I had a couple players with a history nearly come to fisticuffs. I basically explained to them that I currently had no grounds to DQ either or both of them, but if they gave me those grounds I would gladly use them.

If they are paired again in my events, I will just sit next to their match and babysit that game. Problem solved.

-Matt Sauers
L2, Indianapolis.

Please educate the TO on what you have learned here and apply another of the solutions proposed, including refusing service to one or both players.


Andy




________________________________
From: Jochem van ‘t Hull <forum-10263-73a3@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:05 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: “Don’t pair these two players!” (Tournament Operations)


These replies unanimously imply that I should have risked a severe emotional outburst, screaming, fighting, crying, the inevitable DQ(s), etcetera. (Remember, we're not talking about emotionally stable kids here!) I still think that would have caused far more damage to the event (and by association to the store, the TO, me, the game, and future events) than enforcing the “do not pair” house rule. I understand the desire to take the hard line, but this seems too great a cost. At Competitive I would have refused flat out and told the father that perhaps he shouldn't let his son compete, but this was the Game Day, it's Regular, everybody is supposed to have a good time playing Magic.

That said, I completely understand that Wizards can't officially give the nod to any such stuff. So, just how bad is this? Should I report the TO (and, presumably, myself) to Wizards?

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/64189/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/?onsite=yes

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

I won't make pairings again to get rid of a “unwanted” match. If some player/s can't behave properly, I will invite them to get out of the tournament, and with TO's collaboration and agreement, from the LGS.

Also, you'll frequently handle cases like this one. Not “special kids”, but people with particular antagonisms. As others said before, usually keeping an eye in the match and giving a serious talk when the slightiest bit of USC appears, will be enough to keep things cooled down. Otherwise, you know, the DQ path and everything.

If the TO really wants 2 players to not meet each other, and still have both players playing, could holding two simultaneous events ever be considered a solution?

Two simultaneous events is a viable option if you have more than 16
players. And to me is quite a good option, but not when there is a big
prize on offer. So it probably isn't going to be a viable solution always.

I'd be more likely to just let them get paired. But if they did have a
quick chat to them before they sit down reminding them that they need to be
civil or they wont be welcome to play there any more. And then supervise
their match in some way, either using tournament staff or other respected
players asked to monitor and call a judge early.

Try to not just list the things they shouldn't do. Remind them of being
sporting by communicating fully and that if emotions are starting to rise
that they can call for a judge to give them a couple of minutes away from
the table to calm down.

Emphasize that you want them in your events, but there are expectations
they'll have to met to do that.

Then you need to be prepared to follow through on the IPG when it gets
violated, but try to step in before anyone does anything too serious.


On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Mart Leuvering <
forum-10263-d235@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> If the TO really wants 2 players to not meet each other, and still have
> both players playing, could holding two simultaneous events ever be
> considered a solution?
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/64243/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
>


–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Since the prize for Game Day event includes a Game Day Playmat for the Champion,
holding two separate events seems unlikely.
(You can't split the playmat for the champions of each ‘pods’)

Though it's a good option to take if there's no specific prize offered, just like Gareth mentioned.
And another point that Gareth made is also a good preventive action.

- Talk to them prior to the match (if they ended up paired against each other).
Explain to them that they would have to behave if they want to play in the store's events (not just this, but also for any future events).
- Keep an eye on that table, or delegate it to someone else if you can't watch them for the whole round. In order to prevent any conflict from escalating.

Before dedicating one of your staff specifically to watch one match or coming up with solutions that involve a lot of work, think about your entire tournament operations and the limited resources you have available. The tournaments being talked about are likely rather small, so there's a good chance there is just the one judge available… and for some stores, that judge may have other store duties as well. Even if there's multiple judges available, sitting a judge on the one match is a very questionable solution and poor customer service for the rest of the event. Likewise, running two events involves enough time and effort for the tournament staff that it may not be a viable option, even if prizes are small enough and splittable enough to allow it.

I'd explore the other options presented in this thread first that don't involve a lot of overhead, extra work, such as talking to the players and trying to resolve differences in the least impactful way.

“I'm sorry sir, I don't have control over the pairings. Let me know their names and if they get paired I'll do my best to keep a close eye on them.”

While I see where Andy is coming from, this does raise some ethical flags for me. This results in a strong compromise between tournament integrity, the safety of the involved parties as well as – potentially – bystanders, but also could begin infringements on our “primary directive”. These tournaments basely exist for one purpose: for everyone involved to have fun. In a rural area like mine, we have one LGS within a two+ hour commute, and expecting players to travel that far to avoid conflict seems…. a bit unreasonable. The dictate of the rules definitely stands, but perhaps this has more room for discussion; possibly room for review?

The mandate to not manipulate pairings is based on a few decades of experience. The impulse to “fix” things will invariably lead to problems–perhaps not at that event, but in time the impression of bias and the temptation to fix just one more thing will occur. Perhaps not in your location but in locations that hear about “this is how the judge does it.”

Instead, please work with your mentors, your peers, & your RC to figure put workable solutions for your specific situations.

For the record, I've had many players with all sorts of issues. One player was known for hitting himself as he got frustrated. The answer isn't making up what you wish the world were like–it's figuring out how to work with what you have.

I would expect people to be able to avoid their own conflicts, if they want to continue frequently my establishment. “You can come here and have fun, but cause trouble and you will be asked to leave” does not seem unreasonable. “Customer service” can only justify so much, and manipulating pairings isn't one of them. It is unreasonable to drive 2 hours to avoid a conflict. It's also unreasonable to bring that conflict into my store.

Also, it opens a whole bag of worms outside the FRAUD issue. Where do you draw the line. What if one of them bumps the other out of top 8, what if they sit next to each other in a draft. How are you going to prevent that? What if a couple that is going through a break up want the same #privilege of not being paired against each other? What if a player is just a jerk and no one wants to play with him. What if little billy always gets crushed by the local pros so we want to pair him against worse players. I can justify just about anything with “customer service” and “it's supposed to be fun” at a micro level. But you gotta look big picture.

The TO has tools to discourage conflicts. You have tools to discourage conflicts. Manipulating pairings isn't one of them.

These two kids, they are gonna run into each other. At the pairings board, at the draft table, at the counter buying a snack, in the finals…whatever. You aren't preventing anything by seeing that they don't play each other in the early rounds.

Would it also be acceptable to do the following?

1. Inform the TO and parent, politely, that you are all in on not manipulating the pairings.
2. Remind him that a player can concede a match at any time.
3. Offer that if the 2 players in question are paired, they could inform either the TO, or you the judge, that they concede the match, and the other player would be informed by the staff, avoiding the unwanted interaction.

So what happens if they both make it to the finals? I say let them play it out, if the system says that they should be paired against each other.

In the real world, people have to deal with others that they do not want to deal with. I think that by preventing this pairing from happening, this shows that this player is able to avoid unavoidable conflicts, and I think this is a “Pipe Dream.”

If they misbehave during their match, then penalize them at that point.

+1

Thank you for actually addressing the problem, instead of working around it.

Andy


From: Frank Rodriguez
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:34 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: “Don't pair these two players!” (Tournament Operations)


So what happens if they both make it to the finals? I say let them play it out, if the system says that they should be paired against each other.

In the real world, people have to deal with others that they do not want to deal with. I think that by preventing this pairing from happening, this shows that this player is able to avoid unavoidable conflicts, and I think this is a “Pipe Dream.”

If they misbehave during their match, then penalize them at that point.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/64585/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10263/?onsite=yes

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