Hi guys. I'm a L1 from São Paulo, Brazil and the community here is trying to improve, one judge helping each other and trying to share experiences. So Darlam Porto (L2) proposed a scenario to us, that generated a lot of discussion (between L1 and L2) and we thought that it would be very good to have you guys join the debate. (Darlam Porto agreed to posting the discussion here).

The scenario proposed by Darlam was:

The last swiss round of a PTQ ends. Before the top 8 announcement Adam, that got a tie in the last round not making it to top 8 and taking his opponent Nick out of the top 8 too, approaches the Head Judge and says that his last opponent, Nick, offered to roll a dice in that round to determine a winner, believing that the time would not be sufficient to end the match. There are no witnesses (the Head Judge tried to find but couldn't), and all that the Head Judge had was the testimonials from both players where Adam says that Nick offered to roll the dice and Nick says he did not made such an offer. Your investigation ended up with nothing more than the testimonials.
The question is: you are the Head Judge, after interviewing both players a finishing the investigation. 1) What to do with Adam and what to do with Nick? 2) How you would base your decision in the judge center?

Some answers like mine (L1) and Gregory De Bonis' (L2) were:

You know that someone deserves a DQ. Adam did not report the offer in the expected time, or if the offer didn't happen he is lying to you. So he clearly deserves a DQ. Since all the information we have drives us to an investigation that is inconclusive about who is lying to you, you still need to make a decision whether to DQ Nick or not.

So Darlam Porto sent his response:

In fact this quiz is more a matter of logic and prevention than knowledge, let's check all the information:
a. There are two possibilities for Adam
1. Nick made the offer and Adam didn't called the judge - Resulting in a DQ
2. Adam is lying to the judge - Resulting in a DQ
In both situations Adam would get a DQ

b. To Nick there are two possibilities too:
1. Nick made the offer to roll the dice - Resulting in a DQ
2. Nick do not made the offer to roll the dice - No penalties
It's very easy to give Adam a DQ, because in any path of thinking Adam committed an infraction.

But we have more things to consider. if the DQ is applied to Adam we should explain and base the decision:
1. If it's an IDaW + DQ (Adam didn't called the judge) then we need to give the DQ to both players;
2. If it's a DQ for ‘lying to a judge’ we need to substantiate the lie, and we are saying that Nick is innocent (perhaps it isn't true).
Note that in both situations the judge's assumptions just lead to guesses. Independently of the judge's choice in this case there is no real substantiation to input in judges center's investigation, except the testimonials (that are contradictory) and your guesses.

All of us want to DQ Adam in a case like that, but note that the TOP 8's announcement wasn't made. So let's see what would be the impact in the tournament integrity in all the scenarios:
1. DQ to Adam for lying and Nick goes to TOP 8, even though he made offer;
2. DQ to Adam for not calling the judge about the offer, then DQ to Nick too (even there is a chance that Nick don't made the offer);
3. DQ to both players (where is the substantiation here?). Moreover note that the DQ would change the tiebreaks for the other players, leading to an unfair change in the TOP 8, compromising the tournament integrity;
4. Close the investigation due the lack of proofs/substantiation, the match between Adam and Nick remains a tie and the TOP 8 wouldn't be affected.

It seems to me that the only appropriate choice, in which the tournament integrity would be preserved, and I did not apply unfair DQs is the option 4. Remembering that every DQ should be inputed in the judges center and need to be substantiated to be judged, so we always need to substantiate our decisions.

Gregory and I argued that not applying a DQ to the players (one of them clearly deserves one) would be very bad to the tournament and would discourage players calling judges in the future for similar cases, because ‘calling a judge doesn’t change anything'.
Gregory even said that the standings don't matter in the investigation and a player that deserves a DQ should get the DQ regardless of his standings.

So we want to open the discussion to you: what would you do? How would you proceed? And, most importantly, why?

Edited Vinicius Quaiato (Jan. 29, 2014 02:46:52 PM)

Based on the scenario, you believe that one of two things occurred:
1) Adam made up a story about an offer to roll a die.
2) Nick did offer to roll and die and Adam didn't report it until now.

Step 1: Investigate the situation to determine what actually happened.
Determine if it was #1 or #2 (or possibly some third option).
Step 2: Once you determine what actually happened, you apply the
appropriate penalties.

You don't need to worry about if someone “deserves a DQ” or if the
tournament is affected by this decision. Your job is to figure out what
happened, determine if any infractions occurred, and apply any appropriate
penalties.

My apologizes for focusing on a detail in your interesting scenario, but I don't understand why Adam would deserve a DQ here, no matter what really happened.

1. Nick made the offer and Adam didn't called the judge - and so what? Ignoring the surprising fact that you seem to assume that Adam has perfect and complete knowledge of the IPG, thus knowing that a dice roll is Evil™, which infraction does he commit by not reporting it? Cheating? According to the IPG, there is no cheating unless the player is attempting to gain advantage from his action, and Adam gains no advantage from not reporting Nick's proposal ; moreover I doubt Adam is aware that he is doing something illegal by not reporting it.

2. Adam is lying to the judge - again, and so what? Yeah, it's Evil™, but again: in order for such a lie to become Cheating, which advantage is Adam gaining? Assuming the head judge believes him and Nick gets DQ, Adam does not jump into top 8 anyway, does he?

Edited Loïc Hervier (Jan. 29, 2014 02:04:32 PM)

To answer part 1:
From MTR - Collusion and Bribery:
“Making such an offer is prohibited. Unless the player receiving such an
offer calls a judge immediately, both players will be penalized in the same
manner.”

So both players are DQ'd for the offer if a judge isn't called immediately.
We don't care about intent or knowledge. Bribery and collusion are very
serious issues and will not be tolerated.

Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:

2. Adam is lying to the judge - again, and so what? Yeah, it's Evil™, but again: in order for such a lie to become Cheating, which advantage is Adam gaining? Assuming the head judge believes him and Nick gets DQ, Adam does not jump into top 8 anyway, does he?

He may think he does (this would need to be determined during the investigation).
If he's willing to lie to a judge, he must have some motive for doing so. That motive is the “advantage” he's gaining. “Revenge” could be the advantage he's gaining.

First you will investigate the matter with the players involved. Then, if you are able to confidently assess the thing really happened both players deserve DQ for UC-IDW:

IPG 4.3:

In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as an inappropriate suggestion to determine the winner is made.

But your investigation can lead to think nothing really happened and Adam is trying to punish the opponent that cut him out of top8. In this case he gets DQ'd for UC - Cheating (lies to a tournament official).

There is another option tho: you are unable to assess the fact happened, so you just know one of the players is lying, but, being unable to know who lacking enough hard facts, you just close the investigation and that's it.

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

There is another option tho: you are unable to assess the fact happened, so you just know one of the players is lying, but, being unable to know who lacking enough hard facts, you just close the investigation sand that's it.

So knowing someone is lying to you, are you ok doing nothing about?

Shawn Doherty
Step 1: Investigate the situation to determine what actually happened.
Determine if it was #1 or #2 (or possibly some third option).
Step 2: Once you determine what actually happened, you apply the
appropriate penalties.

Shawn: the investigation ended up with no more than Adam and Nick testimonials. Nothing more.

It seems to me a philosophical question: should I give a penalty even without concrete proofs? Or should I stay the things as they are even knowing that something happened (lying or dices offer)?

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

There is another option tho: you are unable to assess the fact happened, so you just know one of the players is lying, but, being unable to know who lacking enough hard facts, you just close the investigation and that's it.

I think you are missing the point here. In this third case you know that Adam either did not report an offer to randomly determine a winner or is lying to you. Both are penalized with a DQ. How do you proceed?

Vinicius Quaiato
It seems to me a philosophical question: should I give a penalty even without concrete proofs? Or should I stay the things as they are even knowing that something happened (lying or dices offer)?

Regarding a DQ I am firmly in the no penalty camp. A DQ is a very harsh penalty and I think we should know exactly why we are applying it.

Edited Julien de Graat (Jan. 29, 2014 02:46:15 PM)

Rarely will you be 100% sure of any investigation. That's why this job is
hard. It doesn't mean that you get to say “This is a hard decision, so I
can't make a decision”. Use your best judgement and made a decision.
Sometimes that comes down to who you believe more or what situation is
more likely. Is it possible that you come to the wrong conclusion and DQ
the wrong person (or people)? Sure. It happens. Do your best and try to
get better.

Sometimes, you just have to decide what or whom to believe. As Head Judge, you have the authority to make difficult (e.g., DQ) decisions based solely on your instincts. And, you have an obligation to the players and judges - not just at that event, but especially at that event - to act and protect the integrity of the event.

There are many times I have chosen to DQ, or not to DQ, in a scenario where I will probably never KNOW if I was right. Because I acted with integrity, to protect the event's integrity? I WAS right, by default.

As Shawn (and others) have mentioned, we have no tolerance for things such as Bribery and Improperly Determining a Winner. The usual requirement of knowingly committing an infraction does not apply; players are expected to know. (Some of that burden is on us; I now remind players of that during every event, esp. at GPs.)

If none of the Players stories sounds really convincing to me, I DQ neither, even if I know that Adam is guilty of either one or the other DQ offense. I just cant convince myself that Adam is guilty of X, and cant convince myself that he is guilty of Y either, even though X and Y are mutually exclusive.

As to the convincing part, I can't tell from the story as told if I would be/can be convinced of either story, as this strongly depends on small details - does either story change during the investigation, is Adam/Norman (too) vague when telling the story/asked about details, and so on.

If I do not DQ either, I will make sure to talk to each in private about what has just happened, and will also tell Adam that he is guilty of a DQ offense, and that I just can't justifiably pinpoint which of the two. I will educate him to, next time, call a Judge IMMIDEATLY for his own sake.
After the tournament, I will probably contact the RCs of both players, and possibly someone from the suspensions commitee about the incident to make sure that none of the players have pulled this before - and if they did, it can then be investigated further by the appropriate people.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

Andrea Mondani
There is another option tho: you are unable to assess the fact happened, so you just know one of the players is lying, but, being unable to know who lacking enough hard facts, you just close the investigation and that's it.

I think you are missing the point here. In this third case you know that Adam either did not report an offer to randomly determine a winner or is lying to you. Both are penalized with a DQ. How do you proceed?

Adam probably deserves DQ, but: Infraction -> Penalty. Until I determine what the infraction is I won't speak about penalties.

I know it's a corner case, but with only their testimony, and both equally convincing, I won't choose a random infraction to hand out DQs. I'll probably try to push the investigation further so that I can have a clearer idea, but that's not guaranteed and the option not to DQ anyone stays.

BTW probably, after some digging, I'd find a testimony more convincing than the other so that I will double DQ (UC-IDW for both) or just DQ Adam (lying).

In the overwhelming majority of routine non-DQ investigations, you have only player testimony. And often that testimony is hazy or doesn't match between players, even if neither one is actually lying to you. So you use your judgement and determine whose story (or which parts of each story) make the most sense. Then you make a decision based on that determination.

What about this scenario should make it any different? Make the call you think is right, and DQ accordingly.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

What about this scenario should make it any different? Make the call you think is right, and DQ accordingly.

Actually, this is the only option truly available :>

Easy:
You are at the last Table of the last Round of Swiss, which had x minutes extratime, obviously a big crowd has gathered around that table. Player Arnold offers a diceroll in front of your eyes. You Snap-DQ Arnold for IDAW. After giving the DQ and taking the result entry slip, Adam pokes you on the shoulder and says:
'He can't do that? My opponent offered me a diceroll after game 2 since we only had 5 minutes left and played the UW-mirror.'
Obvious questions: ‘Who was your opponent?’ - ‘Norbert Norrington was his name I think - we played at table 8’ - ‘Why didn’t you call a Judge?' - ‘I didn’t know it was illegal' - ‘Why do you come to me now?’ - ‘I saw you DQing that guy for offering to roll a die, and thought I’d better tell you my opponent did too' - ‘What do you hope/think will happen now’ - ‘I don’t know, I just want to do the right thing'.
To Norbert: ‘What happened during your last Round?’ - ‘I played against Adam Adamson, UW Mirror, we played 1-1-1, why do you ask?’ - ‘What happened after the second game?’ - ‘I shuffled for Game 3’ - ‘How much time was there left’ - ‘About 5 minutes I think’ - ‘Did you offer a diceroll?’ - ‘What? No, of course not, thats not allowed’

Further questions lead to the same answers.
Does either lie to you to get his opponent DQed/not get DQed? Well, yes of course. But which one?

Yes, there might be tells that push me to believing he lies/tells the truth…but what if that isn't the case? What if I feel it's a complete 50/50-decision, if I were to make one?
What do I write into the DQ-report? - ‘Adam told me this, Norman told me that, I didnt know if Adam was guilty of IDAW or Lying to me, so I rolled a 6-sided die and for even numbers, I DQ both for IDAW, for odd numbers, I DQ Adam for Lying. The dice landed on 4, so here is your DQ for IDAW. I still don’t believe that's what happened, but I don't believe Adam lied either, and this thread on Judgeapps told me to DQ at least one'?

EDIT: To clarify - I believe in the assumption of innocence, and if I, as a Judge, can't discard that assumption for either option - even if the options are mutually exclusive - I don't believe I should DQ someone just because ‘someone has to be DQed, so…Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, the DQed one will be you.’
I just don't see how that fits our goal of giving good customer service…at all.

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Jan. 29, 2014 04:04:54 PM)