GP Disqualification at 13-1-2 [Archive]

The Wolf

08-03-2010, 12:32 PM

For those who have not heard. A guy was sitting at 13-1-2 at the GP. Having just won his last round, he made a joke to his friend about a 50-1 bet he had made with a friend that he would top 8. Hearing this, Craig Wescoe (his opponent) called the judges. Despite telling all the judges including the head judge that this had just been a joke, he was DQ’d from the tournament with no prize.

There is an interview with him here: http://thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/My_Story

What are people’s take on this? Were the judges totally out of line? Is Craig Wescoe a total scum bag? Or is this one of those things that you just can’t do at this level of play?

For the record, I don’t know this kid, but do abstain from higher level events such as this because of these type of situations. I’m very clearly in the camp that this ruling was ridiculous and Wescone should have kept his mouth shut.

the Thin White Duke

08-03-2010, 12:52 PM

The guy who made the "bet" should have known better and kept his mouth shut.
That being said; what Wescoe did was grade A douchery.
And again we have judges who turn into NBA refs and can't make a call when it counts.

mossivo1986

08-03-2010, 12:55 PM

wescoe was fishing. Everyone at that grand prix is trying to do well. Motivating factors such as a bet with a friend that youll do well is not a big deal.

Kuma

08-03-2010, 01:05 PM

It's really unfortunate that this happened, but once Wescoe called a judge, there was no happy way this could end. I'm not sure what I would have done in Wescoe's situation. There was a lot of money at stake.

Wescoe may or may not have been a douche, but he wouldn't have had the opportunity if Levin exercised common sense and kept his mouth shut.

Nidd

08-03-2010, 01:11 PM

Okay, so he said that he and a friend made a bet whether or not he'll do good at the GP and for saying that he got DQed?

What the fuck is this shit?

nitewolf9

08-03-2010, 01:18 PM

Drew is my friend and it was just plain ignorance on his part that he said something like that, and believe me he has learned his lesson for the future. He does not have very much experience in high level events, and the fact that he was robbed of such an awesome performance is just criminal.

As far as the judge call, you can't blame them. They need to strictly enforce rulings like this to minimize any connection to gambling with Magic.

As for Wescoe, he sure did make a lot (more) enemies. He is a giant douche nozzle and I would have lost all respect for him if I only had any in the first place. He only called a judge over after it dawned on him that he could fish for the win, and this was 100% clear when upon being asked if he won the match by a friend after he called a judge he replied "We'll see".

This was done in complete spite, after he had punted AND been outplayed in the last game of the match.

Just read any of his articles to get a sense of his character.

lolosoon

08-03-2010, 01:20 PM

I feel bad for this guy.

He was treated like a cheater, and deprived of a great performance and experience to share with his friends... FOR A MERE JOKE ?!?

I really wonder if he had bet a meal (course ?) in a grand restaurant instead of an hypotetical 10$ bet if it would have change the Judges decision.

I mean, those kind of jokes//friendly motivating bets often occurs in, or before a tournament, from your local shop's FNM to a huge thing like a GP in your favorite Format.

Ok, the laws is the law, and the Judge have to make a choice : apply a stupid rule, or beeing framed for not doing it...

Lame.

Piceli89

08-03-2010, 01:24 PM

I don't want to sound like a rude asshole, but if I had been the DQ'ed guy, I would have waited Wescoe in a dark angle and punch him in the face, even at the cost of being banned to more tournaments. Manipulating a funny sentence to go ahead in the tournament points out that you have failed in life even before having failed in Magic.

Sharpened

08-03-2010, 01:25 PM

I can't speak for Wescoe motivations, nor would I try to. However, the Tournament rules do state: " Players are responsible for ... Bringing to a judge’s attention any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches."

Technically speaking, Wescoe was required to notify the judges of Drew's statement.

Mark Sun

08-03-2010, 01:25 PM

Wescoe may or may not have been a douche, but he wouldn't have had the opportunity if Levin exercised common sense and kept his mouth shut.

This is how I feel with the situation.

From one angle I can definitely understand how people feel about Wescoe's actions, but the kid should have recognized the situation he was in. This is a GP, this is a strict DCI event. I don't know Craig Wescoe or intend to defend/criticize his actions, but whether or not he was fishing for a turnaround, I believe the handling of the situation was correct. You have to give the DQ there if you are the head judge.

mujadaddy

08-03-2010, 01:30 PM

nitewolf9

08-03-2010, 01:32 PM

The key factor here is motivation. Wescoe was clearly motivated out of spite to report Drew, if you were there and heard what he said (and saw the match) you wouldn't have any doubt of this. Technically if I playfully say "Oh man, you drew ANOTHER [hate card for my deck]?? I could kill you for that" you could try to get me arrested for assault. Would you do that? Probably not, because you probably aren't a 7 year old.

Deviruchi

08-03-2010, 01:33 PM

"I'll say "bet" in a GP convention center about as much as I'll say "bomb" in an airport security line."

I don't know them so it's hard to judge the situation. Hope he learned from this. Btw I never liked "fishing people" who count your sideboard while facing lethal dmg etc.

P.S. by Bill Stark:

and Saito's win marks a continued streak of dominance for pro players who have managed to win every single Legacy Grand Prix held to date

;)

everythingitouchdies

08-03-2010, 01:43 PM

It is really unfortunate that it happened, but the reality is that the judges acted the way they are expected to act. The reality is he said something he is not allowed to say, regardless of whether or not he knew it was a rule. And the reality is no matter why wescoe did it, he had the right to do it, and he profited from it, and if he was given the chance he would do it again, and he would not feel bad at any point. Judge wescoe for yourself, but also remember that you are responsible for your actions, and you have to be aware of what you can and cant do at a high profile event. I myself intend to attend my first GP this year in portland, and you can bet I read up on the expectations of that caliber event.

I hope that Levin takes it as a learning experience and not something that jades him from the game, tournaments, or other players. I also hope that it serves as a lesson to others not to put themselves in that kind of situation.

IsThisACatInAHat?

08-03-2010, 01:44 PM

That's a pretty mature response for a 19 year old. I feel really bad for the guy, since he was obviously really excited when he won that game (even the game before it, to have a chance to still play for T8) and I was looking forward to seeing his decklist.

I was standing behind Wescoe when the game ended, so I heard Drew make the bet comment. Neither I nor the people I was standing with realized it was a joke, but there's no doubt Wescoe was "fishing" after it was over, whether Drew would admit that or not.

This was only one of the unfortunate things that seemed to happen to players who deserved better this weekend. Another incident where an experienced player took advantage of a kid who beat him for byes but was unfamiliar with tournament rules happened on Friday, also leading to a DQ. If there's something to take away from this, it's keep your mouth shut and once you enter the tournament room, just forget certain words from your vocabulary.

Rune

08-03-2010, 01:46 PM

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 01:59 PM

You wouldn't get on an airplane and jokingly say to your friend, "Man, it's too bad I left my suicide bomb vest at home today!"

Similarly, when you're in the final rounds of a major tournament, it's probably safest to assume that anything you say can and will be used against you by opponents looking to CRUISE CONTROL to the finals. On the one hand, the guy kind of deserves it, since he should have known better if he'd thought about what he was doing. It's also worth remembering that everyone always says, "It was just a joke," including the people who legitimately are gambling on matches. "It was just a joke" is basically not an excuse at all because you have no way to prove you weren't gambling, and the judges were right to take an guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to the situation.

That said, yeah, calling the judges to get your "free win" is a pretty low blow. There are very few situations where it's okay to judge call your way to a match win, and they usually involve your opponent being a scumbag.

Whit3 Ghost

08-03-2010, 02:01 PM

The starcity thread on this is a clusterfuck.

<33 Parcher and Chris Pikula though.

I was there, it was an absolutely shitty move by Wescoe and a really bad result. I didn't hear what he said to his teammates, but if it really was "I don't know if I lost," than his motivation is undeniable.

nitewolf9

08-03-2010, 02:11 PM

You wouldn't get on an airplane and jokingly say to your friend, "Man, it's too bad I left my suicide bomb vest at home today!"

I seriously hope you realize how drastically different this scenario is from what we are talking about. Saying something that could clearly have an impact on whether or not hundreds of people live or die requires swift and deliberate action. This was an off handed comment on a 10 dollar bet, and completely subjective to interpretation. Abusing the rules is not sportsman like, which I also believe the DCI strictly enforces. This was not necessarily something that is so common sense to everyone, as I know Drew would not have said something like that if he were aware of the consequences. I suppose now more people will know to keep their mouths shut as much as possible during high level magic events.

I'm mostly just venting as I really hate it when bad shit happens to friends, I take it 100x worse than things that happen to me. That all being said I'm pretty proud of how Drew is handling the situation, and have already stated my opinion on Wescoe.

dschalter

08-03-2010, 02:11 PM

That sucks. This seems similar to an incident with Matt Nass (http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/Controversy_on_ChannelFireball).The "all pros are assholes" myth is sometimes not a myth, I guess, although I think the true pros like Saito, LSV, PV etc. don't do things like this.

edit: Out of curiousity, what decks did Wescoe and your friend play? And how did Wescoe punt?

Well, LSV, Saito, PV, etc; aren't playing at many PTQs. The reason you here about this with the "semi-pro" guys is because they play in more tournaments where they're likely to be able to trip people up. This is one of those stories where I can't really sympathize with either side. Wescoe was being an asshole and Levin... even if it was a joke, gambling is one of those things that you just don't talk about (within earshot of other players) at tournaments.

kramer733

08-03-2010, 02:25 PM

Can anybody tell me what the levin guy did wrong? Also if it's gambling, how is that an infraction. I don't understand dci's logic in dqing him

T is for TOOL

08-03-2010, 02:39 PM

5.3 Wagering

Tournament participants, tournament officials, and spectators may not wager, ante, or bet on any portion (including the outcome) of a tournament, match, or game."

Forbiddian

08-03-2010, 02:39 PM

Everyone gambles at every tournament. If tournaments didn't give out prizes, how many people do you think would show up?

The rule is bullshit, but it was made long before the tournament, and it's the responsibility of every player to know the floor rules. You can't talk about gambling, so it was the right call by the judge. And I can't really blame Wescoe, either. I mean, it was a total dick move that no human being would do, but as a Professional Magic player, he doesn't give a fuck what you think. When you're playing against a pro, they'll do anything they can to get that win.

I don't think it's at all like a bomb in an airport (which is actually dangerous, etc. etc.). It's more like when you're pulled over for a routine traffic stop, you don't joke to the police officer, "Sorry I was 5 mph over the speed limit, I need to get this pot home asap." I mean, he'd probably know you were jk, but he might also fuck you up. Turns out if the officer is Craig Wescoe....

menace13

08-03-2010, 02:56 PM

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 02:58 PM

I seriously hope you realize how drastically different this scenario is from what we are talking about. Saying something that could clearly have an impact on whether or not hundreds of people live or die requires swift and deliberate action. This was an off handed comment on a 10 dollar bet, and completely subjective to interpretation. Abusing the rules is not sportsman like, which I also believe the DCI strictly enforces. This was not necessarily something that is so common sense to everyone, as I know Drew would not have said something like that if he were aware of the consequences. I suppose now more people will know to keep their mouths shut as much as possible during high level magic events.

I'm mostly just venting as I really hate it when bad shit happens to friends, I take it 100x worse than things that happen to me. That all being said I'm pretty proud of how Drew is handling the situation, and have already stated my opinion on Wescoe.
The point is that both jokes are inappropriate in a given situation because the consequences of your jokes not actually be jokes are pretty serious. Yes, in one case lots of people could die, whereas in the other the integrity of tournaments using cardboard rectangles from a game ripped off D&D is "merely" lost; the point here is that you need to have a certain level of situational awareness in any event, and he apparently didn't.

I mean, yeah, it sucks that it happened to him. I would be pissed if it happened to one of my friends, too. But he would also deserve it on some level for doing something stupid that could have been avoided had he thought about it beforehand. That rule is in place for a variety of reasons, including not explicitly breaking state/federal laws on gambling by allowing underage participants to bet money/cards/whatever on the outcome of a competition. Yeah, it's kind of stupid, but it's one of those rules that's in place to prevent really bad things from happening (because people would gamble real amounts of money on their friends, especially if they know those friends are going to cheat to rig the outcomes in their favor).

T is for TOOL

08-03-2010, 03:18 PM

Even though Drew said something that stupid, not realizing the potential repercussions, it was escalated from a non-issue by Wescoe as a spiteful classless retaliation.

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 03:29 PM

Even though Drew said something that stupid, not realizing the potential repercussions, it was escalated from a non-issue by Wescoe as a spiteful classless retaliation.
It's not entirely clear to me that Wescoe wasn't just watching his own back there.

I mean, if you know there's a possibility your opponent was gambling on the match, in violation of the rules, and yet you don't report it, don't you also get in trouble? What if one of the people in the crowd reported it instead? I mean...

EDIT: Although, from the reports of his behavior when reporting it, it certainly seems like he had other motivations than simply not wanting to get in trouble.

xXxBretWeedxXx

08-03-2010, 03:40 PM

It's not entirely clear to me that Wescoe wasn't just watching his own back there.

I mean, if you know there's a possibility your opponent was gambling on the match, in violation of the rules, and yet you don't report it, don't you also get in trouble? What if one of the people in the crowd reported it instead? I mean...

EDIT: Although, from the reports of his behavior when reporting it, it certainly seems like he had other motivations than simply not wanting to get in trouble.

What can happen to him? All he has to do if the situation comes up is to say he didn't hear anything. That's what I would do. Even if he did hear it what's the penalty for such a thing? I can't find the answer in the floor rules.

caiomarcos

08-03-2010, 03:43 PM

Everyone gambles at every tournament. If tournaments didn't give out prizes, how many people do you think would show up?

The rule is bullshit, but it was made long before the tournament, and it's the responsibility of every player to know the floor rules. You can't talk about gambling, so it was the right call by the judge.

Here is why I think the judges were wrong. The rule says you can't gamble or bet on results, not that you can't talk about it. This wescoe guy has the right to call the judges so they find out what was going on, but once they find out it is was joke, why DQ the poor guy?

The same goes for the pot/officer and bomb/airport situations. You're going to go through a lot of trouble but you won't be punnished for having pot if you don't have any or for having bombs if you don't. In the GP case, the judges were right to investigate but were wrong to punnish for something that didn't happen.

dschalter

08-03-2010, 03:45 PM

Here is why I think the judges were wrong. The rule says you can't gamble or bet on results, not that you can't talk about it. This wescoe guy has the right to call the judges so they find out what was going on, but once they find out it is was joke, why DQ the poor guy?

The same goes for the pot/officer and bomb/airport situations. You're going to go through a lot of trouble but you won't be punnished for having pot if you don't have any or for having bombs if you don't. In the GP case, the judges were right to investigate but were wrong to punnish for something that didn't happen.

Well, I mean how do they tell it was a joke? He would say so, but so would anyone with a few thousand dollars and t8 on the line.

caiomarcos

08-03-2010, 03:53 PM

Well, I mean how do they tell it was a joke? He would say so, but so would anyone with a few thousand dollars and t8 on the line.

That's why the judges are there.
If they found out it was not a joke and there really was some betting going on, they were wrong because there wasn't.
If they DQ'd him because they weren't sure what was going on, they did a poor job finding out.
If they found out it was a joke and still DQ'd him only for saying what was said, they made a terrible mistake.

Also, I think the logic of innocent until proven guilty apllies here, otherwise it opens a very bad precedent where we can all balme our opponents for something and in the end is word against word and the accused is always punnished without enough evidence.

Anusien

08-03-2010, 03:55 PM

If the guy actually had a bet on whether he'd T8, he wouldn't confess to it even now. Retain healthy skepticism.

It sucks that we have to have infractions against this sort of thing, because betting on yourself to win is unlikely to compromise tournament integrity. However, Wizards probably has to be pretty strict on this one. Remember the European GP where they couldn't give out cash prizes because of gambling laws?

jazzykat

08-03-2010, 03:58 PM

1. If I personally knew Wescoe and knew that he was truly morally upstanding and never did anything underhanded or even slightly grey and that he wasn't fishing, then I would support his decision to turn over the guy joking or not. He'd probably have to be like Ghandi or something but if he was then I couldn't complain. He walks the walk and doesn't want to go against his moral compass.

2. If he is like the rest of us, i.e. not a Saint then I would conclude that he is an opportunist and could not be trusted. Therefore I would:
1. Try to avoid him personally.
2. Not trade or conduct any business with him.
3. If I had an SCG premium membership I would cancel it with a note saying you will not support Wescoe. When he packs up, you will resubscribe.

3. The judges had their hands tied on this. They need to crucify anyone who is gambling or even smells like it. If MTG makes even more money then the IRS may look closer and start investigating other practices.

Oh, and if you say: "He broke the rules he should be punished." I hope that one day you are driving and get pulled by a cop who is just fishing, that your upstanding buddy in the passenger seat tells the cop that you were speeding 2 miles back and have a dime bag in your glove box. It's also against the law not to report a crime that you witness occurring...

EDIT: I personally won't be giving SCG any money including store purchases, until Wescoe does not work for them anymore.

Rico Suave

08-03-2010, 04:08 PM

Also, I think the logic of innocent until proven guilty apllies here, otherwise it opens a very bad precedent where we can all balme our opponents for something and in the end is word against word and the accused is always punnished without enough evidence.

You mean evidence like there are several witnesses who heard him say he was betting on the game?

Make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence here to support the DQ. The point at hand is whether or not people think Wescoe is a man of poor constitution.

sauce

08-03-2010, 04:12 PM

why does DCI give a shit if you bet on magic?
how is it any of their damn business what you do outside the boundary of the match?

Kuma

08-03-2010, 04:16 PM

IBA raised an interesting question in another thread: "Why is it illegal to gamble on yourself to do well?" How would this in any way compromise the integrity of the game? Every time you pay a tournament entry fee, you're essentially gambling on yourself to do well. If you make top-whatever, you win money. Otherwise you lose the investment.

The other thing to keep in mind is how does the judge, who didn't hear any of the statement's context, know that it was a joke? For that matter, how does Wescoe know? It really sounds to me like Levin was joking, but who would admit to a DQ-able offense? The judge had no choice but to disqualify him or risk losing her judgeship.

I'm actually amazed how well Levin is handling it. I know if it were me, despite being five years his senior, I'd be raging mad and spreading my rage all over the internet. We really need to give him props.

cdr

08-03-2010, 04:25 PM

The judge had no choice but to disqualify him or risk losing her judgeship.

There's obviously a lot of garbage and baseless speculation in this thread, but I'll fix this.

The Head Judge (the sole person responsible for DQ investigations) is not ever going to "risk losing her judgeship" on a call.

The Head Judge makes a decision based on her knowledge of policy and the circumstances of the case. No doubt it was not an easy decision.

Muradin

08-03-2010, 04:25 PM

Wow, the guy that got disqualified is mad how calmly he takes this. Even if you don't care at all about Magic it is still, well, 1000 $ he would have gotten if the other guys wasn't such an asshole. What the judge did here was just fine, but this Craig Wescoe must be an idiot. Perhaps if I was the judge I would have disqualified the pro guy for unsportive conduct, or what it's called in English.

Michael Keller

08-03-2010, 04:37 PM

Shit happens. Get over it.

Vacrix

08-03-2010, 05:01 PM

Verbal warning for awfulness. - Bardo

Finn

08-03-2010, 05:03 PM

I don't really hear anyone saying specifically. But I reject the idea that "that is what it takes to be a pro". Certainly a person at the top of his/her game will know all the rules and know how to exploit them. But lemme tell you something. I know many times the number of players who may or may not be of high enough caliber to compete, but would never set foot in a tournament because of the "asshole element" than I do tournament players whether they be any good or not. There is this acceptance among tournament Magic players that better players are going to try to take advantage of you in any, and I mean ANY way they can just to purloin the win from your fingers if it comes down to it. We lionize pros for sticking it to less savvy players who do not have lawyerly understanding of the floor rules. That whole culture stinks. And it is an issue of our tournament culture.

I think it was 1983 when George Brett knocked a homer to win the game against the Yankees. The Yankees manager had known of the excessive pine tar (an adhesive that gave Brett no advantage in its excess) Brett had been using, but waited until it mattered to get the umpire to examine the bat. After initially ruling that he had too much pine tar on his bat (and that the home run was null resulting in a loss for Brett and the Royals, days later the league president overturned the ruling citing that it was against the "spirit of the game". Yankees manager Billy Martin continued to dispute the overturned ruling until the day he died. But he was an asshole who had been called out for being an asshole. That is the way it gets done.

According to the norms of our understanding we all think the judge did the right thing. There was no other way she could have possibly handled it. I would agree with you if only this was not a discussion about a game - and not a court of law. If it was clear to everyone there that Wescoe was looking for a free ride at Drew's expense, the rules should give the judge the leeway and responsibility to rule with some sort of compass denoting proper sportsmanship. Hey Akki, is there even a reference to sportsmanship in the Comprehensive Rules?

That guy was outplayed fair and square. The moment he called the judge, the winner was determined by something other than the merits of each player's ability to compete. The fact that we all understand that this is just the way it goes does not make it OK. I am not commenting on what the rules ARE. I am commenting on what they should be.

Once while I was judging the finals at a local tournament, a player with the personality of a bearded clam noticed that his opponent had accidentally dropped a card while shuffling. He alerted me to it eventually and said that his [12-year old] opponent had "presented" a 59 card deck. The kid looked at me not quite understanding the significance of his opponent's words. I saw the card on the floor and picked it up for him. Then I took 30 seconds to educate him on the matter, told him to shuffle again, and I issued a warning to him. I shook my head at the accusing player with a look of disapproval on my face. He was so miffed at my actions that (after years of attending every week) he never returned.

To hell with him and all wussbags who would ever think it OK to pull that shit. Drew was robbed.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 05:03 PM

In a court of law, there's the recognition of the concept of reasonableness, included in which is intent. In other words, the spirit more than the intent of the law matters. No one who has any sense is an absolute constructionist; as Justice Scalia observed re; Portia v. Shylock, if you make a contract for a pound of flesh, then you obviously also have a contract for whatever blood goes with that flesh; it's implicit.

I think nerds tend to be overly literal because they think it seems lawyerly, but it's not. There was no intent to cheat here in any way, shape or form and the integrity of the game was not threatened. It was a poor ruling that caused a manifest injustice; the judge should be ashamed and Wescoe should be punched in the face. If you think this was fair or that the Judge had "no choice", I'm sorry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 05:22 PM

Jack, I just want to preface this by saying that I don't think it was fair. It was a douche move by someone trying to squeeze their way into T8. I think that the Judge did what she felt was correct with the understood guidelines, regardless of if it was right or wrong. However, every time I see you arguing a point, it ends up a blur and reads like:

"You may have the right to your opinion, but I also have the right to my opinion. And my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion, so Fuck you."

It happened. It's over. It fucking sucks and it isn't fair, I think 90+% of this site and community agree with that. But the fact of the matter is it's over and the DCI is undoubtedly going to stand firm behind the decision and not change their rules regarding wagering, even if it was only a joke as has been said over and over. Do you really need this amount of vitrol and anger about something that is already out of everyones hands, and has been a sealed deal since Sunday?

1) Wrong thread.

2) The issue is more than it being unfair; most of the people on the site seem to be unacceptably comfortable with saying, "It's not fair, but that's how the rules work". The problem is that that's not how the rules work. Determining whether or not an action was inside tournament rules is part of the arbitrary powers of a judge. The entire point of arbitration is to discern the just course in a situation. Falling back on literalism is a lazy prop that creates manifest injustices. And the fact that people think this is okay is alarming. It's not enough to say that Wescoe was a douchebag; he was a douchebag trolling for a cheap win. We all know this. Why do people think that the judges had an obligation to fall for the trap? They should've slapped Wescoe with a penalty for trying to abuse the rules, not Levin. Anytime there's a disconnect between the reality of the situation and the way judges rule, the judges have fucked up. People need to stop laying back and accepting this shit because they have the misconception that "that's how the rules work". The rules are there for the sake of promoting fairness, not to enable rules-lawyers who want to game the system.

paK0

08-03-2010, 05:23 PM

If you think this was fair or that the Judge had "no choice", I'm sorry, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Rules are rules and the judges are bound by it, even if they are not optimal.

Not DQing because it feels wrong is not acceptable, every infraction should be treated equally and that cannot happen if the measurement is: The Head Judges feels like this. What if the Head Judge feels like damage should still be on the stack?

Now, the asshole here is clearly Wescoe, no matter at what angle you look at it. The only real decision the HJ had to make was: Did he gamble or not. She came to the conclusion he did and so the DQ was inevitable.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 05:28 PM

Rules are rules and the judges are bound by it, even if they are not optimal.

Not DQing because it feels wrong is not acceptable, every infraction should be treated equally and that cannot happen if the measurement is: The Head Judges feels like this. What if the Head Judge feels like damage should still be on the stack?

Now, the asshole here is clearly Wescoe, no matter at what angle you look at it. The only real decision the HJ had to make was: Did he gamble or not. She came to the conclusion he did and so the DQ was inevitable.

Highlighted the part that contradicts the rest of your statement.

The rules exist; the entire point of having judges is to decide whether or not they apply. The judge fucked up here by first deciding that a bet took place, despite lack of evidence, and then deciding that a bet on one's self winning falls within the purview of the rule in question. The latter is slightly less stupid but still fairly dumb, given that the stated intent of the rule is to protect the integrity of the tournament, and betting on yourself to win doesn't threaten the integrity of the game since there can be no motivation for you to do otherwise than what you would have if the bet hadn't taken place.

Given that it's not clear if a bet took place, much less in the sense intended by the rule, deciding to follow through as if the rule had been broken was asinine. This is closer to a judge deciding someone is stalling despite all the evidence pointing against it, say because they're playing a slow deck. Bad rulings are bad rulings.

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 05:32 PM

I think you guys are ignoring the fact that he gave his opponent an opening. None of this would have happened if he'd just kept his mouth shut.

I mean, maybe it's because I'm super cynical, or maybe I'm just too paranoid, but I go into these events assuming that if I give my opponent the opportunity to get a free win - through loose lips, having all the copies of only one card in my deck foil, or even just making a gross play error - he's going to take that free win. If both of us are there with the goal of winning, it's in our best interest to do whatever it takes to win as long as it's within the rules.

Think of it this way: you're going to cross the street. The street is flat and straight for miles in either direction and there are no cars coming, and no way you could miss the cars. However, the nearest crosswalk is a mile to your left, whereas your place of work is directly in front of you. You decide to cross the street at this point anyway. It's fine, right?

Except there's a cop watching you.

If the cop gives you a ticket for jaywalking, yeah, it sucks. There were no potential consequences from you doing so because there were no cars, you weren't obstructing traffic, etc. But the point here is you crossed the street where you shouldn't in front of a fucking cop. It's up to him whether or not you get in trouble for it. Why would you ever open yourself up to that? Since when has it been safe to assume that the cop is a nice guy who wouldn't ever POSSIBLY want to give you a ticket for doing something that's technically illegal?

It's impossible to prove intent here. The guy would have said it was a joke even if there were actual money/cards/whatever on the line, so you can't use that as a way to judge intent. You could ask the alleged bookie, but if that guy has half a brain, he's going to have "no idea what you're talking about" and agree that his friend was joking even if he was actually the bookie. With no way to prove innocence or guilt in this situation, you either take issue with the rule (and allow people to gamble on tournament results, including minors who would be doing so in direct violation of the law), or just suck it up and admit the ruling was the only one possible without bringing the tournament to a halt and investigating everyone who could have possibly been in contact with any of the parties involved.

Basically, this guy left himself open to this and Wescoe called him on it. Wescoe may or may not be a dick, but the point is that Wescoe would have had no free match wins to fish for had Mr. Gamblin' Man shut the fuck up and waited until he was out of earshot to make those comments.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 05:41 PM

I think you guys are ignoring the fact that he gave his opponent an opening. None of this would have happened if he'd just kept his mouth shut.

I mean, maybe it's because I'm super cynical, or maybe I'm just too paranoid, but I go into these events assuming that if I give my opponent the opportunity to get a free win - through loose lips, having all the copies of only one card in my deck foil, or even just making a gross play error - he's going to take that free win. If both of us are there with the goal of winning, it's in our best interest to do whatever it takes to win as long as it's within the rules.

Think of it this way: you're going to cross the street. The street is flat and straight for miles in either direction and there are no cars coming, and no way you could miss the cars. However, the nearest crosswalk is a mile to your left, whereas your place of work is directly in front of you. You decide to cross the street at this point anyway. It's fine, right?

Except there's a cop watching you.

If the cop gives you a ticket for jaywalking, yeah, it sucks. There were no potential consequences from you doing so because there were no cars, you weren't obstructing traffic, etc. But the point here is you crossed the street where you shouldn't in front of a fucking cop. It's up to him whether or not you get in trouble for it. Why would you ever open yourself up to that? Since when has it been safe to assume that the cop is a nice guy who wouldn't ever POSSIBLY want to give you a ticket for doing something that's technically illegal?

In most jurisdictions it's only jaywalking if you fail to yield to traffic. If they're trying to enforce anything more than that where you live I would find it questionable.

It's impossible to prove intent here. The guy would have said it was a joke even if there were actual money/cards/whatever on the line, so you can't use that as a way to judge intent. You could ask the alleged bookie, but if that guy has half a brain, he's going to have "no idea what you're talking about" and agree that his friend was joking even if he was actually the bookie. With no way to prove innocence or guilt in this situation, you either take issue with the rule (and allow people to gamble on tournament results, including minors who would be doing so in direct violation of the law), or just suck it up and admit the ruling was the only one possible without bringing the tournament to a halt and investigating everyone who could have possibly been in contact with any of the parties involved.

Orrrrrrrrrrr you could just say that since you can't prove intent, you don't assume there was intent, which would be far less asinine.

Basically, this guy left himself open to this and Wescoe called him on it. Wescoe may or may not be a dick, but the point is that Wescoe would have had no free match wins to fish for had Mr. Gamblin' Man shut the fuck up and waited until he was out of earshot to make those comments.

This is a pretty disgusting way to justify someone who got fucked over. It's not reasonable to expect people to constantly guard themselves against every conceivable injustice. Imprudence doesn't justify anything.

Anusien

08-03-2010, 05:43 PM

Magic judges are intentionally given no leeway. It's literally the HJ's obligation to DQ the player once the facts come out. Judges have to act in accordance to policy. That way, it's not the HJ's fault; it's the DCI's fault. The HJ did the right thing according to policy. Feel free to blame policy.

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 05:44 PM

It's not reasonable to expect people to constantly guard themselves against every conceivable injustice. Imprudence doesn't justify anything.
This is probably why you take issue with this and I don't. While I agree that it was cheap on Wescoe's part, the guy deserved it for assuming his opponent was too nice to not take the free match win.

Of course, if you'd like to leave your cell phone number here, we can discuss this personally...

UrDraco

08-03-2010, 05:46 PM

I believe I saw the question but could not find the answer. What were the two people playing and what was the punt by the pro?

I believe that calling stuff like this is part of pro-level play. Pro's have to know the tournament rules very well and that is part of any magic players responsibility. The pro's tend to know the rules better than anyone because anyone could give them a game loss for breaking the rules. I would love for magic to fun and light hearted to matter when you play but in order for such high level play to exsist there has to be very strict rules that are very strictly enforced. It sucks that it seems silly but if had been caught for drawing extra cards nobody would be feeling bad right now, follow all the rules.

cdr

08-03-2010, 05:52 PM

Calling Craig Wescoe a "pro" would be very generous.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 05:53 PM

This is probably why you take issue with this and I don't. While I agree that it was cheap on Wescoe's part, the guy deserved it for assuming his opponent was too nice to not take the free match win.

Of course, if you'd like to leave your cell phone number here, we can discuss this personally...

Do rape victims deserve to be raped?

Don't Bleiweiss me, just answer the question.

in order for such high level play to exsist there has to be very strict rules that are very strictly enforced. It sucks that it seems silly but if had been caught for drawing extra cards nobody would be feeling bad right now, follow all the rules.

If you drew extra cards the integrity of the game is threatened and a rule has clearly been broken. A rule WASN'T clearly broken here, which is what all the people tripping over each other to appear fair and well-reasoned seem to be missing. A better comparison would be someone indicating they were scooping, and then calling the judge after their opponent, who believed the game was over, drew the next few cards. If someone is intentionally trying to trap their opponent in such a situation, then it is they who should be punished by any reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Anusien

08-03-2010, 05:54 PM

There's a rule in the Magic Tournament Rules that says "Don't place any wagers." It's repeated in the Infraction Procedure Guide.

paK0

08-03-2010, 06:11 PM

The judge fucked up here by first deciding that a bet took place, despite lack of evidence, and then deciding that a bet on one's self winning falls within the purview of the rule in question.

I agree that it is ridiculous to put a penalty on betting on your own win, but the evidence thing is another call.

When judges apply rulings it often comes down to what they believe happend. What if the guy made the bet? Then he would have violated the rules but there would be no evidence regardless.

From what I read here it sounded more like a joke on his side, but something gave the judges the idea that the probability of a bet was real enough to issue the DQ, which is totally fine.

Zlatzman

08-03-2010, 06:12 PM

Anusien

08-03-2010, 06:12 PM

1) That's not what the rules say.
False.

5.3 Wagering
Tournament participants, tournament officials, and spectators may not wager, ante, or bet on any portion (including the outcome) of a tournament, match, or game.

2) It's not clear that a wager took place.
Did you read his statement? It's pretty obvious that he made a wager.

3) It's not clear that a wager on one's self meets the intended parameters of the rule in question.
Uh, yeah it is. Obviously it does, because the Head Judge of the event DQed the guy for making the wager, and the DCI is backing her up. Plus, if you read the rule (and you have no excuse, I posted it above), it's clear that any wager = against the rules. Whether or not it appears to affect tournament integrity.

But you're right. You obviously know DCI Policy better than the Head Judge of the tournament, who happens to be a well-respected Level 4 Judge. Why aren't you Head Judging Pro Tours?

swats0n

08-03-2010, 06:12 PM

I guess while what Wescoe did was pretty scummy, I can't entirely fault him for it as there is a clause asking players to report any seen/heard infractions which allows him an excuse for what would otherwise be deliberate fishing for an undeserved win.

However, I'm finding it hard to form an informed opinion on this because most of the direct information is coming from biased parties either siding with Wescoe or with Drew. I'd like to see what the Judge was thinking.

Now, my problem with this ruling is that it's basically guilty until proven innocent. There was no evidence that a bet was placed aside from an offhand remark. The rules as quoted forbid the ACTS of betting and wagering, not the MENTIONING of these things. I wonder how the Judge decided there was enough proof to conclude that Drew really was betting.

As an aside, I don't think betting on yourself to do well actually changes the way you play at all; it's your goal to do well in the first place.

Aggro_zombies

08-03-2010, 06:17 PM

Do rape victims deserve to be raped?

Don't Bleiweiss me, just answer the question.
1) These things aren't equivalent, and 2) no.

But you're welcome to continue to use the most extreme, tangentially-related examples you can come up with to try to expose me as being self-contradictory and hypocritical.

EDIT: Well, I suppose they're related because in both cases you can construe the victim as having been "asking for it," but that's a really loose way to tie them together. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording, but I would argue that IBA is a scumbag for taking my words and then trying to make it seem like I condone rapists. I was just being a bit sarcastic to make a point!

caiomarcos

08-03-2010, 06:22 PM

Did you read his statement? It's pretty obvious that he made a wager.

For me it was pretty obvious, from the interview, that he didn't make the wager.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 06:26 PM

I like to compare the DCI floor rules to law, and in law the judges are educated to ensure the law is properly applied in a way that is in line with what the legislators envisioned. Since betting one self doing good does not compromise tournament integrity I do not see the problem. I actually think I've broken this rule once myself, the lowest placing of me and a friend got to buy dinner for both after the event.

At the jaywalking-comment, is that really illegal over there? Here you're allowed to cross the road wherever you want, as long as the trafic is not disrupted and no one is put into harm's way by your actions.

Precisely. And in most municipalities it's not considered jaywalking unless you fail to yield to traffic (outside of a crossing area).

False.

There's a rule in the Magic Tournament Rules that says "Don't place any wagers." It's repeated in the Infraction Procedure Guide.

Tournament participants, tournament officials, and spectators may not wager, ante, or bet on any portion (including the outcome) of a tournament, match, or game.

So since the rules don't say "Don't place any wagers", would you say that, if this were a tournament, you would have committed fraud, for knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting the rules?

Should you be disqualified?

Did you read his statement? It's pretty obvious that he made a wager.

But it was a joke. The bet never took place. I said as much to [judge] Ingrid [Lind-Jahn]. I said as much to [judge] Abe Corson. I will maintain to my death that while I'm sure there are parts of the MTG community that like that someone got DQ'ed from the Top 8 of a GP for a prop bet, the prop bet didn't take place. When I beat Craig Wescoe in Round 16 to go 13-1-2, I did say "He [a friend] laid me on 50-to-1 for the GP and I took him on for $10." In retrospect it was a very bad thing to say, and while I felt it had been perceived as a joke, it obviously wasn't and it put a lot of people into a very unfortunate situation.

Derf derf derf.

Uh, yeah it is. Obviously it does, because the Head Judge of the event DQed the guy for making the wager, and the DCI is backing her up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Plus, if you read the rule (and you have no excuse, I posted it above), it's clear that any wager = against the rules. Whether or not it appears to affect tournament integrity.

Okay, now try to keep up;

The intention of a rule or law isn't just window dressing. You see, applying rules to situations is often complicated, and requires cognitive thought. For example, the militia section of the second amendment explains why the right to bear arms doesn't extend to a nuclear weapon in every garage.

Parrot-like memorization of what rules say isn't alone enough to determine what rules do.

But you're right. You obviously know DCI Policy better than the Head Judge of the tournament, who happens to be a well-respected Level 4 Judge. Why aren't you Head Judging Pro Tours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If you're done spewing words, I'd like you to address the above question or whether or not you should be disqualified from the conversation for knowingly and willfully misrepresenting the rules.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 06:28 PM

For me it was pretty obvious, from the interview, that he didn't make the wager.

That's only because you actually read the piece before giving an opinion. Silly you!

1) These things aren't equivalent, and 2) no.

But you're welcome to continue to use the most extreme, tangentially-related examples you can come up with to try to expose me as being self-contradictory and hypocritical.

Oh, I will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

EDIT: Well, I suppose they're related because in both cases you can construe the victim as having been "asking for it," but that's a really loose way to tie them together. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording, but I would argue that IBA is a scumbag for taking my words and then trying to make it seem like I condone rapists. I was just being a bit sarcastic to make a point!

So what differentiates the victim of rape from the victim of theft, or fraud, or cheating? Beyond mere degree, I mean. Is there a qualitative rather than a quantitative difference?

juventus

08-03-2010, 06:45 PM

I did not stand to gain anything from the DQ. The match was already over when the comment was made and I was locked into Top 12 with no chance of making Top 8. The statement my opponent made was clearly a bet worth $500, not a coke. I reported to the judge what I heard only for my own protection and even suggested that the comment could have been made in jest. I did not want him to get DQ'd, but I needed to protect myself from also getting DQ'd if any of the dozen spectators reported the incident (which they did) and the judging staff opens an investigation.

this is wescoe's post on SCG.

so either

1) he is lying

or 2) everyone talking shit about wescoe is dead wrong

cdr

08-03-2010, 06:52 PM

There's more than one clear lie in that statement.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-03-2010, 06:54 PM

1) he is lying

juventus

08-03-2010, 06:55 PM

There's more than one clear lie in that statement.

fair enough. it's not like I was there or anything.

Carabas

08-03-2010, 06:55 PM

What I want to know is where the decklist that would have been in the top8 is.

SpikeyMikey

08-03-2010, 08:31 PM

Apparently, while the "gentleman's agreement" stops people from playing MT decks in tournament, because people would rather have fun than win, it does not stop people from gaming the rules to win. I'm guessing that means that the second scenario is fun for all involved?

The real issue here isn't whether Wescoe is a douchebag or not (no one is arguing that he's not, are they?), it's whether or not WotC and the DCI are full of douchebags. Really, I don't think there's any question there either. You quit printing anything that doesn't promote winning through the combat step, all in the name of "fun" and then DQ a guy that's a semi-casual Cinderella because that's what makes the game fub, amirite?

I've been in Levin's position before, at GP LA. I was 4-0 in matches and 9-1 in games. I was currently 1-1 in a match. My opponent's hand was empty and I had lethal on the board. Instead of just swinging for the win, I tried to show off a little (my sealed deck was nuts) and dropped a Butcherer Orgg... And then drew off Wirewood Savage. Except it's an Orgg, not a beast and my opponent called the judge. He was very nice about it, but I'd broken a major rule and was given a game loss and it cost me the match. I wasn't mad at my opponent then and I'm not now. Yes, I had him beat, yes, the match shouldve been mine, but the only thing I have to blame it on was the fact that I didn't sleep the night before and that was my choice. I did the same thing round 6 although it was game 2 and the game wasn't nearly as over (although the Orgg would've more or less put it away) and then had to mull to 4 game 3 to find a second land. But nobody cost me my shot at day 2 except me (I dropped after 6 in disgust and played the T1 side). So I can understand why he's not full of rage. It's depressing but you kind of feel like it's your own damn fault.

MMogg

08-03-2010, 08:43 PM

I've been in Levin's position before [snip] . . . It's depressing but you kind of feel like it's your own damn fault.

It's more like, if you had won that match, then turned to your friend and said, "you owe me dinner at the Ritz!" and the guy you just beat snakes off to tell a judge out of *cough, cough* fear that he would be DQed if he didn't snake off to tell the judge that he thinks he heard something impossible to prove he heard. I think you would have beat yourself up a little less in that scenario, no?

menace13

08-03-2010, 09:45 PM

this is wescoe's post on SCG.

so either

1) he is lying

or 2) everyone talking shit about wescoe is dead wrong

His defense is absurdly flawed in its logic to state his innocene of any dubious intent. He claims that because he heard something, which no one can testify as to wether he heard it or not since Wescoe's opponent was not addressing Wescoe when he blurted it out ,or if it was in audible range. Could have wescoe ignored the comment and pretend he never heard it in the first place? Certainly and most irrefutably wescoe could have simply walked away and no one could prove wether he heard it or not.

dschalter

08-03-2010, 09:51 PM

MMogg

08-03-2010, 10:30 PM

I love the automatic assumption people that can be found in some posts that Wescoe's words are somehow less credible than Levin's. I personally think they're both full of it and that people are being affected bias personal bias/anti-'pro' (as someone else noted, Wescoe isn't exactly much of a pro) sentiment.

Not really. Wescoe himself replied to a similar thread at StarCityGames and he confirmed he was the one to tell the judges and he also confirmed that his rationale to do so was his fear of a DQ to himself. He also said that when he told the judges, he added that it may have been a joke. That's not bashing Wescoe,, that's what he said himself. Now, from that we have some possible conclusions about this: 1) he's exceptionally naive to believe that someone could prove that he heard someone say something after the match had been completed (he could easily say, "I wasn't paying attention, I was thinking the match over/talking to my girlfriend/thinking what to eat for dinner/considering what to do next/etc") and be DQed himself; 2) he's a rules lawyer and regardless of anything, the rules are the rules and ought to be followed; 3) he wanted a chance to break into the top 8 by any means possible or at least stop his opponent from doing so. So, if they are true, respectively, 1) he's got no brain; 2) he's got no sense of decency or ability to adjust his way of thinking in different circumstances; 3) he's a dick. Now, if we take his words at face value, it's a 1. But most people don't believe that because he's not that stupid and has experience in the pro circuit (even if he isn't a "pro" himself, he obviously knew the rules well enough to seek a judge in this case). So, if people don't believe 1, 2 and 3 are not much better. 3 is easiest to believe because it requires the least leap of faith in judgement. I don't feel biased in any way, because before this incident, I didn't know either of them. But rationally, judging Wescoe by his own words, the above points in bad directions, and I don't think that's based on bias or jumping to conclusions.

Edit: I just thought of another reason why people are primarily believing he was motivated by #3... #1, fear of being DQed personally, is innately selfish and concerned for his own situation, as is #3. #2 would be more based on a moral sense of duty over keeping the rules followed and the game pure. But #1, which he said was his motivation, is entirely self-serving and selfish, as is #3. Maybe that's why people are assuming the worst.

Julian23

08-03-2010, 11:08 PM

So after all, the real cool thing to do would just be to walk away and keep your mouth shut. If you're really threatened with a DQ wo/ prize because you didn't report the "bet" you can just deny having heared/understood Levin's comment. While Levin himself might still be DQ if he admits making the comment no judge in the whole world should actually DQ Wescoe in that situation. Especially considering you just finished the last round of a 1300ppl GP and there's dozens of guys hanging on the rail talking etc.

Plain. Simple. Perfect.

This breaks down to:

1) Wescoe was actually fishing for the win as implied by him answering "We will see" when asked by a friend if he had won the match.
2) Wescoe actually believing he might be DQ'ed
3) Simple sadistic, malicious intensionss.

For my part I will go with #1 especially because of Wescoes comment on whether he had won/lost the match. Besides that, Levin should have never ever made that comment. I strongly feel he should not be punished still I think it was quite dumb of him.

dschalter

08-03-2010, 11:16 PM

Not really. Wescoe himself replied to a similar thread at StarCityGames and he confirmed he was the one to tell the judges and he also confirmed that his rationale to do so was his fear of a DQ to himself. He also said that when he told the judges, he added that it may have been a joke. That's not bashing Wescoe,, that's what he said himself. Now, from that we have some possible conclusions about this: 1) he's exceptionally naive to believe that someone could prove that he heard someone say something after the match had been completed (he could easily say, "I wasn't paying attention, I was thinking the match over/talking to my girlfriend/thinking what to eat for dinner/considering what to do next/etc") and be DQed himself; 2) he's a rules lawyer and regardless of anything, the rules are the rules and ought to be followed; 3) he wanted a chance to break into the top 8 by any means possible or at least stop his opponent from doing so. So, if they are true, respectively, 1) he's got no brain; 2) he's got no sense of decency or ability to adjust his way of thinking in different circumstances; 3) he's a dick. Now, if we take his words at face value, it's a 1. But most people don't believe that because he's not that stupid and has experience in the pro circuit (even if he isn't a "pro" himself, he obviously knew the rules well enough to seek a judge in this case). So, if people don't believe 1, 2 and 3 are not much better. 3 is easiest to believe because it requires the least leap of faith in judgement. I don't feel biased in any way, because before this incident, I didn't know either of them. But rationally, judging Wescoe by his own words, the above points in bad directions, and I don't think that's based on bias or jumping to conclusions.

Edit: I just thought of another reason why people are primarily believing he was motivated by #3... #1, fear of being DQed personally, is innately selfish and concerned for his own situation, as is #3. #2 would be more based on a moral sense of duty over keeping the rules followed and the game pure. But #1, which he said was his motivation, is entirely self-serving and selfish, as is #3. Maybe that's why people are assuming the worst.

Yes, but people are offering a different reason for why he called the judge, which sort of proves my point. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that most people have already formed strong opinions on this.

MMogg

08-03-2010, 11:40 PM

Yes, but people are offering a different reason for why he called the judge, which sort of proves my point. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that most people have already formed strong opinions on this.

Well, that's partially – as my verbose post above attests – because Wescoe's stated rationale is frankly unbelievable.

That said, I agree many people form opinions (it's impossible not to), but they are going to no matter what you do, rightly or wrongly. The only thing someone like Wescoe can do is explain himself in the hope of changing/shaping some of those opinions, and so far it seems he is digging deeper still the hole he is standing in.

Master Shake

08-03-2010, 11:49 PM

So, the moral of the story should really be taken as:

If you're about to lose a match, don't wait until it's over like Craig Wescoe did, but rather call the judge over with lethal damage incoming and tell the judge that you just overheard the opponent talk about a bet he had made for at least $500.

Noted, thanks for clearing this up everyone.

menace13

08-03-2010, 11:56 PM

Whit3 Ghost

08-04-2010, 12:29 AM

If the chrispikula on SCG is the real one, then Wescoe got told by somebody who is on a magic card. That's pretty much all that needs to be said about about the validity of the arguments in his defense.

Dxfiler

08-04-2010, 02:35 AM

As a TO, judge and someone who's tested with Craig Wescoe for a PT all I can say is...

what a mess :p

I read the statements from Levin and Wescoe, and they both seem to be reaching on some stuff.

Wescoe more than likely reported the incident for ulterior motives. I highly doubt the sole reason he reported the incident was because he was worried about being DQ'd himself if he didn't report it. The other spectators apparently weren't worried about that fear or felt that nothing illegal was going on.

Craig is technically in the right for reporting it regardless of his motivation because what Levin said is illegal.

Levin said something he shouldn't have, whether he was joking or not. It's big of him to admit right off the bat he messed up. Still I found it fishy that he would say that in jest, because that's not something you joke about at a tournament. It just sounds like he didn't realize the bet was illegal and wanted to save face once it started to be investigated.

In his statement on Starkington, he admitted that whether or not he actually made the bet, he'd never admit it to the judges (aka lie) if it meant the admission would cost his top 8.

That alone warrants his DQ.

You don't lie to judges if you think it will save you. Just own up to whatever you did because that way you save face and decrease the odds of maximum punishment being handed out. This situation kind of reminds me about O. Ruel being able to see his opponents cards because his opponent was revealing them unintentionally, then he lied about the advantage to a judge. Had he just admitted he could see the cards he would not have been DQ'd.

I think Levin was getting DQ'd here no matter what he said because what he referred to is clearly illegal in DCI floor rules and is not a grey area. I kind of furrowed my brow when he inferred that Ingrid was just towing the company line by saying 'she could lose her job on depending on how she ruled.'

That couldn't be further from the truth. Ingrid's job was safe no matter what she ruled, and honestly there's really no other ruling to make here. It's more than likely he did really make the bet since that's something you just don't joke about out of the blue. If he was in fact just joking about it, then he made an incredibly poor decision on the cusp of his biggest tournament finish.

It's not really something you can blame the judges for, they are going by policy.

You could argue for policy changes, but I'm not one of those people.

It's a really sticky situation where no one involved comes out looking like a rose, but I honestly think the DQ was warranted.

- Dave

SilverGreen

08-04-2010, 02:41 AM

You wouldn't get on an airplane and jokingly say to your friend, "Man, it's too bad I left my suicide bomb vest at home today!" Oh, hell. I always liked this joke so much....

Humphrey

08-04-2010, 06:19 AM

Zlatzman

08-04-2010, 09:12 AM

What an asshole. If I´d be on a tournament where this guy shows up, i´d stand next to him all the time hes playing and by the smallest mistake I´d call the Judges. Hopefully they heard about him and punish as hard as possible.
Interesting tactic. Is there anything in the rules prohibiting spectators from "stalking" a single player to catch and report his/her mistakes?

rleader

08-04-2010, 09:57 AM

I'm looking forward to the next Wesconomics.

Step 1: punch someone in the face
Step 2: run off with his deck and ebay it

Michael Keller

08-04-2010, 11:55 AM

Here's the bottom line:

a. The match was over.

b. One guy said something stupid.

The other guy spent the last two days, driving or flying from God knows where, spending God knows how much money, on who knows how little sleep, getting so far in the biggest tournament of his life, and seeing a faint glimmer of hope after the door was shut on his opportunity to win an absurd amount of money on a card game (granted, he had already made money, but he was also looking to be "immortalized").

He acted on impulse and made a decision. Whether or not he meant it is irrelevant; what is done is done and I'm sure people will understand that at that level in a tournament of that magnitude, you act professional and with a high level of class towards your opponents whether you win or you lose. When you make it that far, you've already outlasted over one-thousand minds to get where you are; that's pretty impressive.

I've seen Magic players and spectators alike and observed how they watch and react to a big game in progress, and I've got to tell you:

Magic players are some of the most cold-hearted sons-a-bitches you will ever come across when money is on the line. What happened is a lesson that should be learned by all players from all different formats of play, and that lessons is: Be polite, professional, and know when to keep your mouth shut.

Or open, depending on the circumstances.

The Wolf

08-04-2010, 12:06 PM

Just to add more fuel to the fire here, some top names have taken an issue with this DQ.

Another link: http://thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/Zvi_Challenges_GP_Columbus_DQ

What Ziv has done here is put them in a situation where to stay on policy they will have to DQ him. If they do, he will claim it was a joke, and they will have to stay with the DQ which is what happened at the GP. If they do this, they will also have to DQ Wescoe, as they are saying they believe a bet took place. At least, that is the idea behind this as I see it.

Also, apparently there is no love lost between Ziv and Wescoe…

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-04-2010, 12:28 PM

Sharpened

08-04-2010, 12:33 PM

I really don't think it means that much. Zvi (not Ziv) had earlier tweeted:
Rules are rules but DQing a player for betting on himself is beyond lame. Unless it means he loses the bet. Then it's hilarious!

Julian23

08-04-2010, 12:48 PM

Ha, it's funny. I also made a $10 bet against Wescoe that I would top8 at the U.S. Nationals. For I am Spartacus.

hyperchord24

08-04-2010, 02:09 PM

What Zvi said opens a lot of doors. For example, Wescoe called the judge over after the ended right? Well, the match is still over. Anyone can now say they made a bet with anyone who played in that tournament and the DCI needs to at least investigate each acusation, lest they not be consistent and lose face.

Hell anyone can now say they made a bet with anyone in any tournament ever. Okay, that's a little extreme. But say the guy who lost the final match (2nd place holder) is mad he lost. Can he say he overheard the winner (1st place holder) saying he made a bet with someone? Where does the absurdity stop?

Sharpened

08-04-2010, 02:40 PM

If it was just Wescoe's word that Drew Lavin said he made a bet, then you might have a point. But the Judges were able to verify that Drew had made the statement about making a bet. If it's merely one persons word and the judges can't corroborate it in any way, there won't be action on it.

The Wolf

08-04-2010, 03:35 PM

To that end, you can always just claim that you opponent cheated at any point. This is the flawed part of magic. The betting thing has nothing to do with it.

ns29738909498

08-04-2010, 03:54 PM

Yup, props to Zvi for doing the right thing.

Artowis

08-04-2010, 05:25 PM

If FB chatter is any indication a decent chunk of the pro community has firmly come down on the side of 'Wescoe is a douchebag, have fun with your shortsighted decision'.

Pulp_Fiction

08-04-2010, 06:24 PM

That is complete bullshit. Some dumb motherfucker loses a round then looks to exploit some tiny technicality and turn it into a win. Thats not competetition, thats just being a dick-less piece of shit. But then again thats how I feel about all of the people who try to expolit the rules like this. I don't give a shit how technically accurate it is, thats not winning, thats just fucking pathetic, pure and simple.

Also, its ridiculous that they would DQ him for something they couldn't even prove! How can they prove or disprove that he wasn't betting on himself (I know I would if I went to a big event and someone gave me fucking 50/1 odds). But that is all irrelevant since it does not in any way effect the outcome of the tournament. The dude is more motivated to win ... awesome .... and ...

Wescoe needs to stay home and play WoW or something, clearly he can't act like a decent human being in environments where you have face-to-face social interactions.

And to any idiot who thinks he is right, would u really call a judge if your opponent made some small comment like that? Its so fucked up, any moron who wants to win dirty like that shouldn't play.

WIREWOOD PRIDE

08-04-2010, 06:48 PM

You mean evidence like there are several witnesses who heard him say he was betting on the game?

Make no mistake, there is plenty of evidence here to support the DQ. The point at hand is whether or not people think Wescoe is a man of poor constitution.

So hearsay counts as no less than plenty of evidence now? I mean, where are the wager slips or any other physical evidence that an actual bet took place instead of just mentioning one did? What if Levin had said that he bet two chicks that if he made top8 they'd have to sleep with him? Or he bet his friend dinner after the event if he made top8? What if you saw your now currently opponent playing earlier and said you "bet" you know what deck hes playing?

Aggro_zombies

08-04-2010, 07:05 PM

So hearsay counts as no less than plenty of evidence now? I mean, where are the wager slips or any other physical evidence that an actual bet took place instead of just mentioning one did? What if Levin had said that he bet two chicks that if he made top8 they'd have to sleep with him? Or he bet his friend dinner after the event if he made top8? What if you saw your now currently opponent playing earlier and said you "bet" you know what deck hes playing?
Let's assume two friends are driving to the event that morning. There are no other people in the car, and no devices that could record their conversation. At one point during the trip, Friend A turns to Friend B and says, "Bet you $10 I make top 8."

"Bullshit!" says Friend B, "You're terrible at this game. I'll take you up on it."

Sixteen rounds later, Friend A is locked into the top 8. He turns to Friend C in the audience and says, "Man, I'm so glad I bet Friend B $10 that I'd make top 8." His opponent, one Mr. Wescoe, hears this and reports it to a judge.

How are you supposed to prove in this situation that the bet actually took place? The only two parties involved will deny it (especially if they know what the consequences are), and there's no physical evidence to actually show betting took place even though it did in this example. The judge can assume that both Friend A and B are telling the truth, rule that there was no bet, and be wrong, or assume a bet did take place and DQ Friend A. Either way, Friends A and B will continue to protest their innocence, a shitstorm will develop on the intarwebs, and Wescoe will continue to be an asshole.

Basically, Drew put himself in a situation where he could potentially end up in toruble if his opponent was a dick. His opponent was a dick, and he ended up in trouble. Had Drew kept quiet, he would have made top 8 and gotten prize, and Wescoe would have been done. Drew isn't completely blameless here because he gave his opponent an opening, and Wescoe is at fault for being unscrupulous enough to blow it out of proportion and exploit it.

The only thing the judge had to make a decision with was what Drew said, and what the audience heard him say. Drew did not dispute that he said he'd made a bet, but instead argued that he was joking - the same sort of argument a guilty person would make, so you still have no way to tell. However, a ruling has to be made, and the judge chose a strict interpretation of DCI policy. It's terrible to get booted for that, but now Drew knows to not say stupid shit at the top tables, and Wescoe has been exposed as a cunt.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-04-2010, 08:31 PM

Let's assume two friends are driving to the event that morning. There are no other people in the car, and no devices that could record their conversation. At one point during the trip, Friend A turns to Friend B and says, "Bet you $10 I make top 8."

"Bullshit!" says Friend B, "You're terrible at this game. I'll take you up on it."

Sixteen rounds later, Friend A is locked into the top 8. He turns to Friend C in the audience and says, "Man, I'm so glad I bet Friend B $10 that I'd make top 8." His opponent, one Mr. Wescoe, hears this and reports it to a judge.

How are you supposed to prove in this situation that the bet actually took place? The only two parties involved will deny it (especially if they know what the consequences are), and there's no physical evidence to actually show betting took place even though it did in this example. The judge can assume that both Friend A and B are telling the truth, rule that there was no bet, and be wrong, or assume a bet did take place and DQ Friend A. Either way, Friends A and B will continue to protest their innocence, a shitstorm will develop on the intarwebs, and Wescoe will continue to be an asshole.

Basically, Drew put himself in a situation where he could potentially end up in toruble if his opponent was a dick. His opponent was a dick, and he ended up in trouble. Had Drew kept quiet, he would have made top 8 and gotten prize, and Wescoe would have been done. Drew isn't completely blameless here because he gave his opponent an opening, and Wescoe is at fault for being unscrupulous enough to blow it out of proportion and exploit it.

The only thing the judge had to make a decision with was what Drew said, and what the audience heard him say. Drew did not dispute that he said he'd made a bet, but instead argued that he was joking - the same sort of argument a guilty person would make, so you still have no way to tell. However, a ruling has to be made, and the judge chose a strict interpretation of DCI policy. It's terrible to get booted for that, but now Drew knows to not say stupid shit at the top tables, and Wescoe has been exposed as a cunt.

There's no overwhelming imperative for judges to enforce a difficult to enforce rule. That's why IDs are legal in the first place. If the judges didn't know, or at least have pretty reasonable certainty, they shouldn't have acted.

cupajoe

08-04-2010, 09:58 PM

A small amount of common sense from the judges should have resulted in no DQ.

I bet Levin did say to his friend, "50-1 that I'll make Top 8?"

And his college buddy smiled and said, "Sure"

Since Top8ing at an 1,800-person tournament is close to impossible, it's the equivalent of someone saying, "Bet you $500 I can make this half-court basketball shot."

When said player actually makes the shot, he may say, "Pay up" but only in a joking, buddies kind of way.

So when Levin did make it, he probably thought it was fairly incredible and funny that he and his friend made the "bet." Thus, he blurted it out.

Also, if you and your friend are poor college students, and you just won $1,000 playing Magic, would you make your poor friend pay up on a joke bet? Of course not! If anything you're sharing the wealth a bit, maybe buying your friend a box or two, buying him drinks, dinner, etc.

The whole scenario does not make any sense at all, and the judges should have realized that and not played into the hands of a manipulator.

The judges at Magic tourneys act as the police and the judge. First they have to decide if it's reasonable that someone receive a ticket, in this case a DQ. If someone is going 2 mph over the speed limit, yes, technically, you could get charged with speeding. But nearly no police officers will cite you for speeding, due to the fact that it's unreasonable to expect someone to watch his speed that closely. A small hill or a gust of wind could cause you to speed.

The judges should have realized it was highly unlikely that it was a serious bet, based upon simple common sense. It shouldn't have even gotten to the point where they were trying to weigh evidence, apply the rules, etc.

A complete failure by the judges in this case. The DCI should give this guy a retroactive Top 8, DQ reversed, and at least $500 for his troubles.

Mr.C

08-05-2010, 01:24 AM

There's a reason why I don't play in large tournaments. Never mind that i suck, but I have a big mouth and like to make jokes. I'd likely get a lifetime ban if someone pulled this sort of unsportsmanlike conduct on me.

luckme10

08-05-2010, 02:48 AM

Hope public apologies mean something to people these days.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/19811.html

Pulp_Fiction

08-05-2010, 03:09 AM

Not at all, its to little to late. While kind, he only wrote this to prevent the backlash his actions instill and will turn readers off from his articles (this idiot is hopefully trying to keep what little readers/followers he has left). The fact that he even called a judge over for a simple comment like that is insulting and shows what kind of person he is. Most rational human beings would have laughed and shaken his hand saying good bet, even if it wasn't a real bet to begin with because it has no effect on the outcome of the tournament.

Its shit like this that shows who is a good person and who is a piece of shit looking to exceed at any cost. Poker is different than Magic because no real money is ever at stake but its still competition and gambling on a draft (which is betting on yourself to win) is no different than betting on yourself to win a tournament. I'm still in awe that this idiot even called a judge, who cares!!!

MMogg

08-05-2010, 03:14 AM

Hope public apologies mean something to people these days.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/19811.html

I don't think others will agree with me but I feel that words are too easy to type and post on a forum. If Craig really wants people to go, "wow, he's really sorry", or "wow, he was really a man about it", then he would give his GP earnings to Drew. My rationale is that Craig is admitting he did something he regrets and feels sorry about, and it was because of his actions that Drew was out of the top 8 where he would have earned a minimum of $1,000. I think people ought to be made to pay for their mistakes and a public letter saying sorry, to me, is just barely enough. I don't think a public apology is going to make people think he is less of a douche and I don't think people will think some words typed and posted on the internet is fair compensation for what happened. Drew, of course, also made a mistake; no one is denying that. But if we are talking about Craig and Craig's desire to not only salvage his repuation but also do the right thing, I think some kind of compensation is called for, and giving Drew Craig's GP earnings (much less than $1,000) is at least a step in the right direction.

I don't expect this to be a popular opinion or for anyone to agree, but there ya go. Words are too easy... put up or shut up.

SilverGreen

08-05-2010, 03:27 AM

Unbelievable.

This past weekend at Grand Prix Columbus in the final round of Swiss I was paired against Drew Levin and we were playing for Top 8. He won the match, and then afterwards made a comment in front of a crowd of spectators about having made a substantial wager on the outcome of the match. I interpreted the statement as a brag directed at me and I was unclear what my obligations were as a player in that situation.

Oh, he interpreted. He was unclear of his obligations. Poor ingenuous and well intentioned little Pro. He was simply doing what he thought was the right thing to do... Swindler.

We may now add "cynic" and "floppy" to the list of scornful adjectives he became meritorious this week.

eq.firemind

08-05-2010, 03:39 AM

Hope public apologies mean something to people these days.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/19811.html
Craig Wescoe just gave another proof of what an epic douche bag he is - and even worse now...
He earned the "Bastard of the year" in my personal rating.

As MMogg said, Craig should give his GP money to Drew Levin. And he need to do that quietly, without "Hey, look, I did..." public articles in internetz. Someone else should point that fact - and only after that Craig will become a man in my eyes.

menace13

08-05-2010, 03:41 AM

@Silvergreen- I lold at the whole post; Floppy, meritorious, Wescumbagger......all great words.

The apology is short, Although better than nothing, but it needz MOAR Chapin!

Meekrab

08-05-2010, 04:58 AM

Honestly, I sorta agree with Zvi's earlier tweet, DQing someone for betting on their own performance is retarded. Unless they're betting AGAINST themselves.

Humphrey

08-05-2010, 05:14 AM

Remember that face!
http://www.starcitygames.com/images/writers/Wescoe.jpg

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-05-2010, 05:37 AM

Hope public apologies mean something to people these days.
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/19811.html

Forced non-apologies that fail to recognize any level of culpability mean very little. He has the ability to mitigate the damage he's caused. Let him.

I think sort of the funny thing here is that Wescoe has completely alienated himself from every single facet of the Magic playing community. New and casual players aren't going to forgive him since he screwed over someone on their first big tourny top 8 for a joke bet; competitive players know that the pros make such bets all the time (http://www.wizards.com/sideboard/article.asp?x=ptsd02/425edthat) and recognize him as an unbelievable douchebag hypocrite. Basically the guy's sympathetic target audience is limited to a few fanboys and his mom.

MMogg

08-05-2010, 06:02 AM

I haven't seen anyone mention something very cynical and that is the potential that this letter of apology is part of an agreement to keep Wescoe on as a SCG writer. If Wescoe is being as alienated as we think, keeping him on as a paid author might be bad for SCG's image. So maybe this was their way of letting him stay. I'm horrible for suggesting that and it's utter trashy gossipy speculation, but isn't it delicious? :laugh:

QQQ

08-05-2010, 08:55 AM

Un-fucking-believable. This letter just makes things worse. Craig Wescoe is a fucking underpants gnome. His height shoud have tipped everyone off earlier. This seems to be his plan:

Phase One: Use an improper rule, and an immature opponent who just beat my ass for Top 8 at a Grand Prix, to try and force the judge's hand at reporting even the slightest appearance of wagering, to weasel for an unearned win. Completely alienating the Magic community who sponsors me, as well as the Pros whom with I will have to compete in the future in order to try make my current living.

Phase Two:????????

Phase Three: PROFIT!!!!

Good luck with that, buddy.

say no to scurvy

08-05-2010, 09:04 AM

Props to PV, pikula, and everyone else for calling him out on his douchebaggery. All the judges here post what they post because they see it from a judging angle, and of course Wescoe was 'legal' and 'right' according their written set of rules.

But it was a dick move, and he's a douchebag who should be surprised his tires weren't slashed despite all the talk at the GP about it. He deserves all the hate he's receiving.

And that letter is a joke. He's sorry that he tried to fish for the win and ended up in a lose-lose situation of both not making the t8 AND getting all this hate.

Michael Keller

08-05-2010, 09:19 AM

"This does not excuse Drew’s comment, which, whether true or untrue, is a clear violation of the Tournament Rules and should never have been said. Nonetheless, in my haste, I exercised poor judgment and should be held to a higher standard as a professional member of the community."

Did this guy really just refer to himself as a "professional member of the community"? Because if he did, I am trying to base my assumptions on his level of play by measuring his actions over his intentions.

"...my course of action was unwarranted and based on a misunderstanding of the rules."

Apparently not, because you acted with impulse rather than your head which is why you chose to stand up, walk over to a judge, and say something about something really so trivial as soon as the match was over, that you knew there would be some some of repercussion for the guy you just played. Rules were not misinterpreted; you made the choice to go and say something - no one but you - made the choice. And in doing so, there is no question - no question - something would be done that would not end up good for your opponent. You took a gamble and put your integrity on the line (probably without even knowing it), and it cost you big.

And now, you're apologizing. You have only yourself to blame, Craig Wescoe - only yourself. Whether or not you felt it was unwarranted is irrelevant; what is done is done and there are consequences.

When a spectator says something outside the realm of the game, that's a completely different story, because then you'd be judged on your good character and integrity instead of your unwarranted actions (undoubtedly fishing for a decision in your favor), which is the basis for this entire thread to begin with.

hyperchord24

08-05-2010, 10:19 AM

Wow. That face. Can you imagine that face saying that apology with any sincerity at all? Can you? I sure can't. Donate his winnings to charity. And lose some matches on purpose to give himself a lower ranking. But I imagine he'll do none of those things. Because, well, look at that face!

Whit3 Ghost

08-05-2010, 10:32 AM

And Wescoe's still fishing. It was obvious that Drew's statement wasn't directed at Wescoe, considering that myself and several others had congratulated Drew upon completion of the match and that Drew was looking in the direction of me or Parcher when he made that joke.

coraz86

08-05-2010, 12:34 PM

Unbelievable.

(awkward Wescoe statement)

I like how now it was a "substantial wager."

I wonder how far in his mouth he can get his foot. I daresay I'm already impressed, and I guess it gives him another career option now that this Magic thing clearly isn't going to work out.

Goaswerfraiejen

08-05-2010, 12:55 PM

Whatever, you're making too much out of it. It might not seem fair, but the reaction is disproportionate in kind. Early in my trading "career," I thought I could get 4 Mana Drain for $200, or a similarly low number. I was taken. It was a lot of money for me at the time (well, it still is--actually, it's more now!), and I pressed charges (which went nowhere, despite the guy being well-known to police). It was unfair, and it upset me. But at the same time, I recognized that greed got the better of me: it's not my fault that I was defrauded, but the fraud was preceded by a serious lapse in judgement on my part. Yeah, it sucks, but I learned my lesson and got over it.

The same applies here, and was evidenced in the dude's blog post. Yes, he was cheated out of money and a good finish. By the same token, he made a significant error in judgement, and has learned from it. There's nothing to be done, and the other guy's actions are sufficiently within the purview of the rules to warrant a less scathing treatment. If pros gamble all the time, take it up with Wizards and take it out on the pros who have done it rather than on the guy who ratted someone else out (no matter how shady it might have been).

And, in all honesty, it was a bad joke anyway. I have a hard time imagining it being particularly amusing (or even chortle-worthy) even given perfect delivery. And that's the trouble with really bad jokes: it can be hard to tell that they're jokes, on account of how few people are laughing.

Bryant Cook

08-05-2010, 01:37 PM

This is actually the first time I've heard about Wizards taking action on betting. I've bet with several members and a few banned ones at events on who would have the better record. It's even in a few of my reports.

Parcher

08-05-2010, 02:00 PM

He calls his articles 'The Wescoe Connection'. Here's my Wescoe Connection (sung to Kermit the Frog's 'Rainbow Connection').

The Wescoe Connecton

Why are there so many
rumors about Wescoe
and whom he's trying to misguide?
Wescoe's derision
comes from his delusions
So he must have something to hide
We've been told lies and some choose to
believe him
I know they're wrong wait and see

Someday he'll admit it
The Wescoe Connection
Drew Levin, Bertoncinni and he

Who said his wish to
Top 8 would be answered
Like he's some midget Bob Maher
So he fished for cheating
And someone believed it
And look what it's done so far
What's so amazing
Has shown in his phrasing
in his joke of an apology

Someday we'll find it
That Wescoe Connection
And who buys this philosophy?

Rot in your own private Hell,
Your days are numbered playing Magic....

The Pros have been talking
Have you heard the voices?
Well I've heard them mention your name
Is this the sweet sound that,
speaks of retribution
That voice might be one and the same.
I've heard it too many times to ignore it,
It's something that we all want to see

Someday you'll find it
The Wescoe connection...
Can't wait 'til you face Gerry T

La da da dee da da doo, la da da dee da da da doo

nitewolf9

08-05-2010, 02:14 PM

*slow clap*

Bryant Cook

08-05-2010, 02:19 PM

*Claps along*

Aggro_zombies

08-05-2010, 02:29 PM

Well, it's good to see that Wescoe is showing remorse...about the damage to his reputation.

Solaran_X

08-05-2010, 03:46 PM

When I heard about the wager at the GP and it's DQ, I at first agreed with the outcome. But at the time, my only knowledge of the events that happened was that someone had announced they won a wager, and were DQed for it. I didn't know who was involved, or when the actual announcement happened.

Now that I've read Drew's message and Wescoe's open letter, I feel that Wescoe is, indeed, a world quality douche. And I personally hope that at every single tournament he ever goes to again, every player there is gunning for him and watching every little thing he does in hopes of getting him enough infractions for a DQ from any event he ever plays in again.

The match was over when the comment had been made. Wescoe had lost, and Drew had his Top 8 slot. It seems pretty obvious that Wescoe was pissed because he lost to a non-Pro, and was trying to pull a win out for the Top 8 in any way he could. I, like many others I've seen on varies web pages, am now giving StarCity no business (not even a membership for their premium articles) until Wescoe is removed from their list of writers.

Granted, this means I'll probably never give StarCity business again...I never really gave them much to begin with. At GP: Chicago, I offered to pay $80 on a poor condition Beta Badlands that they had marked at $100 and they refused. At GP: Columbus, I offered to pay $200 each on four moderately played Bazaars of Baghdad they had marked at $230 each and they refused (I ended up getting 3 NM and 1 SP for $859 from two other vendors - much better deal than 4 MP for $800).

But hey...I now justified making a new avatar!

mujadaddy

08-05-2010, 04:37 PM

LOL@your avatar. You've got something against douche bags? :laugh:

Solaran_X

08-05-2010, 05:28 PM

LOL@your avatar. You've got something against douche bags? :laugh:
Yes.

They're douche bags. Do I need more reason to dislike them?

mujadaddy

08-05-2010, 05:30 PM

Yes.

They're douche bags. Do I need more reason to dislike them?

Jeez, don't be such a Wescoe.

Nihil Credo

08-05-2010, 09:45 PM

What is amusing about the whole shebang is that it managed the rare feat of merging the Do Anything At All In Order To Win! camp with the Always Follow All Rules To The Letter! camp.

Nightmare

08-05-2010, 09:51 PM

What is amusing about the whole shebang is that it managed the rare feat of merging the Do Anything At All In Order To Win! camp with the Always Follow All Rules To The Letter! camp.

Just one of the many ways this situation drips with the cool taste of irony.

luckme10

08-05-2010, 09:55 PM

What is amusing about the whole shebang is that it managed the rare feat of merging the Do Anything At All In Order To Win! camp with the Always Follow All Rules To The Letter! camp.
Haha this is so true.

What I find even more amusing is while Wescoe's discussions in the "Open letter to Drew Levin" forum is 8 pages long and counting, his 'productive' article posted about legacy countertop only has one post by beastman that reads "How is it that you are still allowed to write for Star City?" Fun to imagine the deadpan silence and the crickets chirping in the background.

MMogg

08-05-2010, 10:02 PM

Haha this is so true.

What I find even more amusing is while Wescoe's discussions in the "Open letter to Drew Levin" forum is 8 pages long and counting, his 'productive' article posted about legacy countertop only has one post by beastman that reads "How is it that you are still allowed to write for Star City?" Fun to imagine the deadpan silence and the crickets chirping in the background.

It just goes to show you, men are every bit as much gossip whores as women are stereotyped to be.

beastman

08-05-2010, 10:07 PM

It just goes to show you, magic players are every bit as much gossip whores as women are stereotyped to be.

Nah, it was right the first time. ~Nihil

Getsickanddie

08-05-2010, 11:38 PM

What is amusing about the whole shebang is that it managed the rare feat of merging the Do Anything At All In Order To Win! camp with the Always Follow All Rules To The Letter! camp.

There are a number of players who would consider Levin to be a part of both those camps. I've personally seen him on the brink of tears trying to get Eli to disqualify a player because he "feared for his safety" and was going to "call the police" after a local Cuse player verbally put him in his place for being a douche.

juventus

08-06-2010, 12:25 AM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-06-2010, 12:44 AM

There are a number of players who would consider Levin to be a part of both those camps. I've personally seen him on the brink of tears trying to get Eli to disqualify a player because he "feared for his safety" and was going to "call the police" after a local Cuse player verbally put him in his place for being a douche.

I'm going to apply my knowledge of the parties involved in this tale, and just flat-out assume that it wasn't Levin being a douche. Also that you are probably lying.

I'm going to go ahead and say that I support Wescoe in what he did. I mean, how different is this from your opponent having the game locked up and then forgetting to pay for a pact? Or forgetting a dark confidant trigger and getting a game loss for excessive warnings?

How different is it possible to be? The answer to your question would be that plus a few for good measure.

Drew made a crucial error when he "deserved" to win, and his opponent took advantage of it. It ended up looking very malicious, as if Wescoe just got him DQ'd to spite him, but it is pretty clear he was just trying to get the match loss overturned. This reminds me a lot of the world cup game where Suarez handballed the ball off the goal line to save Uruguay from instant defeat against Ghana. Made him look like a "douche" or whatever. But ultimately it's a poor set of rules. Hand balls on the line when the ball is about to go in should be ruled a goal, not a penalty kick.

I think it's a great example. In both cases, douchebags exploited an obvious technicality in the rules because they're douchebags. At least Suarez can say he did it for his teammates, though, and paid the price for it.

To be really good at any game, you have to be extremely competitive.

If you're willing to be a douchebag to win a game, then you have misordered priorities.

IsThisACatInAHat?

08-06-2010, 12:51 AM

I'm going to go ahead and say that I support Wescoe in what he did. I mean, how different is this from your opponent having the game locked up and then forgetting to pay for a pact? Or forgetting a dark confidant trigger and getting a game loss for excessive warnings? Drew made a crucial error when he "deserved" to win, and his opponent took advantage of it.
Except in both of the cases you mentioned, the game isn't over yet. Drew comboed out with painterstone, they shook hands and signed the match slip. The game was completely over at this point with the winner officially decided, as opposed to missing a trigger which is a misplay that happens during the game. The examples are in no way similar to what actually happened.

This reminds me a lot of the world cup game where Suarez handballed the ball off the goal line to save Uruguay from instant defeat against Ghana. Made him look like a "douche" or whatever. But ultimately it's a poor set of rules. Hand balls on the line when the ball is about to go in should be ruled a goal, not a penalty kick.

To be really good at any game, you have to be extremely competitive.
Yeees, except Suarez (who was horribly, unfairly penalized as well by a corrupt ref) also, like the above examples, did that during the game. He took the penalty anyway. Again, this game was already over. If Craig had called him on something Drew did purposely in-game, then Drew should receive a penalty as mandated by the rules. Instead, Craig lost the match and subsequently, reported an out-of-context remark to a judge in hopes of overturning the official result. There's a massive difference between competitive and unsportsmanlike (or any of the nastier adjectives that more correctly describe him).

Bryant Cook

08-06-2010, 01:01 AM

I'm going to apply my knowledge of the parties involved in this tale, and just flat-out assume that it wasn't Levin being a douche. Also that you are probably lying.

Nope. It happened.

jrsthethird

08-06-2010, 01:22 AM

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-06-2010, 03:12 AM

I don't know anything about this but I punted a tournament because he rushed me in the final minutes of the round and I made like 12 play errors. I had that game, but I have no practice playing under pressure so I did absolutely stupid stuff like forgetting that I had FOW in hand, and ran 4(!) Goyfs into Counterbalance like a moron. I take some blame for this but it just was not fun to play with him.

I guess I'm not surprised he would do something like that.

So... you made play errors, so he's a dick?

Assuming that these hearsay half-remembered accusations are true even for a moment, what effect does that have on anything? Wescoe mysteriously knew that somewhere, somehow this guy had been a jerk to someone who goes by the handle getsickanddie and has " We break your rib cage, and ask you what the fuck's crackin" on their sig, and thus he was absolutely justified in being a ginormous prick to try and steal a legitimate loss?,

jrsthethird

08-06-2010, 03:17 AM

He was a dick, which is why I didn't play as well as I should have.

Forbiddian

08-06-2010, 03:35 AM

Hope someone steals Wescoe's deck and he loses a match for it.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-06-2010, 04:15 AM

He was a dick, which is why I didn't play as well as I should have.

Someone asking you to play faster isn't unreasonable, unless you're already playing fast in which case you can ignore them and the judge won't care. If playing at a reasonable speed causes you to make mistakes, life sucks. You don't get ten minutes on each turn in this game. That's in no way equivalent to exploiting a blatant technicality and the failure of a judge to use common sense in order to try and steal a match.

Getsickanddie

08-06-2010, 07:32 AM

Assuming that these hearsay half-remembered accusations are true even for a moment, what effect does that have on anything?

Half-remembered? It was one of the funniest/most pathetic things I've ever seen. It's burned into my brain.

Wescoe mysteriously knew that somewhere, somehow this guy had been a jerk to someone who goes by the handle getsickanddie and has " We break your rib cage, and ask you what the fuck's crackin" on their sig, and thus he was absolutely justified in being a ginormous prick to try and steal a legitimate loss?,

I've never even spoken with him, only observed his behavior at Eli's event. I'm not the only one that's seen him act like a prick, I'm just the only one that will say it. Did he deserve to be DQ'd? Probably not. Are there a number of people taking some measure of pleasure in it? Yes.

Bryant Cook

08-06-2010, 11:50 AM

So... you made play errors, so he's a dick?

Assuming that these hearsay half-remembered accusations are true even for a moment, what effect does that have on anything? Wescoe mysteriously knew that somewhere, somehow this guy had been a jerk to someone who goes by the handle getsickanddie and has " We break your rib cage, and ask you what the fuck's crackin" on their sig, and thus he was absolutely justified in being a ginormous prick to try and steal a legitimate loss?,

I have nothing against Drew, he's always been somewhat nice to me. But I've watched Drew play plenty of times and he's not the fastest of players until time is running short. It doesn't help that he's always playing Countertop decks, which are very time consuming. When Drew goes to time in the round, which happens often, he asks his opponents to conceed which is fucking ridiculous and arrogant in my book.

"I was going to win, just scoop to me"
[No]
"Judge! It's turn five and my opponent picked up their cards! I win right?"
'No, it's a draw'
"But he picked up his cards, I didn't want to draw"
'Well then deal lethal damage'
"I can't, but he picked up his cards"
'It's a draw'

After this Drew kept on running his mouth to a Syracuse local who verbally threatened Drew into shutting up. Then Drew ran to Eli in tears wanting a DQ, match win, and the local to be thrown out or he'd call the cops.

At the GP, he asked Alix to scoop to him. Although, Alix handled it much more professionally than the Syracuse local, it ended in a draw.

At Eli's Lotus event last year I was just walking around scouting, I pass him, stop to see what he's playing, "Bryant, leave before I call the judge".

I'm not agreeing with what Wescoe did, so don't try to turn my words around. What he did was douche-y. I'm just clarifying what happens with Drew. I bet if he played faster and played faster decks, events like these listed above wouldn't happen.

goobafish

08-06-2010, 11:53 AM

I'm not the only one that's seen him act like a prick, I'm just the only one that will say it. Did he deserve to be DQ'd? Probably not. Are there a number of people taking some measure of pleasure in it? Yes.

He was a real asshole to his opponent he played the round before the DQ, I have never seen a guy litteraly cry for a judge while waving his arms frantically in front of his opponents board. But just because he wasn't a nice guy doesn't mean he deserves a DQ. I hope that this experience teaches him some tournament etiquette.

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-06-2010, 01:02 PM

I've never had a problem with Levin or seen him be discourteous, but it seems to be agreed that if he was it's still entirely irrelevant.

I actually came up with the best comparison: People that think that the rules should be applied in this way to screw over someone for betting on themselves (even if it hadn't been a prop bet), are basically exactly the same as people that think children should be arrested and prosecuted (http://www.news-press.com/article/20100806/CRIME/100806012/Another-teen-faces-cruelty-chargeses-after-pornographic-images-found-on-phone) for child pornography for taking nude pictures of themselves.

It's not justice or the intent of the law, nor wisdom. It's just an asinine, lazy and cruel unwillingness to apply five seconds of common sense. The English language will always be imprecise, and it's usually impossible to close one loophole without creating the potential for others. Without the application of reasonableness and intent, there will never be a way to have a just society. This may be small potatoes in the long run, but the attitude underlying it is what's so dangerous and, to me, appalling.

BenBleiweiss

08-06-2010, 03:30 PM

IBA raised an interesting question in another thread: "Why is it illegal to gamble on yourself to do well?" How would this in any way compromise the integrity of the game? Every time you pay a tournament entry fee, you're essentially gambling on yourself to do well. If you make top-whatever, you win money. Otherwise you lose the investment.

Theoretical Situation

DL: Hey Craig, I win $500 from a friend if I win this match, because I bet on myself to win! If you concede, I'll split the money.
CW: I make $200 more at most if I win this round and finish 9-16. I make $250 if I concede and split the money from this bet outside the tournament. I concede!

Results: Integrity of the tournament compromised by a player betting on themselves.

Real Life Application: Pete Rose claimed that he only bet on his own team, and gambling vouchers proved this - but it was also shown that when his two worst pitchers were pitching, he would not bet on his own team. This gave him motivation to play his team differently (put in different relievers/overwork certain guys) in order to maximize his own chance of winning - at the times at which he DID bet on his own team.

Sims

08-06-2010, 03:39 PM

Theoretical Situation

DL: Hey Craig, I win $500 from a friend if I win this match, because I bet on myself to win! If you concede, I'll split the money.
CW: I concede!

Results: Integrity of the tournament compromised by a player betting on themselves.

- Ben

I may be opening a bad can of worms with this comment, but this doesn't really make sense Ben. In this case it's not only betting on yourself (which alone really doesn't effect the integrity of the tournament) but is also collusion. If i bet on myself to top 8, and didn't say a word, i just plowed into the Top8 and collected an extra 500 bucks then it doesn't really effect anything, unless i step over the line into another illegal act at a tournament and offer to split it with someone for the win.

Your situation you can replace "I bet my friend 500 dollars" with "I have a 30-rack and i'll split it with you if you let me win," or "I have an extra foil japanese Jace, TMS and i'll give it to you if you give me the win."

If we took the situation at face value, It's not the self-bet that's ruining the integrity of the tournament, but the collusion taking place. The bet means nothing to Wescoe if the collusion doesn't exist.

rleader

08-06-2010, 03:39 PM

Someone asking you to play faster isn't unreasonable,

It can be, especially if they start to request non standard (but still legal if agreed upon) shortcuts.

For example, year and years ago, I won game 1 vs. turbofog with my even more shitty deck though sheer luck. This took 35 minutes.

Game 2, he requests that I discard (multiple howling mines in play) while he draws. He basically badgered me (I was a first time guest in a store on a different coast) into playing in a way that would maximize his chances of completing game two and I went along with it, even though the margins were bad for me. For example, I couldn't inspect what he was drawing since I was busy emptying my own hand, etc.

He won game 2 for the draw during extra turns.

People who play slow decks slowly turn into ape demons if you take game one from them (especially when their decks are supposed to win pre-sideboard).

The Pharmacist

08-06-2010, 04:37 PM

freakish777

08-06-2010, 04:45 PM

Theoretical Situation

DL: Hey Craig, I win $500 from a friend if I win this match, because I bet on myself to win! If you concede, I'll split the money.
CW: I make $200 more at most if I win this round and finish 9-16. I make $250 if I concede and split the money from this bet outside the tournament. I concede!

Results: Integrity of the tournament compromised by a player betting on themselves.

Real Life Application: Pete Rose claimed that he only bet on his own team, and gambling vouchers proved this - but it was also shown that when his two worst pitchers were pitching, he would not bet on his own team. This gave him motivation to play his team differently (put in different relievers/overwork certain guys) in order to maximize his own chance of winning - at the times at which he DID bet on his own team.

That's clearly collusion, and a totally separate issue.

As far as the Pete Rose scenario goes, let's assume that Bookies took bets on Magic tournaments (I'm pretty sure there's websites out there that will do this for you). A level 8 Pro decides to have "a friend" bet that he'll make day 2. He makes Day 2, and picks up some money because of the bet. Cool. The integrity of the tournament isn't impacted. Said Pro decides to not bet on himself for the next tournament. The integrity of the tournament... isn't impacted. It's not like Saito/LSV/PVDR/Kenji/Cedric/etc can "play his deck differently" to maximize later potential winnings.

Furthermore, Baseball teams have schedules they must follow. Magic players can go to every GP they want to. Or they can decide to stay home. It's not like Alix Hatfield's Tarmogoyfs and Wild Nactl's are more exhausted than his Knight of the Reliquaries or Krosan Grips.

Your theoretical situation isn't applicable to Magic the Gathering (as far as the Pete Rose situation) or what happened at GP Columbus (there was no collusion on Levin's part).

In short, drop Wescoe from your authors,
Signed, The Magic the Gathering Community (no, we're not going to take lame excuses or theoretical situations with no applicability to what actually happened)

TheInfamousBearAssassin

08-06-2010, 05:01 PM

I've never played vs him and i never want to. I really think the kids a DICK and I'm happy it happened to him! He walks around tournaments thinking he's better then everyone and every time I see him I want to slap the shit out of him. Drew you got what was coming to you.

If you're happy about this, I'm just going to lump you into the 1/2 of New York players who are total dicks*.

*The other half is people who almost never go to Legacy tournaments any more.

Theoretical Situation

DL: Hey Craig, I win $500 from a friend if I win this match, because I bet on myself to win! If you concede, I'll split the money.
CW: I make $200 more at most if I win this round and finish 9-16. I make $250 if I concede and split the money from this bet outside the tournament. I concede!

Results: Integrity of the tournament compromised by a player betting on themselves.

Real Life Application: Pete Rose claimed that he only bet on his own team, and gambling vouchers proved this - but it was also shown that when his two worst pitchers were pitching, he would not bet on his own team. This gave him motivation to play his team differently (put in different relievers/overwork certain guys) in order to maximize his own chance of winning - at the times at which he DID bet on his own team.

Problem: Your theoretical situation isn't about betting on yourself, it's about betting on yourself + BRIBING an opponent. It doesn't matter the source of the money; if you offer your opponent $250 to concede, that's illegal whether or not any gambling took place.

So this is the "Drugs should be illegal because you might get high and go murder someone" argument. There's already a rule in place to deal with the actually problematic part of your argument.

And the latter example has no parallel at all to the game.

In short, drop Wescoe from your authors,
Signed, The Magic the Gathering Community (no, we're not going to take lame excuses or theoretical situations with no applicability to what actually happened)

Zlatzman

08-06-2010, 05:03 PM

Aggro_zombies

08-06-2010, 05:21 PM

There is actually one scenario where betting on yourself is detrimental to the game:

Player A makes a bet with Player B, with Player B owing Player A "something" if Player A gets top8.

Before the last round Player A is really close to making top 8, so is Player C. It turns out that Player B is playing against Player C. Player B decides to concede the match / play horribly. This ensures Player C gets into top8, Player A does not, and Player B saved his money.

The above situation is of course highly theoretical, and I can't imagine it being relevant at all.
This can happen even in the absence of a bet. For example, players B and C could simply not like player A. When they get paired in the final round of Swiss, they decide player C's deck has a better matchup against player A, so player B loses intentionally/concedes so that player C makes top 8 and hopefully knocks out player A.

If the players actually play the game out, it's difficult to prove in either case that something was done to make sure certain players make top 8 (or not), especially if they keep their mouths shut about what they were doing.

Betting on yourself is extremely unlikely to compromise tourament integrity. However, the DCI prohibits it anyway because they don't want to be associated in any way with gambling, so they take quite a hard line towards it (at least, this is what I've been told by several level 2-3 Arizona judges).

The Pharmacist

08-06-2010, 05:23 PM

If you're happy about this, I'm just going to lump you into the 1/2 of New York players who are total dicks*.

Ok so I guess I'm a dick, but that's how I feel about him.

Tammit67

08-06-2010, 05:42 PM

If you're happy about this, I'm just going to lump you into the 1/2 of New York players who are total dicks*.

Ok so I guess I'm a dick, but that's how I feel about him.

Ditto. That whole fiasco of fishing for concessions or matchwins did not sit right with anyone there at the tournament (Vestal). The other guy shouldn't have called him a faerie, but he has anger issues. Not entirely happy with the way it was handled at the GP, in an event that stresses the rules Levin so vehemently fishes for elsewhere. Team Left field is a bunch of good guys, they got it right.

@JRS (Stempo)- Take your time. Of course he is going to rush you. Just chill out and play your game. You are entitled to your time if it is not unreasonable. But calling him out on you playing poorly because he was trying to get you to hurry is pretty weak.

MMogg

08-06-2010, 06:16 PM

@JRS (Stempo)- Take your time. Of course he is going to rush you. Just chill out and play your game. You are entitled to your time if it is not unreasonable. But calling him out on you playing poorly because he was trying to get you to hurry is pretty weak.

Yeah, he probably should mention play errors, but I think he was just expressing his frustration. Anyway, I think the most important part of what jrsthethird said has been untouched/ignored and that is (emphasized part):

I take some blame for this but it just was not fun to play with him.

I've been in this situation (I know I'm an overly sensitive person in general, take things personally and one bad incident can ruin my day if not week), so when I read this statement, I knew what he meant completely on both cognitive and emotive levels. It's not just being rushed, it's that dealing with an asshole while you're trying to have fun and enjoy your hobby is a fun succubus. Fun is an important aspect of the game, of course, and being rushed and/or playing against a fisherman is probably as universally unfun as anything else.

TheMightyQuinn

08-06-2010, 06:49 PM

If Levin is really as much of a toolbag as some people are making him out to be, some good may actually come from this clusterfuck of a situation: maybe he has learned a lesson and will be a more pleasant competitor at future tournaments after feeling what it is like to be on the receiving end of the jerkwad stick.

umbowta

08-06-2010, 07:41 PM

Three years ago Craig Wescoe beat me in a tournament with Jinxed Friggin Choker. I still made top 8, only to end up losing to Paul Nicolo, but that's beside the point. I never got to the point of liking the guy or not but, truth be told, I could tell he was a rules follower to a fault. I think it's totally possible that Craig was just following the rules. Hoping for a favorable outcome is second nature at that point.

Pulp_Fiction

08-06-2010, 08:55 PM

It seems like a few people are complaining about losses that were their own fault. If you opponent rushes you .... WHY ARE YOU COMPROMISING YOU PLAY FOR THE SAKE OF SPEED? There are actually quite a few people at my local card shop who ask people to speed it up and rarely are there any arguments. Lots of games just play themselves. BUT, when faced with a tough decision why are u not taking ur time? Thats just ignorance on your part, it isn't the other guys' fault.

I have lost a lot of respect for Levin since someone said he only plays CB bullshit so he is now classified as a tool, but regardless of this, I am still on his side, and this is very rare since I basically hate everyone who plays CB bullshit and Landstill (for time reasons and my level of boredom I am able to achieve in the matches).

And that example .... wtf, when you enter a tournament you are already betting on yourself to win, otherwise why would you pay to play? I can't believe this is even an issue, betting on yourself, who the hell cares?? It effects nothing in the tournament.

Whit3 Ghost

08-06-2010, 09:07 PM

Real Life Application: Pete Rose claimed that he only bet on his own team, and gambling vouchers proved this - but it was also shown that when his two worst pitchers were pitching, he would not bet on his own team. This gave him motivation to play his team differently (put in different relievers/overwork certain guys) in order to maximize his own chance of winning - at the times at which he DID bet on his own team.
Two things, there's proof that Rose bet on the game besides a statement chock full of hyperbole, and there's no way to manipulate Magic in the same way that Rose did.

lordofthepit

08-06-2010, 10:42 PM

So technically, did the dude lose his bet?

Rood

08-06-2010, 11:43 PM

That's the best non counting placing I have ever heard of for sure.

Though I would never cry for a judge if he made that remark after beating me in a match.

mujadaddy

08-07-2010, 12:11 AM

Craig Wescoe

Jinxed Friggin Choker.*masturbates furiously*

MMogg

08-07-2010, 03:42 AM

This is hilarious, from Yo! MTG Taps Episode 32 (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19822_Episode_32_Everybody_Hates_Purple.html),

It's not like he's [Wescoe] trolling for wins, he doesn't need to troll for wins, he's frickin' Craig Wescoe!
:laugh:!

dontbiteitholmes

08-07-2010, 07:42 AM

It can be, especially if they start to request non standard (but still legal if agreed upon) shortcuts.

For example, year and years ago, I won game 1 vs. turbofog with my even more shitty deck though sheer luck. This took 35 minutes.

Game 2, he requests that I discard (multiple howling mines in play) while he draws. He basically badgered me (I was a first time guest in a store on a different coast) into playing in a way that would maximize his chances of completing game two and I went along with it, even though the margins were bad for me. For example, I couldn't inspect what he was drawing since I was busy emptying my own hand, etc.

He won game 2 for the draw during extra turns.

People who play slow decks slowly turn into ape demons if you take game one from them (especially when their decks are supposed to win pre-sideboard).

Well, that's easy. You just call a judge over and say, "Hey, could you watch our match for slowplay, thx." I never slowplay even when it would in all seriousness be in my best interest to do so. I can think of atleast 3-4 matches this year off the top of my head I could have slowplayed my way to a win and not even had a judge call it slowplay just by doing piddling shit like take a little extra time doing everything. Fortunately for my opponents I feel like winning a match by cheating isn't in my best interest, even if the cheating would be construed as legal by a judge watching my match unless I literally said I was wasting time to force a G2 draw. On the flip side of the coin I'm fairly quick to call a judge to watch for slow play and some people take offense to that. I don't think Wescoe called a judge for any reason other than he thought it could possibly win him the game, it's just that simple. I think if he had known he would have lost either way he wouldn't have said anything and I'm also 100% sure he knew he wasn't going to get a DQ for not reporting it.

Benjammn

08-07-2010, 11:42 PM

So if I have digested this thread right, basically one douchebag out-douches a whiny douchebag that finally learns a lesson in humility? Sounds fine to me. People that want Craig to be offed from SCG are missing the big picture. Did anyone offer evidence that Wescoe does this regularly? Does being a scumbag affect your ability to play Magic? Absolutely not on both counts. Many pros (and people on the PTQ circuit) are perceived to be dbags by others, so how is this any different?

dschalter

08-08-2010, 02:10 AM

I like how this has become a thread for the New Yorkers to trot out their insecurities. Physically threatening people= A-Okay. Asking someone to play faster and thus "forcing" them to fuck up= Unforgivable, and totally justifies being cheated out of a top 8 spot that was actually, you know earned.

Way to be, guys. You stay classy.

That doesn't even make sense on any level. Sometimes it's better to just stop talking. At least then the worst assumptions we make about you won't be justified.

Or maybe he really is a douche? It's certainly possible for people to randomly dislike others, but I tend to believe that such dislike has at least some basis in reality.

jazzykat

08-08-2010, 03:13 AM

I think the guys who are happy that Drew Levin got DQed are missing the point. This is not a discussion on wether Drew Levin is a world class ass hole or is Ghandi. Whether you are happy if his dog dies or if he wins the lottery tomorrow has no bearing on what Craig Wescoe did or didn't do in this situation.

In other news: I used to have to play against a rules mongering whiney dick, so all that I did was just not say anything to him unless it was about the game. I kept my head totally in the game and ignored anything external to the game. When he tried to rush me, I would tell him I would call the judge over personally to watch the match for slow play. I would also start watching them for infractions so I could get the judge called on them. The best way to deal with an ass hole is to focus on your game and play your best. It takes a certain amount of effort to harass your opponent, and try to trip them up. Use your effort on protecting yourself and winning.

I would also suggest that if someone is continuously bad, you talk to the store owner (doesn't help at GPs). Store owners want to make money, if one guy is pissing off enough people they may be asked to leave.

Getsickanddie

08-08-2010, 04:07 AM

So how did Team Left Field do at this years G.P.?

Eli came in 26th. Konsultant and Pharmacist were too hung over to play. Di attended but I don't know how he did.

I think the guys who are happy that Drew Levin got DQed are missing the point.

I got the point, and I intentionally changed the direction of the thread to suit my interests.

juventus

08-08-2010, 04:49 AM

The best way to deal with an ass hole is to focus on your game and play your best.

Why aren't you focusing on your game and playing your best in the first place?

jazzykat

08-08-2010, 04:54 AM

Why aren't you focusing on your game and playing your best in the first place?

I am. A lot of people, when confronted with a dick of an opponent, might lose sight of that objective and get caught up in the douchery instead of the game.

Anusien

08-08-2010, 09:04 PM

Well, that's easy. You just call a judge over and say, "Hey, could you watch our match for slowplay, thx." I never slowplay even when it would in all seriousness be in my best interest to do so. I can think of atleast 3-4 matches this year off the top of my head I could have slowplayed my way to a win and not even had a judge call it slowplay just by doing piddling shit like take a little extra time doing everything. Fortunately for my opponents I feel like winning a match by cheating isn't in my best interest, even if the cheating would be construed as legal by a judge watching my match unless I literally said I was wasting time to force a G2 draw. On the flip side of the coin I'm fairly quick to call a judge to watch for slow play and some people take offense to that. I don't think Wescoe called a judge for any reason other than he thought it could possibly win him the game, it's just that simple. I think if he had known he would have lost either way he wouldn't have said anything and I'm also 100% sure he knew he wasn't going to get a DQ for not reporting it.
I wouldn't count on being able to cheat and get away with it.

pippo84

08-10-2010, 05:59 AM

I did not read the whole thread, and I won't. I just read the first pages and I will just say one thing.

This is terrible! If you just lost think about why and what happened. A disqualification like this is nonsense.

naarou

08-12-2010, 10:27 AM

So... you made play errors, so he's a dick?

Assuming that these hearsay half-remembered accusations are true even for a moment, what effect does that have on anything?
I (and many others) personally witnessed what the guy did to JRStheThird~ In no way is Joe implying he was forced into play mistakes, but this kid was as unsportsman as humanly possible. It was irritating to watch from 10 feet away. Joe isn't used to high pressure situations, and reacted poorly to the persistent ushering from Levin (which was instigative/provacative in nature). As soon as he got the win, he slammed his deck down and screamed something uninterpretable.

Not to mention, I also saw the event that Byrant Cook mentioned in person as well. As far as I'm concerned, people who can't be fucked to show any sign of respect shouldn't be defended in an argument and most certainly shouldn't receive any respect themselves.

Forgive the 2 day necro. :)