Originally posted by Stefano Ferrari:

My TO possibly doesn't want people to get disqualified (or, even worse, suspended) unless the problem is Serious (as JAR-defined): he has a business to conduct and it involves his customers to have fun and enjoy the game every time they want to come in his shop.

Just chiming in on the reluctance of most shop owners:
Competitive or not, cheating is serious here, and usually only an investigation can reveal the extent of the damage that player might or might not be doing.
Try to explain to your TO that if he allows such reluctance of investigation that might lead to a DQ to continue, it's going to cost him his events' integrity, which in turn, it might affect his business, and also the fun and enjoyment of other players.

regarding the TO not wanting people disqualified for non-serious stuff:
he's probably talking about things like bribery and improperly determining
a winner, both of which have extremely harsh punishments which don't get
lessened by player ignorance. it's pretty reasonable for a TO to expect a
judge to look the other way if the players in FNM use the wrong words to
negotiate a prize split or something like that. you may want to explain the
difference between actual, malicious cheating and accidental, harmless
shenanigans.

I would like to point out that while being bad with words is one thing, if
actions do fall into either bribery/wagering or improperly determining a
winner (even at fnm) then its something we have to deal with. These
penalties are there for a reason and looking the otherway is not a good
course of action.
On Jul 15, 2013 11:05 PM, “Sam Sherman” <

I'd expect the judge to help educate, not look the other way.

The difference is subtle but very important. Judges don't look the other
way, we help people.

If a TO is reluctant to even let the judge conduct an investigation when things are looking a bit funny, then it's going to impact the event severely, regular or not.
Investigation might sound like a heavy word, but an investigation can mean anything, from simple asking of questions to determine the course of action to take, be it education or disqualification, to full-on cattle probing.
And…the trains are off the rails again.

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

I'd expect the judge to help educate, not look the other way.

The difference is subtle but very important. Judges don't look the other
way, we help people.

I'm 101% on this approach.

I'm not derailing from the original topic, but I want to specify that I have a good relationship with my TO. If a double nickel issue happens there, we both want that player to be warned, corrected, helped, etc… DQ is just the last resort if he still keeps on doing that. The same could apply with any bad behaviour you may think about.

To ignore the issue is bad for the shop events, and I wouldn't be happy about that even as a player.
Both as a player and as a judge, I would act to help this guy right away.

Once the problem gets Serious, even if we sincerely hope it doesn't, other lines of conduct will be obviously applied, either by the TO or by myself.

The topic has gotten derailed, intentionally or otherwise. I'm going to try to get it back on track.

The decision here is made from the point-of-view of a judge participating in a Prerelease as a player (We'll call him PJ – Player-Judge). PJ's opponent is very shady and uses what PJ knows to be an illegal “shuffling” technique. PJ thinks his opponent is doing so intentionally, but as a participant he has no clout to actually do an investigation himself. PJ's options are simple, but the decision is not easy.

Option 1) PJ tells the opponent that the technique is illegal, explains why, and randomizes the opponent's deck himself. The match plays as normal. He may inform the staff judge afterward, but now the opponent might have an idea that he's being watched and be harder to detect.

Option 2) PJ does nothing until the deck is presented, then calls the staff judge. The staff judge will likely launch an investigation into Cheating from the opponent, but the opponent can easily lie and/or play dumb to get off the hook, and PJ only has his word as a player against the opponent's claims. It is likely that the opponent will get Very Serious Official Words, be wary that he's being watched for the rest of the event, and live to cheat another day and/or place.

Option 3) PJ does nothing until the deck is presented, then randomizes the opponent's deck himself to rid it of any undue influence. The match plays as normal. PJ informs the staff judge after the match is over (and hopefully out of earshot of the opponent) that he suspects shenanigans and asks the staff judge to keep an eye on him. This option gives the staff judge the highest chance of DQ'ing the opponent if he's cheating, but it gives the least opportunity to correct/teach the opponent if he truly is ignorant, as well as stressing the opponent the most if the staff judge does pull the trigger.

Each of these options is valid, but in the situation that the OP describes, I'd prefer option 3. If he really is trying to cheat as much as the OP suspects, we want him to get dunked ASAP. I don't think any of these options stand out as a “best” option in a vacuum though. It all depends on context.

If the player wanted to be really sneaky, he could call judge, grab a random card from his hand as a decoy, and ask to speak to the judge away from the table and explain the situation. I wouldn't expect a player to go to these lengths, but it's another option.