Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

the number of people who are Trevor Humphries or Alex Bertoncheaty

While I am not sure calling out players who used a prominent way to cheat or were caught in a prominent way is fine. I am pretty sure it is not okay to use “funny” alterations of their name. Not cool!

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

who can actually do this proficiently is sufficiently small as to make this particular avenue of cheating not something worth worrying about

I am, furthermore, fairly sure you are mistaken in your assessment that it is too hard for casual players to learn how to stack a deck if they plan to cheat in this way. For example it took me (at most) only a couple of hours to learn how to shuffle 7 lands on top of a library to fool my wife (L2-judge) in 1-vs-1 play and I do not consider myself to be good at sleight of hand or especially nimble with my hands. If you plan to cheat this is an easy and fairly untraceable way to cheat if you do not overdo it.

The question I have is: Do we need new/additional policy for this?
If I understood him correctly Victor's easiest solution was: “A player can request that the opponent performs ONE additional cut to the deck of the original player.” So the opponent still has the last handling but the original player feels safer about the randomness of his new top X cards.
What this request boils down to is that the player thinks his opponent is stacking the deck and that he fears to become a victim of cheating. If that is the case the best course of action for the player should be to involve a judge and then the additional cut seems kind of unnecesary.

So the solution for me would be as stated above by Riki: Teach players about possible ways how they can get cheated. Make sure they are vigilant and that you act on the information that is brought to your attention.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

The question I have is: Do we need new/additional policy for this?
If I understood him correctly Victor's easiest solution was: “A player can request that the opponent performs ONE additional cut to the deck of the original player.” So the opponent still has the last handling but the original player feels safer about the randomness of his new top X cards.

From the OP:

Victor Pinto
I really think that if your opponent shuffles your deck then it should be you cutting your own deck, since we know that shuffle tricks exist and the cut is a sign of transparency from the player that shuffles.

Whoever gets last touch on the deck will always have the opportunity to do
something cheaty with it. Right now, that's the opponent, who was handed a
random deck that they can't see and know very little about. It seems easier
for the person that built the deck, sleeved the deck, and has full
knowledge of its contents could do something shady. That's why we took away
their final cut before, and I feel that's still equally applicable. Sure,
some opponents *may* be able to run a risky cheat and peek at and stack
your deck while shuffling, but it is *way* easier for me to cut straight to
my barely marked sideboard card if you give me a final cut.

I feel like reverting back to allowing a player last cut on their own deck
would prevent a small number of very large cheats, but at the cost of
allowing a very large number of small cheats that are almost impossible to
catch.

Nick Short
L1 Chicago, IL

I believe what Simon was mentioning was something I proposed, that is,
require an opponent's shuffle of the deck to end with a cut. Not
requested, so no imposition on the player, and still performed by the
opponent, preserving last-touch.

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere in this discussion.

One part of the forum protocol requires everyone to consider before posting if you are advancing the discussion. We seem to be revisiting the same arguments, so please consider if your post is going to advance the argument or if you are just restating your position or someone else's position without introducing something new.