the case of a very large tournament, by a relatively senior judge appointed and authorized by him). In no case should a typical front-line judge be expected to issue Game Losses or higher penalties, except for routine matters such as deck errors and tardiness.

You may wish to direct your colleague to this posting so that he can learn about this distinction.

I'll direct my colleague to this discussion, as suggested.

Again, to clarify, he wanted me to make the initial ruling and then he would investigate if that ruling was cheating. He was involved in the investigation as a helper and translator, but wanted me to deal with the players directly.

It's very possible that he just wanted to teach me how to do an investigation and would have pumped the brakes if he felt I was making a big mistake.

Please, please, please…if you are not the HJ and the very idea of DQ
comes into your head, call the HJ.

I had the very unpleasant experience of having to do a DQ
investigation as the HJ after a floor judge performed his own DQ
investigation. I think that was a very big contributing factor to the
only 2 DQs that I believe I have made in error. (There were 5 DQs in
all that day…not fun. Not fun at all. I actually stopped judging for
a good while after that.)

With that said, if you are the HJ and doing a DQ investigation, do
everything in your power to allow the FJ to shadow you. That is by far
the best way to learn how to conduct an investigation. I still
remember fondly the lessons that Shukan gave me in investigating back
at U.S. Nationals in Kansas City.

Thank you all for the input. I feel like I hijacked this thread, and the question about the specifics of the call in question are still unanswered in the Competitive REL thread that I started.

Please help a lost L1 with his policy knowledge and take a look at the scenario.

Not really a hijack. It's informative, actually, to all reading, including me.

Apparently after the event ended, and players have left, that I heard about the alleged collusion from other spectators.

I am seriously frustrated that I could have prevented it. It's a bit too late to file for a Bribery penalty now, wouldn't it?

In the original scenario, the statement was made that “Player B needed the win to make the cut.” The implication is that K could not make the cut regardless.

It is ok, reasonable, and in many places common for players play kingmaker and to scoop to an opponent when they can't make a cut but the opponent can. This is the nature of how a great many players behave. Many people (including judges, perhaps especially) do not like this reality, but it is and likely will remain the reality. This reality provides judges the opportunity to practice being unbiased and applying the rules as they are written.

What that means is unless a player specifically broke the bribery rules, then there's no punishable behavior. We might not like it, but what we like and what we penalize are two very separate things. It's not a shock to a newly anointed king with reward his benefactor. What the rules care about is whether there was an explicit agreement, not an implicit generalized understanding.

Richard Garfield actually touched on this topic (in issue #17 of The Duelist) that still causes irritation to this day:
“One of the most unpleasant features of a political game is what I refer to as kingmaking. Kingmaking happens when a player who has no chance of winning can choose who does win. This holds some charm for beginners, because being a kingmaker allows revenge against irritating players, and justifies diplomacy—the winner is chosen by someone else. The advanced player tends to dislike kingmaking, though, because it trivializes the time spent playing. The longer the game goes on, the more irksome is such an ending.”