Actually, no, it is not. All DQ-offenses can be reported, even if the judge staff comes to the realization that a DQ should have been handed out after the Event finished. It is important to us that DQ-offenses get reported, because they are very important to the Investigations Committee. If one of these players has a history of (DQ-able) offenses, this might even trigger a ban.

If your HJ and you decide that you want to DQ the player for Bribery, make sure to somehow tell the players involved, and, if at all possible, make an effort to get their side of the story, in writing, to hand in with the rest of the DQ materials in the judgecenter.
You also should make sure to explain to them, WHY you decided to DQ them in retrospect, what this means for them, and that we do not take bribery lightly.
Tell them that this might trigger an investigation by the Investigation Committee, but if they just did not know that it was forbidden, it is unlikely that they get suspended for this unless they have a history.
Also, appologize to them for coming at this late, but that you just were not sure about it prior to now, or that you only got the input you needed to convince yourselves that it was bribery just now.


EDIT: As John rightfully pointed out, this might not be bribery after all. You need to be pretty sure that it is if you want to DQ the players. At GP Strassbourg earlier this year, David Lyford-Smith (if I remember correctly, sorry if I got your name wrong ;)) told me an annecdote about not-quite bribery, which goes a long way to showing when something stops beeing bribery in the sense of our documents:
After talking to the Headjudge of a PTQ after the semifinals he just won, he came up to his opponent in the finals and said ‘I concede *shakes hands* …but it would be nice if you would give me something for it, since I am already qualified for the PT’. While this is a slightly different scenario, it shows very well what is allowed concerning bribery: The player conceded without making a direct payment linked to it, and THEN asked for a reimbursement for his concession. The big difference basically is - the player who is conceded into the win/top8/whatever can just say ‘no’ and walk away, the conceding player (needs to) take the risk of not getting anything for his concession.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (July 8, 2013 07:26:51 PM)

Originally posted by John Carter:

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.

The problem was that Player B could not make the cut, but Player K could, regardless of him winning or losing that round. The thing is that because of this, both Players B and K made the cut into Top8. I'm going to be a bit personal here, but it seems like Player K wanted to have his cake and eat it too, which he managed to. Personally I don't see any issue with kingmaking, but in this specific case, it was pretty frustrating.

Philip Körte
Actually, no, it is not. All DQ-offenses can be reported, even if the judge staff comes to the realization that a DQ should have been handed out after the Event finished. It is important to us that DQ-offenses get reported, because they are very important to the Investigations Committee. If one of these players has a history of (DQ-able) offenses, this might even trigger a ban.

If your HJ and you decide that you want to DQ the player for Bribery, make sure to somehow tell the players involved, and, if at all possible, make an effort to get their side of the story, in writing, to hand in with the rest of the DQ materials in the judgecenter.
You also should make sure to explain to them, WHY you decided to DQ them in retrospect, what this means for them, and that we do not take bribery lightly.
Tell them that this might trigger an investigation by the Investigation Committee, but if they just did not know that it was forbidden, it is unlikely that they get suspended for this unless they have a history.
Also, appologize to them for coming at this late, but that you just were not sure about it prior to now, or that you only got the input you needed to convince yourselves that it was bribery just now.

I'd really have to take this into consideration, because I was the only judge for the event. Looks like I'd need to start contacting some spectators for this to get their statements first; don't want this to roll into a my-word-against-your-words situation.

If you were the only judge at this Event, and you are not sure how to proceed, you might want to involve another local judge, preferably one that has experience in investigations, and/or knows the players involved if possible. These kind of things are much easier to talk about and come to a decision in person. You can also have him help you in the actual investigation process (talking to the players, even if only in writing), if you feel it would help you.

A Forum is not the best place to get lead through the mess of an investigation process, since it is the details that often matter and make the difference between ‘still ok’ and ‘that I need to DQ you for’, and those easily get lost in this kind of discussion :).

On Mon Jul 08 10:24, Andrew Teo wrote:
> The problem was that Player B could not make the cut, but Player K could, regardless of him winning or losing that round. The thing is that because of this, both Players B and K made the cut into Top8. I'm going to be a bit personal here, but it seems like Player K wanted to have his cake and eat it too, which he managed to. Personally I don't see any issue with kingmaking, but in this specific case, it was pretty frustrating.

Still, it is (less, but still) common for players who are a lock to scoop in their opponents, and also common for people who have had that and then win prizes to give up something as a thank you. Neither of these things are illegal. It's even possible for them to agree a general prize split before they play their match. In that case K could easily see it as in his interest to scoop to get a second player he was splitting with into the top 8.

What's illegal is agreeing anything _in exchange for_ the match result. Now, I don't say this didn't happen here, and you don't need a very high standard of proof, but you want to have some suggesting that the “in exchange” part happenned. Just splitting prizes (or whatever) afterwards is not sufficient, even if it is suspicious.

Talking to any spectators you can find that might have seen it is important. Was there an announcement before the last round reminding people that bribary is illegal? We highly recommend that to try and avoid this where possible in advance.

Matt

@OP: If kingmaking isn't your thing, allow me to explain why we allow players to scoop to one another (or do an intentional draw): Let's say Player A is 0-1 and needs to win to make whatever cut. He can say to Player B “Hey, I really need to make this cut, and you can't make it, so let's figure out a way to make this happen”. In this case, if Player B agrees, Player B will simply sit there and play draw-go for the whole next 2 games while Player A beats his face in (this is not illegal play; as judges we do not force players to play “properly”, we only force them to play “within the rules”). This takes extra match time, and for the purpose of expediency of the event, we allow players to scoop or ID as they like.

Originally posted by Andrew Teo:

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

I agree, so I moved this to the Comp REL thread.

Andrew, if you believe Bribery occurred, you can still enter an investigation via Judge Center. It's less common, but sometimes the deciding bit of info only becomes known after the fact.

It is a difficult situation, and specifics of a DQ should not be discussed
in public like this. The most important thing to be aware of is that a DQ
doesn't have to happen right then. Contact your RC or local L3 about the
situation.

I will say, however, that players will do implied bribes that seem
perfectly legal.

I was playing in a GPT at Vegas. I did far better than I thought I would,
thanks to a Jace in my pool. An event I wanted to play in was about to
start. My opponent said to me “All I can do is look at you with my nicest
eyes and say I would be very grateful if you scooped.”

Is that an offer of a bribe? Yes. Is it actionable? I don't think so. He
was saying he would be grateful, nothing more. If I had scooped and he
gave me nothing more than a “Thanks,” he would have lived up to his word.
Or he may have given me $100, in which case I would have been ecstatic at
having scooped and played in the other event.

There is nothing wrong with offering friendship. There is nothing wrong
with giving some of your prize money to a player who scooped to you, if
that is not why he did it.

What bothers me most about the situation is the lie afterwards.

Ohhh… I've been meaning to send something about this for a long time, so
a detailed rant/question will come in the future, but I believe blanketing
every single mention of a DQ with “Do not talk about DQs or investigations
in public.” is heavily missing the point of that policy. (Imnho)

This question covered all the bases. There were unnamed players involved,
legitimate questions about policy were asked, and lots of learning was done
in this thread.


2013/7/8 Jacob Faturechi <forum-4927-d4e7@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

A Forum is not the best place to get lead through the mess of an investigation process, since it is the details that often matter and make the difference between ‘still ok’ and ‘that I need to DQ you for’, and those easily get lost in this kind of discussion :).

Well…yes, I was just ranting and somehow…you serious judges just had to make it all judge-ish and serious</sarcasm>.

I'm actually taking into consideration a lot of things right now, and will decide further on how to proceed.

Let's say that for now, let's not discuss about this scenario I was just ranting about with unnamed players.

Cheers :)

Lyle Waldman
@OP: If kingmaking isn't your thing, allow me to explain why we allow players to scoop to one another (or do an intentional draw): Let's say Player A is 0-1 and needs to win to make whatever cut. He can say to Player B “Hey, I really need to make this cut, and you can't make it, so let's figure out a way to make this happen”. In this case, if Player B agrees, Player B will simply sit there and play draw-go for the whole next 2 games while Player A beats his face in (this is not illegal play; as judges we do not force players to play “properly”, we only force them to play “within the rules”). This takes extra match time, and for the purpose of expediency of the event, we allow players to scoop or ID as they like.

I think the point was missed. I have no issues with kingmaking. It's what brought about the kingmaking in this alleged scenario that isn't my thing.

Scott Marshall
Andrew, if you believe Bribery occurred, you can still enter an investigation via Judge Center. It's less common, but sometimes the deciding bit of info only becomes known after the fact.

I'll try to remember to do that the first thing tomorrow. Thanks :)

Jacob Faturechi
Is that an offer of a bribe? Yes. Is it actionable? I don't think so. He
was saying he would be grateful, nothing more. If I had scooped and he
gave me nothing more than a “Thanks,” he would have lived up to his word.
Or he may have given me $100, in which case I would have been ecstatic at
having scooped and played in the other event.

There is nothing wrong with offering friendship. There is nothing wrong
with giving some of your prize money to a player who scooped to you, if
that is not why he did it.

What bothers me most about the situation is the lie afterwards.

Anything can be an offer of a bribe.
“If you concede, I'll give you my love.”
Sure, it's a bribe, but why do we, if we hear that, or the example you have given, take no action? I do believe that the reason lies behind the lack of any material offering.
Would we jump on the infraction cannon if we hear something like these instead?
“If you concede, I'll give you a split of my winnings.”
“If you concede, I'll give you my favourite Pikachu water tumbler.”
“If you concede, I'll give you my Jace TMS Russian Foil at a good price.”

Which has led me to the scenario in my rant.

Based on the MTR, even “I'll give you my love” is a violation, as it is an “offer of {a} reward or incentive”. If we as judges don't take action, it's probably because we don't think it's a serious offer - but what's important there is if the other player takes it seriously, and hears something that provides sufficient motivation to concede. If so, then the spirit of MTR 5.2 has been violated - no matter how silly the bribe appears to others.

That is a bit of a trap for players, because they don't realize that there isn't really a lot of wiggle room in that policy. Granted, the policy has morphed quite a bit over the years, and is still undergoing close scrutiny. For now, the IPG gives us a pretty clear statement, in the Philosophy for 4.4 UC-Bribery/Wagering: “Bribery and wagering disrupt the integrity of the tournament and are strictly forbidden.”

One thing that's remained consistent, across the years: guard the (perceived) integrity of the event. The last thing we want is for players to think “Oh, I don't want to play in a PTQ, people are always bribing each other and I have no chance.”

So where does this leave us with the well known practice of prize splits?

Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament.

And, of course, the special exception for the finalists.

If the sentence has “if” and a match result, it's almost always bribery.

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

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.

Well, nothing wrong with it as far as the rules go…

chris lansdell, there is no reasonable way to determine what is right or
wrong in a game other than going by what is allowed in that game by the
rules.