Hello, judges.

We all know that following rules is important, and we want our players to have fun in all our events. But sometimes players break rules that they don't know and/or don't understand. In some cases, this leads to a DQ in order to protect our events.

In 2012, the Investigations Committee processed over 100 DQ cases involving ignorant Bribery and ignorant Improperly Determining a Winner. While these result in only a Warning Letter, these situations can lead to bad experiences for both players and judges.

For Bribery, these DQ's were about players who offered a very small value to arrange a result. For example, the player might have offered 1 pack to arrange a split or 2 packs if he concedes. These players made the offer in public and in most cases directly in front of a judge, and, almost always, in the last round or the second to last round. This occurred at all types of event, including GP's (GP Day 1 is Competitive REL, but it has a TON of local casual players who “want to come out for the big event”)

For Imporoperly Determining a Winner, these DQ's were overwhewlmingly in matches that were in overtime (the 5 turns) or else very short on time, and many of them, too, had judges right there watching when the player offered to roll. A DQ, yes, but one that might be prevented.

I would ask all judges to make some announcements that might help these type of ignornat players out. For example, as you put up the pairings for round X-1 of any event - especially REG or low-level COMP events - announce that offering to give or receive packs or other stuff, and possibly even arranging a “split”, is not allowed. Remind the players that they can call you over to help them if they want to try something like that. Then you can talk to them in private and make sure everything is cool. Also, announce at the beginning of the event and at round X-1 that rolling a die or randomly determining a winner is also not allowed - even if the players have seen it in other stores. Again, ask them to call you over to help them if there's something they want to do about ties when going to time. You can even announce this during the round if you announce something like “10 minutes left, everyone. Please remember that you cannot randomize a winner if you go to time”.

And this is important because many of these occur with a judge right there watching: if you are a judge watching the match, please tell that to the players as the end of the round approaches. Don't wait for the players to just up and ask to roll on overtime turn 3 or 4, because then you're in a feel-bad position for everyone, including yourself. Tell them even before they hit time.

Of course, we're not going to be able to catch every ignorant DQ action before it happenes. But I do feel that we can ALL be more proactive, especially in critical moments where pack offers and roll offers are most frequent.

Simply put, we can use 10 seconds in certain spots to save many of these players from themselves. Look for these opportunities to help players NOT get DQ'ed!

Thanks, everyone.

Eric Shukan
Investigations, Lead

When I see a situation like the ones you're mentioning, (well, haven't encountered Bribery, but I've encountered Improperly Determining a Match Winner,) I've simply said, loud enough to catch both players attention's, but not loud enough to have everyone craning their necks, “No.” This usually causes one (or both) to ask why, and I tell them that it is expressly verboten (forbidden) and tell them to continue playing. At which point I'll monitor the remainder of the game/match to ensure that nothing else dubious happens.

“Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner” is an infraction where I feel the penalty far exceeds the crime. If it were up to me I'd revise the infraction to say that a DQ is only issued if the match results are submitted based on an improper method. I really think that if a new player at FNM makes an offer to flip a coin, the judge should have an option to downgrade to warning assuming that a judge was called before said coin toss.

This would incentivise players and spectators alike to call a judge immediately to rectify the situation. No one wants to be “that guy” that got another player DQ'd.

Just my 2c.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

“Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner” is an infraction where I feel the penalty far exceeds the crime. If it were up to me I'd revise the infraction to say that a DQ is only issued if the match results are submitted based on an improper method. I really think that if a new player at FNM makes an offer to flip a coin, the judge should have an option to downgrade to warning assuming that a judge was called before said coin toss.

This would incentivise players and spectators alike to call a judge immediately to rectify the situation. No one wants to be “that guy” that got another player DQ'd.

Just my 2c.

While I agree with the general philosophy, we have to be careful to not deviate from the REL. It's not fair if we give a brand new player a Warning while we give someone we know to have played a DQ for the same offense at the same REL. It's a tricky position of equity.

However, I have a personal tendency to interrupt players who are in the middle of such an offer. The method I use is typically very simple in determining intent. Usually I hear something along the lines of “Time is going to run out, how about we…” - and there is where I step in. Usually I'll say something along the lines of “Pardon, what were you saying?” (Not in an investigative tone, but just a ‘passer-by’ tone). Their response then becomes my interest. 99 times out of 100, the player will say something such as: “I was going to offer that we roll since we're running low on time. Is this OK?”

Through this method, I circumvent players from actually making the offer in the first place - and rather having them ask a judge if such behavior is okay. The offer was never made in full, and the player is educated. (Note, I work in a smaller shop - this is difficult at large-scale events). Now, what about that 1 out of 100? Those are the obvious troublemakers. Those who respond with “Nothing” or “Never mind” something of the like. At this point, of course, it's a judgement call - but it definitely raises a red flag.

I agree about not deviating. The rules are the rules. As a level 1 I wouldn't want to imply that I want to come in and change the rules, but I'd like to understand a little better why the line is so sharp and the penalty so harsh.