Hypothetical: Player A says “I can make top 8 and you can't. Would you like to concede to me?” And winks twice.


If you choose to investigate:
Upon brief investigation, player A says he winked twice intentionally.

Upon extended investigation, player A states that he wanted his opponent to know that, “I'm not the type of guy to scumbag any player that scoops me into top 8 by not giving that player something.” He says, “If my opponent concedes to me, I will give my opponent something. But, I wasn't sure how to express that in words so I just winked.”

You believe player A.

If you were the HJ, what would you do?

(If it matters how this came to your attention, explain the meaningful differences. If it matters whether the opponent says, “He winked cause he wanted me to know that conceding was good for me and I'd get something.” explain that also. If it matters whether A winked right off the bat or waited for player B to hesitate and then winked in encouragement, explain that also.)

It seems clear that Player A is indicating that he will give value for a concession. The indication isn't verbal, but it is definitely present. That's all I would need to issue the DQ.

Very straightforward for me.

-Eric
—– Original Message —–
From: William Anderson
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 4:27 PM
Subject: Bribery or OK? (Competitive REL)


Hypothetical: Player A says “I can make top 8 and you can't. Would you like to concede to me?” And winks twice.


If you choose to investigate:
Upon brief investigation, player A says he winked twice intentionally.

Upon extended investigation, player A states that he wanted his opponent to know that, “I'm not the type of guy to scumbag any player that scoops me into top 8 by not giving that player something.” He says, “If my opponent concedes to me, I will give my opponent something. But, I wasn't sure how to express that in words so I just winked.”

You believe player A.

If you were the HJ, what would you do?

(If it matters how this came to your attention, explain the meaningful differences. If it matters whether the opponent says, “He winked cause he wanted me to know that conceding was good for me and I'd get something.” explain that also. If it matters whether A winked right off the bat or waited for player B to hesitate and then winked in encouragement, explain that also.)

—————————
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/98546/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/?onsite=yes

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

I agree with Eric. While, in your deeper investigation scenario, the player eventually directly admits that he was trying to bribe his opponent (“If my opponent concedes to me, I will give them something. But, I wasn't sure how to express that…”), I don't think even that level of admission is needed to DQ here.

The player is clearly trying to get across to his opponent that he will give them something if they concede to him. Regardless of how he words that (or conveys it without words in this case), the result is the same: He is attempting to offer “an incentive to entice his opponent into conceding,” which is the textbook definition of Bribery in the IPG.

I concur that this is a USC Bribery & Wagering. The player intended to give an incentive in return for a concession, and therefore needs to be removed from the event.

A couple things I want to point out:
A player is allowed to give something to their opponent after their
opponent concedes.
A player is allowed to plan to give something to their opponent if they
concede to them.
A player is not allowed to offer something to their opponent in exchange of
a concession.

If we want to have a discussion about what language or non-verbal signals
constitute an offer, that's fine, but the intention to give something to
their opponent is not what is illegal.

A couple things I want to point out:
A player is allowed to give
something to their opponent after their
opponent concedes.
A
player is allowed to plan to give something to their opponent if
they
concede to them.
A player is not allowed to offer
something to their opponent in exchange of
a
concession.

If we want to have a discussion about what
language or non-verbal signals
constitute an offer, that's fine,
but the intention to give something to
their opponent is not what
is
illegal.

???????????????????????????

The above is true but mostly irrelevant. The wink IS an offer of value and therefore satisfies your third, bad, condition.

If you say (or communicate with a wink) to your opponent, “Would you concede to me? I give stuff to those who concede to me.”, that IS an offer. The exact value is not specified, but that is definitely an offer. This not the same thing at all as a player thinking to himself that he would give something to someone who conceded to him.

I may be misreading your claim here because you don't explicitly state your interpretation of the described actions but rather just a general set of policy, all of which I agree with. So let me ask…. Do you claim that the statement and wink together do NOT represent an offer?

Eric

Sorry for the question marks. On my iPad i put in dashes to separate text. Not sure why ipad auto corrected to question marks, but I didn't intend that, sorry.

Eric

On 01/09/15, Eric Shukan wrote:



A couple things I want to point out:
A player is allowed to give

something to their opponent after their
opponent
concedes.
A
player is allowed to plan to give something to
their opponent if
they
concede to them.
A player is not
allowed to offer
something to their opponent in exchange of
a

concession.

If we want to have a discussion about what

language or non-verbal signals
constitute an offer, that's
fine,
but the intention to give something to
their opponent
is not what
is

illegal.

???????????????????????????

The above
is true but mostly irrelevant. The wink IS an offer of value and
therefore satisfies your third, bad, condition.

If you say
(or communicate with a wink) to your opponent, ?Would you
concede to me? I give stuff to those who concede to me.?, that
IS an offer. The exact value is not specified, but that is definitely
an offer. This not the same thing at all as a player thinking to
himself that he would give something to someone who conceded to
him.

I may be misreading your claim here because you don't
explicitly state your interpretation of the described actions but
rather just a general set of policy, all of which I agree with. So
let me ask?. Do you claim that the statement and wink together
do NOT represent an
offer?

Eric

???????????????????????????
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/98569/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/?onsite=yes

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

I was mostly responding to this statement:
“The player intended to give an incentive in return for a concession, and
therefore needs to be removed from the event.”

I wanted to make sure we weren't going down a path of punishing intention
to do legal things.
I wasn't stating a position. Just clarifying some points for discussion.

Ah, ok, then my bad, I read too much into your reply, sorry about that.

eric


On 01/09/15, Shawn Doherty wrote:



I was mostly responding to this statement:
?The player
intended to give an incentive in return for a concession,
and
therefore needs to be removed from the
event.?

I wanted to make sure we weren't going down a
path of punishing intention
to do legal things.
I wasn't
stating a position. Just clarifying some points for
discussion.

???????????????????????????
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/98573/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/15377/?onsite=yes

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

I just happened to read a relevant article on ChannelFireball. I understand if details of that particular incident are not available for discussion because of ongoing investigation, but some things worry me:

1. Mr. Durward expressly tries to avoid any wrongdoings by involving the judges. This backfires horribly.
   
2. Afterwards, one of the judges explains to Mr. Durward how to “game the system”.
   
3. Subsequent clarification from L4 Kim Warren kinda boils down to “Your Mileage May Vary”.
   

The message this article strongly implies is:

Don't get caught!

I expect the ideal message would be “don't even try”, but it's a situation where both players stand to gain something and, as MaRo is wont to say, fighting human nature is a losing battle.

I was apprehensive about this subject already and this article has kicked that up a notch. I don't really know where to draw the line anymore and I'm worried that I'll mess up should players ever ask me how to proceed.

Here's a couple of things to think about.

a) The article is written only from the player's point of view. Don't take that as gospel, as there are other viewpoints and versons of the story. Please note that I am not suggesting the player is incorrect, but rather that you consider that the entire picture and the interpretation of the entire picture might not be available in only the player's blog.

b)

c) Players want an absolute line here, but they aren't going to get one. Communication is too varied in both words, language, and body-language/behavior (a wink, for example, or silently passing a note).

d) Please be wary of using players' names in forum posts. Instead, please try to focus on the relevant behaviors and policies/philosophies. These forums are somewhat public, and we usually should not draw attaention to specific identities of players. This post isn't so bad, but I'd like everyone to keep that general respect rule in mind in replying to this post or when making new posts..

Thanks!

Eric Shukan

I don't believe we're allowed to talk about ongoing investigations at all, so I will abstain from responding to the article.

However if a player asked me how they can “game the system” and I was unsure how to properly answer them I would say something along the lines of “you may act in accordance with the rules (and refer them to the MTR 5.2) however if I or another judge feels that they are broken then you will both be disqualified, I sincerely feel the best way to proceed is to just play the match.”

Edited Walker Metyko (Jan. 11, 2015 06:34:42 PM)

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

It seems clear that Player A is indicating that he will give value for a concession.

How on earth is winking a clear offer of anything? No explicit offer was made; while you might argue that an implicit offer was hinted at by the winking, where do you want to draw the line? You might as well say “Well, he smiled at him so he OBVIOUSLY was making an offer, we'll have to DQ him!” Even if he admitted that he was going to give the player something for conceding, that is not illegal as Shawn helpfully pointed out.

Sorry to disagree here, but this does not look like an infraction to me. Not even borderline. Maybe you could clarify your point a bit more, Eric?

> Benjamin Bandelow <forum-15377-8017@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> How on earth is winking a clear offer of anything? No explicit offer was made; while you might argue that an implicit offer was hinted at by the winking, where do you want to draw the line?


Bribery does not have to be explicit. It can be, and often is, implicit. if I ask you to concede and then slide $1000 over to your side of the table, there is no explicit offer, but we are all pretty clear on what the intent here is.

In the case of a wink, let's consider common social conventions of a wink:
-telling someone “I like you”
-I just did something I'm not supposed to and I saw that you saw me, and I'm feeling cheeky, and I wink to include you.
-telling the person “there is more to my words than what I said”
-telling a person, “I mean the opposite of what I just said”
-I have a physiological condition and wink at random people for no good reason.

Now, after asking a person to concede, which of those winks is the most likely.

-Bryan

We could discuss the meaning of a wink (I'd probably side with Eric here), or we can notice that

“Upon extended investigation, player A states that he wanted his opponent to know that, “I'm not the type of guy to scumbag any player that scoops me into top 8 by not giving that player something.””

From there, the DQ seems to be unavoidable.