[Article] Saito Busted at GP Florence and What it Means

[JACO]

Pro Tour regular and Japanese Magic player extraordinaire Tomoharu Saito has been disqualified without prize from Grand Prix Florence 2010 this weekend for Cheating (Stalling)...So what does this all mean? Well for one it means that the legendary Saito may be looking at a suspension and may see his pending Magic Hall of Fame induction take a hit. We break it all down after the jump!

http://www.eternal-central.com/?p=1244


Please let us know your comments and thoughts below. What did you think was rad or sucked, and what would you have like to have seen? Thanks for reading!

[Bahamuth]

About time. He's been doing this for so long.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

Crucial information:


In 2001 Saito was busted and disqualified without prize at the APAC Championships for Bribery (in a Top 8 no less). Later in the year Saito was then busted for Unsporting Conduct – Severe at Grand Prix Kobe 2001 for manipulating the game state and ultimately trying to get his opponent penalized after he himself called the judge.

[DragoFireheart]

It means we can stop looking at a flawed person as a infallible source for new Legacy advancement and think for ourselves.

[dschalter]

It means we can stop looking at a flawed person as a infallible source for new Legacy advancement and think for ourselves.

Not sure how that follows. Someone can be highly shady and a good deckbuilder at the same time; most famously Mike Long who was both one of the most innovative deckbuilders and savage cheaters in the history of the PT.

Also, he already has been voted in, so the qualifications for getting voted in are not relevant.

[Solaran_X]

Not sure how that follows. Someone can be highly shady and a good deckbuilder at the same time; most famously Mike Long who was both one of the most innovative deckbuilders and savage cheaters in the history of the PT.

Also, he already has been voted in, so the qualifications for getting voted in are not relevant.
Voted in, but not inducted. If he's suspended prior to the induction, he becomes ineligible for the induction and is SOL. The qualifications cited in the article were for induction in addition to voting. He has to meet those qualifications twice to get in.

[Julian23]

Crucial information:


What you forget to mention is that his 2001 APAC DQ was not due to that kind of "bribery" one would usually link with the term. Due to time constraints, his opponent (Peter Chen?) wasn't able to attend his Sunday 1/4 final match against Saito and therefor Saito agreed to prize split. Nakamuhra was also DQed because he acted as an interpreter.

[Michael Keller]

Well for one it means that the legendary Saito may be looking at a suspension and may see his pending Magic Hall of Fame induction take a hit. We break it all down after the jump!

Legendary cheater, perhaps.

[2Rach]

While it's best not to do what he did(Stalling, bribing) since it's against the rules, I don't consider it on the same immoral grounds as cheating in-game. (ie: stacking your deck, drawing extra cards, letting your opponent put a creature in the graveyard when it shouldn't) I would still vote him into the Hall of Fame if he gets the chance to be on the ballot.

[Julian23]

While it's best not to do what he did(Stalling, bribing) since it's against the rules, I don't consider it on the same immoral grounds as cheating in-game. (ie: stacking your deck, drawing extra cards, letting your opponent put a creature in the graveyard when it shouldn't) I would still vote him into the Hall of Fame if he gets the chance to be on the ballot.

Where's the difference? Although the issue of bribery can be contested in the first place (in case of Saito) I'd argue that it's even worse than in-game cheating.

[Aggro_zombies]

While it's best not to do what he did(Stalling, bribing) since it's against the rules, I don't consider it on the same immoral grounds as cheating in-game. (ie: stacking your deck, drawing extra cards, letting your opponent put a creature in the graveyard when it shouldn't) I would still vote him into the Hall of Fame if he gets the chance to be on the ballot.
But stalling does happen in-game...?

[wcm8]

I talked with Saito briefly at GP Columbus, and he seemed like a very nice fellow. Obviously, he is very competitive when it comes to Magic, and he has shown that he will use/bend every aspect of the rules to help increase his chance of victory. He is a great example of a 'Spike', but also a great innovator when it comes to deck design. It was very interesting to read his post-GP report, especially his rationale for the build of Merfolk that he played. The dude knows Magic, and I doubt he could have accumulated anywhere near as many victories as he has if he weren't a fantastic player, stalling or not.

That said, I think in this particular instance, it really fell onto his opponents' to call for judges to get a proper ruling. Saito pushed the envelope, gained a reputation for this illegal tactic, and eventually got burned. I'm sure he knew that what he was doing was risky, but now he's going to have to deal with the consequences. I don't think he's a 'villain', even if the methods he used might go against the spirit of the game.

What it means is that people will hopefully be more aware of stalling and will know when to call a judge when they have an opponent doing it. I think it falls on your shoulders if you just let someone do this to you.

[JACO]

While it's best not to do what he did(Stalling, bribing) since it's against the rules, I don't consider it on the same immoral grounds as cheating in-game. (ie: stacking your deck, drawing extra cards, letting your opponent put a creature in the graveyard when it shouldn't) I would still vote him into the Hall of Fame if he gets the chance to be on the ballot.How or why is this different? Stalling is still manipulating the game state for your benefit, and is easier to pull off regularly and gain more wins from than stacking your deck. It is just as immoral, and that is why it is also grounds for immediate disqualification. People don't unknowingly Stall for competitive advantage, it's a calculated action.

By the way, I also updated the article about an hour ago with some more information from the DCI's Blog post detailed here (http://community.wizards.com/judge/blog/2010/10/20/investigation_-_q42010).

[Julian23]

Saito has responded on his blog. Unfortunately it's in Japanese but Google Translate provides at least a little bit of helf: Saito's blog (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fharurumtg.blog41.fc2.com%2Fblog-entry-155.html)

Basicly he doesn't fight the accuse of 'slow play' but denies 'stalling'. He was just taking his time because the board state was quite complicated:


Past few turns, but only because I thought well how to deal with a difficult to leave the body Furuatakku first acts against a peaceful spot that is not done fighting. （相手の場にクリーチャー１０体、自分の場にクリーチャー５体とタンブルマグネット、伝染病の留め金） (Body 10 in place of other creatures, 5 Tanburumagunetto creature into play with your body, clasp of infectious diseases)

[Meekrab]

About time. He's been doing this for so long.
Pretty much this, but more importantly:

I found the photoshopped pictures of Saito holding up trophies with the word cheater on them to be in extremely poor taste, and likely won't ever visit this website again.

[JACO]

Pretty much this, but more importantly:

I found the photoshopped pictures of Saito holding up trophies with the word cheater on them to be in extremely poor taste, and likely won't ever visit this website again.Why? Was it innacurate?

It was meant to be humorous, but if it is that offensive (even though it's true, as you yourself have written), why is it actually offensive to your sensibilities? I'm genuinely curious, as I don't like doing things in poor taste that would detract from the website. He has been cheating for quite some time, has a rep about for doing it, and was finally busted. I found it entertaining. If we as players don't start calling out other players and the DCI continues to let people who have a demonstrative history of cheating enter the Magic Hall of Fame then the trend will only continue.

[dschalter]

Why? Was it innacurate?

It was meant to be humorous, but if it is that offensive (even though it's true, as you yourself have written), why is it actually offensive to your sensibilities? I'm genuinely curious, as I don't like doing things in poor taste that would detract from the website. He has been cheating for quite some time, has a rep about for doing it, and was finally busted. I found it entertaining. If we as players don't start calling out other players and the DCI continues to let people who have a demonstrative history of cheating enter the Magic Hall of Fame then the trend will only continue.

It is very tacky. You don't need to embellish your (reasonable) argument with a dumb looking photoshop.

[majikal]

Looks like your photoshops kicked some sand into some people's vaginas JACO. I, however, thought they were amusing and well-deserved.

[Meekrab]

Why?
It's sort of like showing up to an alcoholic's funeral and passing out AA brochures. You may have good intentions, but you look like a jackass.

[majikal]

It's sort of like showing up to an alcoholic's funeral and passing out AA brochures. You may have good intentions, but you look like a jackass.
Because cheating is a tragic sickness that we should pity rather than punish?

[SpikeyMikey]

It is very tacky. You don't need to embellish your (reasonable) argument with a dumb looking photoshop.

I found them amusing. What I find tacky and offensive is the people who condone what he did as merely 'pushing the envelope' because he's 'very competitive'. Tiger Woods is very competitive, but he manages to play his game without cheating to win.

I sell a little bit of meth to high schoolers on the weekends, but it's ok, because it's just a little bit and meth isn't as serious as crack or heroin. I'm very competitive, you see, and need the money to keep up with all the new things my neighbor is buying.

I cheated on a test. I copied answers off the guy sitting next to me. But only a few dozen, and it's not as bad as if I had stolen an answer key to study off of. I'm very competitive, and sometimes I push the envelope.

I got a blowjob from my wife's best friend today. It wasn't like I actually nailed her. It's just a little pushing of the enevelope, it's not full on cheating. Besides, the guys at work were talking about their exploits and I had to have something to one up them with.


Also, if you let me get you hooked on ice or cheat on your test, it's your own fault for not doing more to stop me. And it's my wife's fault for having slutty friends. It's really on your shoulders if you let me get away with this kind of behavior.

TL,DR: if you think Saito is ok, check your moral compass. It may be broken.

[wcm8]

Ummm, I think comparing selling crystal meth to children to stalling in mtg is more than a bit ridiculous.

And yeah, I do think that if someone was blatantly playing the clock and you didn't call a judge, it's your own fault. Just because it's not as directly obvious as stacking the deck or drawing extra cards doesn't mean that you shouldn't use the judge as a resource. People just need to be more aware of what is allowable under tournament rules.

[rleader]

Saito is probably an ok dude. OTOH, if the Pro Tour by its nature turns ok people into dicks, maybe it's not in Hasbro's best interest to maintain it, especially when their trained dickwolves start to interact with the general public. (GPs, 5Ks, MTGO, etc.)

Wizards, of course, supports their behavior because it makes things "more storied" (Maro's apologetics for Long, et al.). OTOH, some suit somewhere up the food chain is eventually going to hear from a friend how his or her kid was treated by a pro and the PT will go the way of player rewards.

When Gerry T (also an ok guy by me! no sarcasm at all) seriously goes on about how playing with a die as a prop to deliberately misrepresent the game state and how that's ok because outside of variance pro players pretty much all play perfectly so creating storylines is the only thing that keeps playing fresh and interesting for those in the lifestyle, only to have just about everyone on the SCG forum fall in line as sycophants, I can't see a reason to refuse Saito a spot on the hall of fame.

OTOH, I have to wonder how long things are going to go on like this. Wizards clearly thinks things are fine. Hasbro could change its mind though at any moment. I wonder if Saito and co. should be treading carefully to preserve the bubble or fiddling like there's no tomorrow. :shrug:

[Meekrab]

TL,DR: if you think Saito is ok, check your moral compass. It may be broken.
I don't think the things Saito has done in tournaments are 'ok'. But news outlets that want to be taken seriously have a responsibility to report the facts, not their opinions. There's a reason you'll never see Fox News run a story about Obama and caption the photo 'N***** Immigrant Communist In Chief', even if that's what half their audience secretly believes.

[SpikeyMikey]

Ummm, I think comparing selling crystal meth to children to stalling in mtg is more than a bit ridiculous.

And yeah, I do think that if someone was blatantly playing the clock and you didn't call a judge, it's your own fault. Just because it's not as directly obvious as stacking the deck or drawing extra cards doesn't mean that you shouldn't use the judge as a resource. People just need to be more aware of what is allowable under tournament rules.

There are eyewitness accounts of him doing the same thing at Columbus. That means he cheated someone out of several thousand dollars. It's reasonable to believe, as there has been a pattern of behavior here, that it's not the only time that he's done so. How does that strike you as a minor thing. If he robbed a bank and took off with 3 or 4 grand, it'd be a felony, but if he defrauds a couple people out of the money, good on him. That's their fault for letting it happen. And the people that miss T8 because Saito cheated his way in aren't even necessarily the ones he cheated against.

So how much money does he have to steal, I'm sorry, defraud, before he's on par with a meth dealer? 5K? 10K? 50K? Or can we just agree that what he does is wrong and has a massive deleterious effect on others?

[wcm8]

Why did these eyewitnesses not call a judge? It'd be like the bankteller in your example not calling the police, except that Saito wasn't pointing a gun at anyone's head. There really isn't a good correlation here between stalling and a true criminal offense.

If you enter into a tournament with the intention of winning, it is your responsibilty to know the rules since they are made publicly known. This goes for people cheating (ignorance of the law is not a defense) and also those being 'swindled' by their opponent stalling. Time management is not something most magic players probably focus on, but is an essential part of winning any sort of organized tournament. It is your responsibility to make sure both you and your opponent are playing fairly, whether this means keeping accurate life totals, maintaining the proper card rulings, or stalling.

[KevinTrudeau]

Why did these eyewitnesses not call a judge?

I was there at Columbus, there was a judge sitting right next to Saito and the guy playing Jacestill for most of the match since they both got deckchecked and had a time extension. For some reason, he just didn't do anything.

Until we know the specifics of the Saito DQ at Florence, I don't think there is enough against Saito to strip him of his HOF bid.

[BKclassic]

I think the thing to read into this is that Wizards is addressing the problem of slow play by hanging Hall of Fame prospect Saito out to dry. I think we've all seen people employ Saito like tactics at competitive events, wasting time scrutinizing over obvious decisions. The slow play rule was only been partially effective because Wizards didn't want to impeed on people using excessive amounts of time to contemplate hard decisions, because there is no objective way to establish which decisions are easy and which are hard. This ruling is a good move because it addresses the slow play rule's problem by looking for a general pattern of wasting time when that is beneficial to a player. Establishing this as cheating will give judges a much better tool to stop this act, definitely a good way to improve tournaments.

[Finn]

I'm with Spikey. Professional Magic has a serious culture issue. The fact that anyone sees a guy favorably who routinely bends the rules to gain an edge over players who either don't know to call him on it or are not as cut throat is evidence. Nobody reading this thread should be thinking that bending the rules successfully makes him a better player. It only seems that way because Wotc has never been able to remove the dick factor from tournaments. And we are so used to reading about it that we have accepted something we should not be willing to accept. If you are possessed of superior play skill and/or have the superior deck, you should win. Ability to cheat your opponent out of his deserved victory over you because you are willing to break the rules is not a one of these. This is a question of class, and it is conspicuously absent from the tournament scene.

[Aggro_zombies]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/message-from-channelfireball-regarding-the-disqualification-of-tomoharu-saito-at-gp-florence/

Here is Saito's statement on the matter. Surprisingly, he has been dropped as a writer from Channelfireball, although I have to say I agree with the decision (but was not expecting it).

EDIT: The comments will give you AIDS, so don't read them.

That aside, it is interesting that he is so unrepentant in his statement, given how widespread and repeated the allegations against him are. One would think that the best move would be to at least appear apologetic, regardless of whether or not he actually is, mostly because not being so is likely to make the DCI take a harder stance against him. You don't become famous for slow playing game threes you're losing and then claim you "didn't know you were stalling." A pattern across multiple events suggests either a deep-seated inability to play the game like other players of similar caliber, or a deliberate attempt to stall the match into a draw.

What's really shocking is that people in the comments - and on this site, no less - keep labeling this a "minor" cheating offense. That kind of mindset is why competitive Magic is such a crapshoot; if players spent less time trying to justify ripping you off and more time focusing on being good, competitive games would be both more pleasant and more legitimate.

[dschalter]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/message-from-channelfireball-regarding-the-disqualification-of-tomoharu-saito-at-gp-florence/

Here is Saito's statement on the matter. Surprisingly, he has been dropped as a writer from Channelfireball, although I have to say I agree with the decision (but was not expecting it).

EDIT: The comments will give you AIDS, so don't read them.

I don't think it's a surprise at all, especially when you consider the fact that most of his articles are about proper magic etiquette, not strategy.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

[EDIT: The comments will give you AIDS, so don't read them.

Seriously? That comment page was probably the most innocuous user-submitted content I've ever read on that site. Rather than, "Magic is fukin gay, and you guys are fukn fat." (actual copy-pasted comment from the MTV #65 thread, though admittedly I lol'd), there's a reasonable discussion taking place, which is far more than I can say for here.

People are welcome to (wrongly) insist that Saito's manipulating the clock within the limits of his warnings is cheating. Opinions are something everyone's entitled to regardless of factual basis. By no means is this a possible comparison to actual cheating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating). If you've got a problem with slow play, call a judge. That's very literally what they're there for.

But strip him of his deserved HoF induction and cancel his tenure at CFB all over a pending accusation? One which WotC and the DCI have yet to indict him for? Rather than something sarcastic, I'll just say it's tragic to see one of modern Magic's greatest players and strategists is considered guilty until proven innocent.

[Aggro_zombies]

I don't think it's a surprise at all, especially when you consider the fact that most of his articles are about proper magic etiquette, not strategy.
You would think. But given the number of people defending him in the comments ("How could a person who writes about tournament etiquette POSSIBLY be a cheater?!"), this move is likely to be a bit contentious.

Either way, they did the right thing by dropping him.

EDIT:

People are welcome to (wrongly) insist that Saito's manipulating the clock within the limits of his warnings is cheating. Opinions are something everyone's entitled to regardless of factual basis. By no means is this a possible comparison to actual cheating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating). If you've got a problem with slow play, call a judge. That's very literally what they're there for.

But strip him of his deserved HoF induction and cancel his tenure at CFB all over a pending accusation? One which WotC and the DCI have yet to indict him for? Rather than something sarcastic, I'll just say it's tragic to see one of modern Magic's greatest players and strategists is considered guilty until proven innocent.
So, you are playing game three. You are winning. Your opponent reads Jace once per turn, checks your graveyard once per turn, counts cards once per turn, tries to figure out whether to Waste your Factory once per turn, and thinks about whether to Daze your spell when you have four mana up and know the counter is a Daze. And this is not attempting to manipulate the clock to deprive you of a win...how, exactly? Furthermore, the fact that similar accusations have been made by his opponents from previous tournaments doesn't point to a deliberate pattern of behavior to you? Or are they just lying because they're butthurt they lost to Saito?

The fact that some players consider breaching rules that are very explicitly defined to not be cheating is part of the reason why it's so rampant at large tournaments.

If the guy cheated, it doesn't matter how "deserving" he is of his HoF induction. The fact that judges at the event seemed to have been on the lookout expressly for Saito's stalling (he was busted after having played only three rounds, since he had three byes) would seem to indicate that a pattern had been detected previously and that the DCI wanted the maximum amount of evidence before proceeding. Given that a common defense for him has been that "stalling is subjective," this scenario seems to me like the DCI is hedging its bets by being thorough.

But apparently people are willing to defend cheaters by rationalizing the cheating...

[dschalter]

Seriously? That comment page was probably the most innocuous user-submitted content I've ever read on that site. Rather than, "Magic is fukin gay, and you guys are fukn fat." (actual copy-pasted comment from the MTV #65 thread, though admittedly I lol'd), there's a reasonable discussion taking place, which is far more than I can say for here.

People are welcome to (wrongly) insist that Saito's manipulating the clock within the limits of his warnings is cheating. Opinions are something everyone's entitled to regardless of factual basis. By no means is this a possible comparison to actual cheating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating). If you've got a problem with slow play, call a judge. That's very literally what they're there for.

But strip him of his deserved HoF induction and cancel his tenure at CFB all over a pending accusation? One which WotC and the DCI have yet to indict him for? Rather than something sarcastic, I'll just say it's tragic to see one of modern Magic's greatest players and strategists is considered guilty until proven innocent.

I agree that the discussion there is more reasonable (from what I can tell the above poster has a problem with some people there defending Saito), but, assuming you aren't being sarcastic, it's worth nothing that this isn't pending. He was found by judges to be stalling, which is considered cheating. There is a more a gray area with stalling than other forms of cheating, but it isn't "guilty until proven innocent" situation.

[cdr]

I think the thing to read into this is that Wizards is addressing the problem of slow play by hanging Hall of Fame prospect Saito out to dry. I think we've all seen people employ Saito like tactics at competitive events, wasting time scrutinizing over obvious decisions. The slow play rule was only been partially effective because Wizards didn't want to impeed on people using excessive amounts of time to contemplate hard decisions, because there is no objective way to establish which decisions are easy and which are hard. This ruling is a good move because it addresses the slow play rule's problem by looking for a general pattern of wasting time when that is beneficial to a player. Establishing this as cheating will give judges a much better tool to stop this act, definitely a good way to improve tournaments.

You misunderstand Slow Play and Stalling, two very different parts of the infraction rules. There's no relation between the two. A player can be Stalling without even necessarily being in the range of Slow Play.

Not playing fast enough is Tournament Error - Slow Play, with a warning the first time and a game loss the second. The slow play rule is effective for what it is because it does not try to take account anything but how fast a player is playing - you get the same amount of time whether the board is complicated or empty, or whether your decision is easy or hard. The goal of enforcing Slow Play infractions is to encourage players to play fast enough to be able to finish their match within the allotted round time.

Wasting time intentionally with the intent to take advantage of the time limit is Cheating - Stalling. Stalling is only given when there's a reasonable certainty that the player has been trying to manipulate the clock.

[Meekrab]

The slow play rule is effective for what it is because it does not try to take account anything but how fast a player is playing - you get the same amount of time whether the board is complicated or empty, or whether your decision is easy or hard.

Wasting time intentionally with the intent to manipulate the clock is Cheating - Stalling.
And this is why everyone who plays Legacy should also play Vintage as practice... it's fairly easy to play TES against Dreadstill if you've played Gush Tendrils against Tezzeret Control a few hundred times.

[Cthuloo]

So, you are playing game three. You are winning. Your opponent reads Jace once per turn, checks your graveyard once per turn, counts cards once per turn, tries to figure out whether to Waste your Factory once per turn, and thinks about whether to Daze your spell when you have four mana up and know the counter is a Daze. And this is not attempting to manipulate the clock to deprive you of a win...how, exactly? Furthermore, the fact that similar accusations have been made by his opponents from previous tournaments doesn't point to a deliberate pattern of behavior to you? Or are they just lying because they're butthurt they lost to Saito?

I think this just deserve to be quoted. I see a lot of people claiming that stalling =\ cheating. It is not. It is even worse that drawing an extra card or two, since if it works it guarantees you don't lose a game you deserved to lose. Anyways, I don't know personally Saito, nor did I witness any of his attempt to cheat, but if indeed he has repeatedly:
a) ruined the game for a lot of other people
b) robbed them of a bunch of money
c) given a bad example to some thounsands of young kids

he deserves a long DQ and no HoF membership at all.

[dontbiteitholmes]

Seriously? That comment page was probably the most innocuous user-submitted content I've ever read on that site. Rather than, "Magic is fukin gay, and you guys are fukn fat." (actual copy-pasted comment from the MTV #65 thread, though admittedly I lol'd), there's a reasonable discussion taking place, which is far more than I can say for here.

People are welcome to (wrongly) insist that Saito's manipulating the clock within the limits of his warnings is cheating. Opinions are something everyone's entitled to regardless of factual basis. By no means is this a possible comparison to actual cheating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating). If you've got a problem with slow play, call a judge. That's very literally what they're there for.

But strip him of his deserved HoF induction and cancel his tenure at CFB all over a pending accusation? One which WotC and the DCI have yet to indict him for? Rather than something sarcastic, I'll just say it's tragic to see one of modern Magic's greatest players and strategists is considered guilty until proven innocent.

I hate stalling as much as anyone, let me just say that right now. I haven't come across it very often simply because I tend to be very liberal with calling judges at the first sign that my opponent is attempting to use time to his advantage. Sometimes I'll even call the judges before I see any signs of my opponent using time against me just because it seems like it might be a possibility and I want a judge to come watch for it as time is suddenly a valuable resource (example, we are both playing slow decks but I'm favored to win after SB and we just started game 3 with 10 minutes left in round). Yes, stalling is cheating, obviously. Anyone who says it is not cheating is glossing it over. There are many times when slow playing will give you a much bigger advantage than if you had marked your cards and could always tell what was on top of your deck. There's just no way around it slow play can be huge.

That said, I think a lot of people use time to their advantage even though they don't slow play and thus are inclined to call slow play a lesser infraction and an equally large % of players have slow played at some point in Magic but would never mark cards or lie outright in a game. I don't slow play, I never have not even once. That said I have used time to my advantage. Sometimes I might see there is one minute left in the round on your turn and then when you pass it to me with 20 seconds left I will quickly draw and pass it back just so I get that one extra turn. I see slow play as cheating because you are attempting to win the game outside of the rules and without actually winning it. Of course I don't see it as serious as marking cards or lying or drawing extra cards for whatever reason, but yeah it's still cheating.

The worst thing about stalling though is the grey area it presents to judges. I've been in games where a judge was sitting there watching on my request and never said or did anything as multiple infractions went past. I've also been in games where something I wouldn't even call slow play was called by a judge not called to the game and penalized (there was still 5 minutes left in round the play decided the winner/loser and it took the guy about 2 1/2 minutes to make decision with a combo deck). Like it or not a lot of judges are timid to call on grey areas. It's easy to call most penalties, either your cards are marked or they are not, either you drew extra cards or you didn't, stalling is harder. When a pro player is involved it gets even dicier. If Saito has absolutely no decision to make and he draws a card, looks at a hand full of basic land and a hopeless board for 30 seconds then passes every turn do you give him a penalty? Then you have to be that guy that gave Saito a penalty, what if he gets a non-related penalty later and combined with yours it makes him lose, then he goes on his blog or whatever and "explains" that what he was actually doing was trying to make the opponent think he had a play when he didn't so that the opponent would misplay a card and give him the opening to win. Now you have the whole internet jumping down your ass crack. Now imagine if you're not even standing where you can see his cards or he holds them close to the vest, it only gets harder because he might actually have a trick in his hand.

[Nelis]

I found them amusing. What I find tacky and offensive is the people who condone what he did as merely 'pushing the envelope' because he's 'very competitive'. Tiger Woods is very competitive, but he manages to play his game without cheating to win.

But Woods apparently did feel a need to cheat in another way. :wink:

[Skeggi]

I found them amusing. What I find tacky and offensive is the people who condone what he did as merely 'pushing the envelope' because he's 'very competitive'. Tiger Woods is very competitive, but he manages to play his game without cheating to win.
Actually Tiger Woods did cheat. That's why he crashed his car. (edit: ah boo, I'm ninjaad by a Vulvaap)

On topic: I'm glad they finally caught Saito. He's been at it for a quite a while now, and he's finally caught. I hope it''ll be an example to everyone out there trying to cheat.

[jazzykat]

If he was a clock manipulating master which it sounds from all the interweb bitching that he is a ninja at then I am pleased he got thrown out and hope he is suspended for a long time and is not inducted into the Hall of Fame. It's one thing to pull a stupid thing like Caleb D and bet on yourself, it is another thing to systematically and knowlingly cheat tournament after tournament with clear motives.

Life sucks, he should have played faster.

[Nelis]

Actually Tiger Woods did cheat. That's why he crashed his car. (edit: ah boo, I'm ninjaad by a Vulvaap)

On topic: I'm glad they finally caught Saito. He's been at it for a quite a while now, and he's finally caught. I hope it''ll be an example to everyone out there trying to cheat.

Monkey business!

Somebody once told me that he was convinced that all pro-players cheat because he thought they otherwise wouldn't be able to put up good results all the time.

[Pippin]

It's one thing to pull a stupid thing like Caleb D and bet on yourself

That wasn't Caleb (guy who top 8'ed Columbus and unleashed vengevine-survival on legacy), but Drew Levin

[DragoFireheart]

Everyone justifying Satios slow-playing by saying he still deserves any sort of Hall of Fame sickens me. No, if you purposely manipulate the rules and bend them to the point of cheating and causing judges to be on the lookout for you, you get nothing. Stop encouraging bad behavior.

[Michael Keller]

Rules enforcement is an obvious necessity and is upheld (usually) to the highest standards of the judge's interpretation directly as to what a rule clearly states. I would caution people to be a little more careful in (at the very least) the near future, because I guarantee you Saito wasn't targeted specifically for his own individual actions; he was targeted by officials to maintain the integrity of the game. But rest assured, in the days and weeks to follow, if you're attending a large event you had better be prepared to follow the rules very carefully - especially when it comes to Stalling.

Saito was just a pawn in the larger scheme of things. Because of his well-known status in the competitive Legacy community, people genuinely looked up to him as a mentor; someone who could provide them the keys to victory in large events. One could even make the case some people will follow his style of play because it brought him so much success before (I'm not saying everyone, mind you). There are some people out there willing to bend the rules against a weaker-minded opponent who might not be willing to call a judge because they are either afraid or inexperienced to understand what is actually happening in front of them. While it may be the player's responsibility to report such an infraction, it doesn't make it right even if it goes unnoticed.

This hard-line stance by those judges and the D.C.I. was a good move to uphold the integrity of sanctioned, high-level competitive Magic. Saito paid the price for his actions, and I wouldn't bet against a more severe punishment to ensue.

[alphacat]

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/message-from-channelfireball-regarding-the-disqualification-of-tomoharu-saito-at-gp-florence/

Here is Saito's statement on the matter. Surprisingly, he has been dropped as a writer from Channelfireball, although I have to say I agree with the decision (but was not expecting it).


I find it rather ironic for LSV to think that this event will damage Channelfireball's reputation. I mean, is he really blind to the fact that CFB is INFAMOUS for being a terrible magic merchant site?

[Julian23]

Still it does damage CF's reputation. So he's right - no need to rant against CF.

[Jeff Kruchkow]

Everyone justifying Satios slow-playing by saying he still deserves any sort of Hall of Fame sickens me. No, if you purposely manipulate the rules and bend them to the point of cheating and causing judges to be on the lookout for you, you get nothing. Stop encouraging bad behavior.

I consider it more of a failing of the DCI than him as a player. The fact of the matter is that he had been doing it for an incredibly long time with not so much as a warning. Naturally, since o one said otherwise he simply continued to play at his agonizingly slow pace. Had one judge just stepped up earlier and warned him instead of being so intimidated of him, this whole ugly mess could have been avoided.
Also, I'd still let Saito into the HoF. I give the guy benefit of the doubt as far as knowingly cheating goes and the fact remains that he is still an exceptional player.

[dschalter]

Everyone justifying Satios slow-playing by saying he still deserves any sort of Hall of Fame sickens me. No, if you purposely manipulate the rules and bend them to the point of cheating and causing judges to be on the lookout for you, you get nothing. Stop encouraging bad behavior.

Integrity is just one component the the voters are supposed to look at. While some people think that there should be no cheaters in the Hall of Fame, my feeling is that these things exist to honor great players who have made great contributions to the game, warts and all. Obviously cheating is a negative, but I don't see it as an instant disqualifier.

[cdr]

I consider it more of a failing of the DCI than him as a player. The fact of the matter is that he had been doing it for an incredibly long time with not so much as a warning. Naturally, since o one said otherwise he simply continued to play at his agonizingly slow pace. Had one judge just stepped up earlier and warned him instead of being so intimidated of him, this whole ugly mess could have been avoided.
Also, I'd still let Saito into the HoF. I give the guy benefit of the doubt as far as knowingly cheating goes and the fact remains that he is still an exceptional player.

You don't get Warnings for Stalling, you get a DQ. Saito has been warned for Slow Play before - which is, again, completely different from Stalling.

Slow Play Is Not Stalling.

[Jeff Kruchkow]

You don't get Warnings for Stalling, you get a DQ. Saito has been warned for Slow Play before - which is, again, completely different from Stalling.

Slow Play Is Not Stalling.

I understand this. But from a "whats actually happening in the game" perspective especially for Saito who constantly reevaluates to board, they look very much alike. What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that this is the first time his slow play actually crossed over to stalling. Not getting it earlier just condoned it for him and made him push more. Slow play isn't stalling but they are very much alike since all that seperates the two is motive.

[Aggro_zombies]

I understand this. But from a "whats actually happening in the game" perspective especially for Saito who constantly reevaluates to board, they look very much alike. What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that this is the first time his slow play actually crossed over to stalling. Not getting it earlier just condoned it for him and made him push more. Slow play isn't stalling but they are very much alike since all that seperates the two is motive.
Saito can quite briskly when he wants to do so (like when, say, there's lots of time left in the round). I watched him in Columbus and he doesn't seem to be any more perplexed by complex board states than most other pros...provided he's not on the ropes.

[Julian23]

I understand this. But from a "whats actually happening in the game" perspective especially for Saito who constantly reevaluates to board, they look very much alike. What I'm saying is that I find it hard to believe that this is the first time his slow play actually crossed over to stalling. Not getting it earlier just condoned it for him and made him push more. Slow play isn't stalling but they are very much alike since all that seperates the two is motive.

So basically you're saying he's either cheating (stalling) or bad (slow playing). I'd opt for the first one.

[cdr]

The problem is having a judge in a position to observe a particular player Stalling, and having that judge be experienced enough to be able to recognize it. Outside of a player being under specific surveillance, not easy when it's a 1400 player GP with at best 40 judges on the floor or a 160 player day 2 with half a dozen judges on the floor.

This is why as a spectator if you suspect a player is cheating, whether stalling or otherwise, you should discretely bring it to the attention of a judge - a high level judge if at all possible. The resources of judges are at the thinnest at a GP, so we are reliant on players bringing things to our attention.

[2Rach]

Where's the difference? Although the issue of bribery can be contested in the first place (in case of Saito) I'd argue that it's even worse than in-game cheating.
If you're stalling, you're going for the draw. That may or may not give you a win for the match, but if you stack your deck or draw an extra card you're more likely to win the game. Much better outcome. Though that's neither here nor there, we can't poll or test for all the cheating that has gone down in Magic and get actual facts regarding what's better cheating. This is subjective with the information we have.



But stalling does happen in-game...?
The reason stalling is a factor is because of the clock outside the game.



How or why is this different? Stalling is still manipulating the game state for your benefit, and is easier to pull off regularly and gain more wins from than stacking your deck. It is just as immoral, and that is why it is also grounds for immediate disqualification. People don't unknowingly Stall for competitive advantage, it's a calculated action.
I disagree with it being just as immoral. The deed's less severe since the potential consequence is less fruitful.


To those talking about his history(not the incident in 2001, the other speculation), it has no say on the matter. Everyone screaming bloody murder right now wouldn't be screaming about those "other times" if he didn't get pinched here. You'd be calling him Saito the Great currently. There wasn't concrete basis to believe him being the rampant cheater that you now say he is, and there still isn't.

With regard to my saying "I'd still vote him in". I would. His cheating is not all he's done, he's still a great player and theorist, and still has accomplished a lot in MTG. Innocent until proven guilty. And he was just proven guilty (recently) this one time. If he had more bad marks, I wouldn't, but that's not the case.


Dontbiteitholmes made a good point about the gray area there is in judging slow play on page 2.

[JACO]

It's sort of like showing up to an alcoholic's funeral and passing out AA brochures. You may have good intentions, but you look like a jackass.Really? I didn't know I was showing up to anyone's funeral. You still have not answered anything in regards to my questions about the fact that he did indeed cheat. But as a writer and editor I have taken your notes into account and have made a slight edit to the article to add an Editor's Note to explain the pictures. We do value your opinion, even though we disagree. ;)


If you're stalling, you're going for the draw. That may or may not give you a win for the match, but if you stack your deck or draw an extra card you're more likely to win the game. Much better outcome. Though that's neither here nor there, we can't poll or test for all the cheating that has gone down in Magic and get actual facts regarding what's better cheating. This is subjective with the information we have...I disagree with it being just as immoral. The deed's less severe since the potential consequence is less fruitful.First of all, if you're Stalling you're not necessarily going for a Draw. You could have won Game 1 and be Stalling Game 2 out to go for a Win, or you could be the Storm player Stalling Game 2 out because you know only your deck in the match has a reasonable opportunity to win a Game 3 if there happened to be 3 minutes remaining in the round. There are many different ways Stalling can help you, so I don't know what you are trying to explain away here if you think it's only for the purposes of Stalling.

It is much easier to continually pull off an act of Stalling and not get DQed then it is to continually or repeatedly draw extra cards and not get DQed. If you can manipulate the clock enough there is a virtual guarantee of the outcome being decided in your favor, which is unlike most other types of cheating (shuffle cheats, drawing extra cards, adding extra cards to sealed deck, etc.). You really underestimate the ability Stalling as a type of cheating, which I'm guessing most judges can chime in and will resolutely disagree with your interpretation.


Dontbiteitholmes made a good point about the gray area there is in judging slow play on page 2.There isn't really a "grey area" when talking about Stalling. As defined by the rules (and what judge cdr is trying to follow up and tell readers repeatedly in this thread) Slow Play is one thing, and Stalling is entirely another. That's why there are seperate penalties and sanctions for those acts. They are fundamentally different.

[SpikeyMikey]

Integrity is just one component the the voters are supposed to look at. While some people think that there should be no cheaters in the Hall of Fame, my feeling is that these things exist to honor great players who have made great contributions to the game, warts and all. Obviously cheating is a negative, but I don't see it as an instant disqualifier.

What great contribution has he made? A few big wins? He's had a reputation for slow play and stalling for a long time. Without cheating, he's another run-of-the mill PT regular. If we're going off contributions, there's a laundry list of people that should be there before him. Ed Paltzik for his revolutionalizing T1 on 3 separate occasions with BSB, Legend Suicide Black and Ankh Sligh. His Suicide Black primer was huge in terms of Magic theory. Mike Flores, the greatest Magic theorist to date. You know, Philosophy of Fire, Who's the Beatdown, that sort of thing? Even our own Finn, who created Legacy Merfolk (the deck Saito won his last GP with) and Death and Taxes. Fuck, I've contributed more to Magic than Saito.

But the HoF is set up to be a reward for high-caliber players, not people who make large contributions to the game. Otherwise Richard Garfield would be in the HoF. If you don't have 100 Pro Points, you can't get in. Contributions have nothing to do with it.

[dschalter]

The SLOW PLAY IS NOT STALLING fact, has been repeated several hundred times now, which is nice. That doesn't mean that there are times when it is possible to confuse one for the other. I'm not saying it is likely and there are usually ways to tell, but people are talking about it as though there is some blinking red light that goes off over the head of a player who is playing slowly and is trying trying to run down the clock to force a 1-0 win or draw, and that there will be a blinking green light if the player is innocently tanking and needs to be warned for slow play.

[cdr]

Absolutely, absent awareness of intent Stalling will often look like Slow Play. This is true of pretty much all Cheating, since cheating is defined by intent. Judges have to always keep in mind the possibility that something else might be going on beyond what's on the surface, and that's not easy when you're trying to keep the tournament moving. Less experienced judges can often need to be too focused on getting the basics right to have that higher awareness, and the majority of a GP staff is going to be less experienced judges. A one-off cheat, especially at a GP, is unlikely to be caught - cheaters get caught because they keep cheating.

I keep seeing posts though where people are very obviously not clear on the difference between Slow Play and Stalling (or even that there is a difference), which is why I keep attempting to clarify.

Saito got DQed for deliberately playing slowly to run out the clock, not for simply playing slowly.

[kkoie]

Why? Was it innacurate?

It was meant to be humorous, but if it is that offensive (even though it's true, as you yourself have written), why is it actually offensive to your sensibilities? I'm genuinely curious, as I don't like doing things in poor taste that would detract from the website. He has been cheating for quite some time, has a rep about for doing it, and was finally busted. I found it entertaining. If we as players don't start calling out other players and the DCI continues to let people who have a demonstrative history of cheating enter the Magic Hall of Fame then the trend will only continue.

Well I don't know about Meekrabs sensibilities, but I personally found the photo's to be humorous, but skirting the edge for serious reporting. Technically he never got a trophy for cheating. And by photoshopping the pix, some individuals take that as satire, when they are wanting factual reporting.

Now as far as your editorial clarification, it certainly adds weight in giving you an out that it's a jab at humor and not bent to suggest that all of his trophies for past events are invalid (maybe you do think that, I would appreciate that comment, but that would be opinion not fact). It would've been amusing if you had an opportunity to fire such a question at a WotC official, just so you can quote the question in your article and briefly cover the responce:

Reporter - "Mr Wizard, now that it has been determined that Saito has a history of cheating, will there be any investigation regarding his past tournament wins and whether or not he should return his trophie's and prize money?"
WotC - "no."

Sure the answer is obvious, but you still get the question in there which makes Saito look even worse, just by asking the question about his past wins.

[2Rach]

First of all, if you're Stalling you're not necessarily going for a Draw. You could have won Game 1 and be Stalling Game 2 out to go for a Win, or you could be the Storm player Stalling Game 2 out because you know only your deck in the match has a reasonable opportunity to win a Game 3 if there happened to be 3 minutes remaining in the round. There are many different ways Stalling can help you, so I don't know what you are trying to explain away here if you think it's only for the purposes of Stalling.

It is much easier to continually pull off an act of Stalling and not get DQed then it is to continually or repeatedly draw extra cards and not get DQed. If you can manipulate the clock enough there is a virtual guarantee of the outcome being decided in your favor, which is unlike most other types of cheating (shuffle cheats, drawing extra cards, adding extra cards to sealed deck, etc.). You really underestimate the ability Stalling as a type of cheating, which I'm guessing most judges can chime in and will resolutely disagree with your interpretation.

There isn't really a "grey area" when talking about Stalling. As defined by the rules (and what judge cdr is trying to follow up and tell readers repeatedly in this thread) Slow Play is one thing, and Stalling is entirely another. That's why there are seperate penalties and sanctions for those acts. They are fundamentally different.
Yeah, I said "That may or may not give you a win for the match". When I typed it up I must have cut the more specific phrasing out.

It doesn't change the fact that the consequences are different. Stalling just ends the game in a draw. You can actually win the game with the other types of cheating. If you're stalling or drawing extra cards, cheating means you're most likely losing. In either scenario, if you fail it doesn't matter. If you succeed, stalling for the draw is worse than drawing extra cards for the win. And likewise, if you succeed, a draw is better than a loss for your opponent meaning less harm is done to him. Overall less harm is done to the integrity of the tournament. (To be clear, I think any cheating is wrong, just that stalling is less harmful than other cheating and therefore less immoral.)


I wasn't really thinking of the legal phrasing, I thought of them as the same when I typed my post. (Edit: Which is weird, because when I stopped treating "stalling" or "slow play" like titles and interpreted them as words, the difference is obvious. lol) My, and other peoples', misunderstanding of stalling compared to slow play just shows that there's gray area. You'll go through the same motions if you're doing either. The intent is the difference, not the act. That's the gray area I think about and what I think makes it hard to judge accordingly.

[CorpT]

It doesn't change the fact that the consequences are different. Stalling just ends the game in a draw. You can actually win the game with the other types of cheating. If you're stalling or drawing extra cards, cheating means you're most likely losing. In either scenario, if you fail it doesn't matter. If you succeed, stalling for the draw is worse than drawing extra cards for the win. And likewise, if you succeed, a draw is better than a loss for your opponent meaning less harm is done to him. Overall less harm is done to the integrity of the tournament. (To be clear, I think any cheating is wrong, just that stalling is less harmful than other cheating therefore less immoral.)

You're aware that it is possible to win game 1 then stall game 2 and win the match, right?

[2Rach]

You're aware that it is possible to win game 1 then stall game 2 and win the match, right?
That was what my first sentence in response to his post was about. It still amounts to less winning than other forms when successful.

*in

[DragoFireheart]

That was what my first sentence is response to his post was about. It still amounts to less winning than other forms when successful.

"Stabbing someone with a knife is not as dangerous as shooting them with a gun. It's just less successful at killing the person".

Winning is winning, killing is killing and cheating is cheating.

[2Rach]

"Stabbing someone with a knife is not as dangerous as shooting them with a gun. It's just less successful at killing the person".

Winning is winning, killing is killing and cheating is cheating.
Yes, and there are different degrees. Killing one person? You get life in jail. Killing 18 million? You kill yourself or you get the death penalty. :D I brought Hitler up, do I win the argument?

[CorpT]

Yes, and there are different degrees. Killing one person? You get life in jail. Killing 18 million? You kill yourself or you get the death penalty. :D I brought Hitler up, do I win the argument?

So how many people does Saito need to cheat for you to agree that it is as bad as drawing extra cards?

[2Rach]

14,045,931.04 people. Yes, .04. lol

You're being literal. It's not about the quantity, it's about the severity. Stalling is never as bad as drawing extra cards in my opinion. If he stalled in 10 games it's not as bad as drawing extra cards in 10 games. (When we're doing an even comparison; if he stalled in 10 games and only drew extra cards in 1 obviously the former is worse. For example, one game drawing extra cards is -1 and one game stalling is -0.5. By this metric, stalling will never be worse than drawing extra cards, but you can make up the difference with stalling more often. This doesn't make stalling worse than drawing extra cards. This is just an example to show my view, and not an actual measurement for what I value their impact on the integrity of a tournament.)


EDIT:
Another example:

Guy 1 goes up to a person, pulls out a gun and tells him "give me your money". The person doesn't, so Guy 1 shoots the person dead and runs away.

Guy 2 goes up to a person, pulls out a gun and tells him "give me your money". The person doesn't, so Guy 2 shoots the person in the neck to let him choke on his blood to death, laughing while he runs away.

They're both pieces of shit, but one's obviously a bigger piece of shit.

[SpikeyMikey]

Winning games doesn't matter. You can lose game 1 and be on the verge of losing game 2 when your opponent gets themselves a match loss. And you're 1-0-0 and they're 0-1-0. Just like losing a creature in combat doesn't matter if it wins you the game. The end goal is to place highly in the tournament and win money. Whether it happens because you win every game or because every opponent gets a match loss is irrelevant.

If you add an extra card to your deck, you may or may not see it. If you draw extra cards, they may or may not be relevant. If you are stalling, you already know ahead of time that it's going to win you the match or force a draw. Drawing extra cards may generally have a more positive outcome, but it's also less certain that you'll get that outcome. And you *can* use stalling aggressively to win games. Like Jaco mentioned, you can stall out G2 to force a short G3 where you can only win or draw. Or you can stall to put pressure on your opponent to play more quickly to try and beat you within the time limit and force a mistake. But if you want to argue that stalling isn't serious, we can play timed matches, you can play whatever the hell you want and I'll play Dredge. I'll win game 1 and then pick my nose for the rest of the match and we'll see how the match wins stack up.

[dschalter]

What great contribution has he made? A few big wins? He's had a reputation for slow play and stalling for a long time. Without cheating, he's another run-of-the mill PT regular. If we're going off contributions, there's a laundry list of people that should be there before him. Ed Paltzik for his revolutionalizing T1 on 3 separate occasions with BSB, Legend Suicide Black and Ankh Sligh. His Suicide Black primer was huge in terms of Magic theory. Mike Flores, the greatest Magic theorist to date. You know, Philosophy of Fire, Who's the Beatdown, that sort of thing? Even our own Finn, who created Legacy Merfolk (the deck Saito won his last GP with) and Death and Taxes. Fuck, I've contributed more to Magic than Saito.

But the HoF is set up to be a reward for high-caliber players, not people who make large contributions to the game. Otherwise Richard Garfield would be in the HoF. If you don't have 100 Pro Points, you can't get in. Contributions have nothing to do with it.

Once you have 100 pro points, your contributions to the game absolutely are relevant. That is, of course, unless you think that Randy Buehler got in only because of his playing (hint: he didn't). You claim that he would be just another run of the mill PT regular, without anything even close to resembling proof and, even sillier than that, you ignore that he has been one of the top 3 or so deckbuilders in the game over the last 5 years and definitely the best aggro deck designer. You can think he doesn't belong in the HoF for cheating, but the hyperbole just makes you look silly. He also has, over the past few years, been one of the big embodiments of the "play the game, see the world", mentality that WoTC advertises endlessly. Given that the sole purpose of the PT is to make WoTC money, that contribution has to be factored in as well.

[overpowered]

The point of magic is to play the game, not the clock. Playing the clock is cheating.

Also, to address the "drawing extra cards" argument: If something is 10% cheating, it means that it is 100% cheating. An inch over the line might as well be a mile. There's little consequential difference between drawing 30 extra cards and playing the clock. Each is used unfairly to achieve the same end result of winning the tournament. Therefore each is considered cheating, as each is a conscious decision by the player to achieve the end result by perverting the standard rules of the game.

Should we discuss the morality of his rejection from the Hall of Fame? The achievements of an individual are measured against his or her performance in accordance with the rules of the game. If an individual cheats to achieve a higher performance record, that individual should not receive recognition for their actions, as they were not attained in accordance to the same rule set other players were restricted by.

If you disagree, then you disagree that Saito was in fact cheating in the first place. I hope that the comparison to drawing cards, consequential outcomes and following different rule sets is enough to convince you otherwise.

How is this even a debate?

[dahcmai]

I really hope they don't even consider a person for the hall of fame even if they only had a single incident like this. It's more incentive to not cheat even in the slightest. I'd rather they throw the book at everyone who even thinks about it.

I quit playing in larger tournaments due to people who insisted on calling judges to try and get small infractions called their favor and trying to rules lawyer everything. After a bit of it, I decided it's just not worth it and quit from the tournament scene entirely. When a game isn't fun anymore, it's not really a game, it's only a obstacle to overcome.

I've played in 2 Grand Prixs since 1995 and have been happy to see they are working on the problem of people who insist on bending the rules as much as possible to try and get the cash in. I would rather there be a serious punishment like total banning myself. It's not worth dealing with people who obviously cheated ever. If you flat out catch someone cheating, why ever allow them to play in any organized tournament again?

[dschalter]

I really hope they don't even consider a person for the hall of fame even if they only had a single incident like this. It's more incentive to not cheat even in the slightest. I'd rather they throw the book at everyone who even thinks about it.

I quit playing in larger tournaments due to people who insisted on calling judges to try and get small infractions called their favor and trying to rules lawyer everything. After a bit of it, I decided it's just not worth it and quit from the tournament scene entirely. When a game isn't fun anymore, it's not really a game, it's only a obstacle to overcome.

I've played in 2 Grand Prixs since 1995 and have been happy to see they are working on the problem of people who insist on bending the rules as much as possible to try and get the cash in. I would rather there be a serious punishment like total banning myself. It's not worth dealing with people who obviously cheated ever. If you flat out catch someone cheating, why ever allow them to play in any organized tournament again?

Because people never change? Also, the point of the game is to make money for WoTC- banning people at the drop of a hat isn't a great way to build support.

[Aggro_zombies]

Because people never change? Also, the point of the game is to make money for WoTC- banning people at the drop of a hat isn't a great way to build support.
And giving people the green light to cheat is, somehow?

dachmai's point was that large tournaments are unpleasant to play in because of two different classes of douchebags: the cheaters (Saito) and the rules lawyers (lots of people). It's easier for WotC to deal with the former than the latter.

[dschalter]

And giving people the green light to cheat is, somehow?

dachmai's point was that large tournaments are unpleasant to play in because of two different classes of douchebags: the cheaters (Saito) and the rules lawyers (lots of people). It's easier for WotC to deal with the former than the latter.

Not banning cheaters for life=giving people the green light to cheat? I hate to break it to you, but those things may be different concepts.

[Valrina]

I agree on Stalling being worth a game loss or DQ... even if I consider it not the same as marking your deck, simply because you can stall spontanius. Something MOST people would do if you are a poor student and about to win like 10.000 dollar if you just manage to outlife 5 minutes on the clock! While you have to decide that you cheat your way through a whole tournament by marking your cards so no one realises it and cheating nummerus opponents, a long time before the event.

Ok now its maybe not the case with Saito who tends to play slow, but I should not vote someone who is for sure one of the best players, and one of the lets say 5 best deckbuilders off all time, which gave all of us so much of great funny deck ideas and playtime over years, because he plays down the clock ? Kidding? See the relation of what he has given to the community.

That said ofcourse he deserved the DQ and he would deserve it again for stalling.

But what really bothers me... we heard the argument of slow play is not stalling very often in this thread now. Still some people doesnt get it. This is a legacy forum, how can people not get how bad the slow play rule is, because it is such a grey area.

In legacy it happens so often that you play way slower as for example in standart, and why ? Because the card pool is enormous, their are so many differnt decks, and even if you know the deck he plays, in most cases you cant be 99.9% sure about his cards as in standart, there are some flexible slots in most decks, and the SB options are endless. So you have to think...otherwise you are an idiot, or a genius that remembers every single card printed in 5 secounds.

I dont get how legacy players can hate on slowplay so much, if I play slow and my oppoonent tells me please try to play faster, I try it but if I have to think I think. Same goes the other way around, if my opponent plays very slow I tell him to please speed it up a bit, if he trys I am fine. If the board Situation Idont even mind calling if I dont think its stalling. People that call for Judges about slow play all time in legacy.. if I just hear them on a tournament I want to punch their face.

Boardsituation gets complicated so fast, for me its really disrespectful to call a judge on your opponent for having to think about it if he still has a chance to win in legacy. Its bending the rules as much as it is to borderline stall if you have no chance to win, because if you know he is just playing slow and thinks about the situation, you call a judge at him to lure him in play mistakes by hurring him on purpose. Should be get the same warning for this.

I am really happy that the legacy community in general is respectful and has a good playstyle with each other. Because Stallers like Saito and rule benders and all time judge callers ruin the play the same way, no difference. The goal should be to play a nice game with each other and win because I deserve it, not because someone called the judge.

That saied I am really dissapointed about the rant here, as much as I think Stalling deserves the DQ and maybe a short suspension.

[paK0]

Boardsituation gets complicated so fast, for me its really disrespectful to call a judge on your opponent for having to think about it if he still has a chance to win in legacy. Its bending the rules as much as it is to borderline stall if you have no chance to win, because if you know he is just playing slow and thinks about the situation, you call a judge at him to lure him in play mistakes by hurring him on purpose. Should be get the same warning for this.



So bad people get more time to think? Sounds pretty unfair.

[dahcmai]

I don't think people get it. Ok, let's say you go to a Grand Prix and are playing Tendrils for example. You go up against me playing a 43 land deck.

43 land is normally just about a bye for any Storm based deck due to having a ridiculous clock with no resistance to take game 1 and no real board action coming from the lands deck game 2. It's not really even a contest. Lands players know this. I play Lands a lot so I accept the fact I am going to lose to storm game 1. Then I try and pray I can steal something with some Chalice action game 2 and maybe a lucky Extirpate. That's my sad best hope. My clock is just too damned slow for storm.

So I get luck dogged into winning game 1 due to a total screw up or mana screw beyond reason and I manage to steal game 1. I then proceed to take exactly so many seconds for each phase in every single turn and drag it out to the point where I win due to time in the most excruciating way possible. Time's up, I guess I won. Good luck in the lower tables buddy.

Wouldn't you be pissed?



Now that's a pretty extreme example, but it does happen in matches where one deck is at a distinct disadvantage.

I saw enough of that crap happen at GP Columbus. There's really no place in this game for that kind of BS.


What's funny is I purposely sat where I could see the clock to make sure people weren't trying that. I was playing Landstill and I wanted them to play faster. I had a couple of people try it since I tend to lose game 1 due to control being what it is and then having a powerful board to pick up the next two. It happens more than I would like to see.

[Mark Sun]

Not sure if anyone has seen this link, but Tomoharu Saito has been suspended for 18 months by the DCI.

Suspended members, obviously as brought up in this thread, are not allowed to enter the HOF.


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci%2Fsuspended&tablesort=2

[cdr]

That was an extremely quick suspension, and outside of the normal process.

I see Mark Zajdner also got (another?) suspension, I would guess probably for something at GP Toronto.

[AriLax]

I see Mark Zajdner also got (another?) suspension, I would guess probably for something at GP Toronto.

To paraphrase articles I have read, he was lightly reprimanded by a judge for leaving his seat after completing deck reg. He argued a warning up through a GL, ML, and finally DQ plus boot from the site.

[obituary 95]

in the words of brain David marshal , the pro tour historian ctrl f for saito

by by hof

[dschalter]

in the words of brain David marshal , the pro tour historian ctrl f for saito

by by hof

bdm says he has no idea what will happen. The decision isn't really in his hands.

[JACO]

Not sure if anyone has seen this link, but Tomoharu Saito has been suspended for 18 months by the DCI.

Suspended members, obviously as brought up in this thread, are not allowed to enter the HOF.


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci%2Fsuspended&tablesort=2Mark we're on the case already, and back with another article as well!
Tomoharu Saito Suspended 18 Months by DCI (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?19412-[Article]-Tomoharu-Saito-Suspended-18-Months-by-DCI)

[PanderAlexander]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci%2Fsuspended&tablesort=7b

Suspended for 18 months.

edit: opps already posted above.

[Valrina]

So bad people get more time to think? Sounds pretty unfair.

And should someone get a warning, gameloss and even maybe a DQ or suspension for stalling if he is just a bad player ? Based of the opinion of someone who did a little weekend judge course instead of a 4 year study of psychology ...no wait people who did that wouldnt make such a call because they know they normally dont know for sure. Is that fair ?


again...that has nothing to do with saito, which I believe intended to draw it out, even if I believe the banning is too long. What I complain about is a highly abusive not really usable rule, which only adds to a bad atmosphere on the tournaments in my experience.

Though you sure need some sort of time regulation punishing it up too much based on the opinion which has realisticly in 95 percent of the cases no chance to be sureis just not working out very well for the game.

This rule punishs bad players and pushing them (and even better players sometimes) to wrong decisions about complicated game situations, and with that it maybe manipulates the outcome of a whole tournament. if he is a bad player he will make the wrong decision anyway, and you win, if you push a medicore player into losing because otherwise he gets a warning for slow play... thats shady at best.

[Tacosnape]

This rule punishs bad players and pushing them (and even better players sometimes) to wrong decisions about complicated game situations, and with that it maybe manipulates the outcome of a whole tournament. if he is a bad player he will make the wrong decision anyway, and you win, if you push a medicore player into losing because otherwise he gets a warning for slow play... thats shady at best.

This isn't really what happened, or necessarily will happen. The judges are human, and as such, they are capable to some degree of reading a player's intent. What they saw was a player who suddenly needs over twice as long to think about every play on average whenever A. he's losing, and B. the clock is on his side. Repeatedly. They acted accordingly. Saito is like Roger Clemens, or Floyd Landis, or whoever. He's just the one who got busted for what tons and tons of people do all the time, and while they waited too long to finally act, at least they acted for a change. To everyone bitching about how unfair it is to punish a cheater due to the bad precedents rule enforcement could set, quell your inner anti-the man rebellious urges and be realistic. You don't need help help, and you aren't being repressed.

[aTn]

wcm8 said: Why did these eyewitnesses not call a judge? ...[preachy stuff about "ignorance of the law is not a defense"]

I was there (GP Columbus) standing behind Saito's opponent.

A judge was watching the match, sitting next to Saito and simply did nothing, that is, he did not judge that Saito was stalling (but many spectators were pissed - I was part of them). Was it an error on the part of the judge ? I think so, but I'm certainly not going to flame him for not making the call and I won't lose sleep over it.

[cdr]

If you think a judge made/is making a mistake, pull the judge aside and bring your concern up. Judges are not all the same, there's a range of experience and skill level, and they're human and they can miss things. A judge being there doesn't absolve you of responsibility as a spectator or player.

[SpikeyMikey]

And should someone get a warning, gameloss and even maybe a DQ or suspension for stalling if he is just a bad player ? Based of the opinion of someone who did a little weekend judge course instead of a 4 year study of psychology ...no wait people who did that wouldnt make such a call because they know they normally dont know for sure. Is that fair ?


again...that has nothing to do with saito, which I believe intended to draw it out, even if I believe the banning is too long. What I complain about is a highly abusive not really usable rule, which only adds to a bad atmosphere on the tournaments in my experience.

Though you sure need some sort of time regulation punishing it up too much based on the opinion which has realisticly in 95 percent of the cases no chance to be sureis just not working out very well for the game.

This rule punishs bad players and pushing them (and even better players sometimes) to wrong decisions about complicated game situations, and with that it maybe manipulates the outcome of a whole tournament. if he is a bad player he will make the wrong decision anyway, and you win, if you push a medicore player into losing because otherwise he gets a warning for slow play... thats shady at best.

Hey, Chicken Little, there's a very simple solution to this. If you cannot compete at a semi-pro level, stick to FNM and other low-level tournaments. Playing high REL tournaments means there will be a high Rules Enforcement Level (clever little acronym, isn't it?). Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and WotC still had retail stores, I was a judge at a WotC store in San Diego. In close to a year, I never issued a warning at an FNM. I only came close once, when 2 little kids started yelling at each other and I had to break it up before it got physical. I scolded them both (well
The one more than the other. It takes more fortitude than I've got to scold a sobbing 6 or 7 year old.) then turned them over to their parents. But at REL 0, you damn near get away with murder. The idea is that everyone have fun, no matter how bad. At a GP or PT, the idea is to win money and showcase your skills. No one is going to call a 6 year old for travelling in a pickup game, but travel in the NBA and of course they'll nail your balls to the wall. Be real man.

[cupajoe]

If you're going to use a sports metaphor, at least use a correct one :) Don't be silly, Spikey, they don't call traveling in the NBA! You can walk to the bank and back in the Association and the refs swallow their whistles......


Oh, and Kobe doesn't foul anyone either, don't forget.....


They do call traveling in NCAA bball

[rufus]

If you think a judge made/is making a mistake, pull the judge aside and bring your concern up. Judges have are not all the same, there's a range of experience and skill level, and they're human and they can miss things. A judge being there doesn't absolve you of responsibility as a spectator or player.

Let's compare this to, say, the FIFA World Cup, we had one in 2010. I'm sure you're familiar with a number of the problem rulings that took place leading up to, and during, said world cup. I can also tell you that, for example, in the Mexico vs Argentina game, the Mexicans argued (correctly) that the initial goal credited to Argentina was offsides, or that a potential equalizer was proably mitigated by 'heads up' play from the German goalie despite legitimate protests from the English. (This isn't just 2010 either.) This sort of intervention is not panacea, and, quite possibly, ends up being more hurt than help.

Judge shortcomings notwithstanding, the fact that these policies about 'slow play' and 'stalling' need discussion, and there's no clarity about them is rather telling.

The fact is that, in all sports, players are encouraged to play as close to the line as they can get away with. That's part of the nature of competitive play. Somewhere on this site, there's a thread about a semi-plausible scenario where one player has an effectively certain combo victory that would require a very long time to actually play out because it requires the result of a repeatable shuffle to produce a specific order.

<Shrug> I'd say the best solution to date for this sort of problem is chess clocks. Of course, the WotC would rather have people spending money on card crack.

[frogboy]

Judge shortcomings notwithstanding, the fact that these policies about 'slow play' and 'stalling' need discussion, and there's no clarity about them is rather telling.

There's plenty of clarity.

Slow play is when a player is unintentionally playing slowly because the board is complicated or they're resolving Gifts Ungiven or whatever.

Stalling is when a player deliberately plays at a slow pace in order to abuse the clock. This is cheating.

It's not at all complicated.

[marax]

The definitions for "slow play" and "stalling" are fine. The problem is often times to decide on the intent or lack thereof regarding the accused player. If your opponent cheats and draws an extra card and you call the judge you have a good chance of catching him. I have never heard that someone called a judge, accused the opponent of "stalling" and got him DQ rightfully. That player can most of time retreat to "slow play" to defend himself. Players abuse slow play to stall their opponent of game wins to secure a draw or a 1 -0 win. If you need 5 seconds to figure out your Brainstorm but deliberately take 15 seconds and do this for every decision one could stall easily. To be sure that someone is stalling a judge actually has to watch for quite some time to decide on the intent of that player so the judge can witness a (deliberate) change of play speed. A feat that is very hard to realize on a huge GP.

Most players know exactly what stalling is but it hard to acutally catch someone doing it - something that is a lot easier for other cheats like adding extra cards to your sealed pool or drawing extra cards. Nevertheless I prefer a hard to proove rule rather than no rule at all.

[cupajoe]

Chess-style clocks

I don't see what the downside is. It would stop all forms of intentional stalling. The round time is split evenly between the two players and you have a certain amount of time to play the round. If your clock runs out first before the games can be completed, you forfeit, plain and simple....That would put a high priority on completing your turns in a timely fashion.....Your clock is not affected by how long it takes someone else to make a decision....

Simple and straightforward and fair to all concerned.....If you're not a very good player and need to read a bunch of cards, you lose out, AND it eliminates shady stalling techniques....No difficult judging intentions decisions need to be made

Obviously, it's not needed for FNM and smaller events.....I think the fact that Pro Tours and GPs don't have them after more than a decade of professional playing is pretty weak considering the prevalence of complaints you hear about stalling.....

[Sims]

Chess-style clocks

I don't see what the downside is. It would stop all forms of intentional stalling. The round time is split evenly between the two players and you have a certain amount of time to play the round. If your clock runs out first before the games can be completed, you forfeit, plain and simple....That would put a high priority on completing your turns in a timely fashion.....Your clock is not affected by how long it takes someone else to make a decision....

Simple and straightforward and fair to all concerned.....If you're not a very good player and need to read a bunch of cards, you lose out, AND it eliminates shady stalling techniques....No difficult judging intentions decisions need to be made

Obviously, it's not needed for FNM and smaller events.....I think the fact that Pro Tours and GPs don't have them after more than a decade of professional playing is pretty weak considering the prevalence of complaints you hear about stalling.....

The only problem I have with this at a real tournament with paper cards (these clocks already exist on mtgo) is that you have to hit the timer every time you pass priority. I've met players who have played longer than me who don't even understand the concept of priority let alone when it passes. With semi-pro's/pros/most PTQ/GP players it should be fine. but then it still becomes a hassle to click the damn timer to signal every priority pass between phases, steps, spells, attacks, blocks, etc.

[rufus]

The only problem I have with this at a real tournament with paper cards (these clocks already exist on mtgo) is that you have to hit the timer every time you pass priority. I've met players who have played longer than me who don't even understand the concept of priority let alone when it passes. With semi-pro's/pros/most PTQ/GP players it should be fine. but then it still becomes a hassle to click the damn timer to signal every priority pass between phases, steps, spells, attacks, blocks, etc.

Seems like the sort of thing that wouldn't be that hard to test. Instead of passing, you just slap the clock, and you could just hold the button down to continuously pass. In practice, I'd expect that it's really the additional associated cost when setting up a tourney since chess clocks are a $20+ item are easily stolen, and so on.

[Julian23]

April 23, 2002, Wizards Q&A


Q: "Why aren't chess clocks used for time management at serious tournaments, similar to what is done in Magic Online? In my opinion, that would be a great step towards curing the stalling problem."
-- Artem Kozachuk, Ukraine

A: From Chris Zantides, DCI Policy Manager:
"First, the DCI feels that it would not be feasible to expect all Magic players to provide a chess clock. Second, chess is a game that has a clearly defined turn order, with no additional phases. Magic isn't quite as simple as that, with the amount of times that a player gains and loses priority being a major issue.

"Players would need to have a significantly improved understanding of the technical rules before we could implement such a system. The DCI feels that our current system offers the best solution to keeping time for tournaments."

There has also been an article on this topic but I couldn't find it on WotC's page. Seems very reasonable to me. Magic with chess clocks would be a different game from what we are playing now; main reason being the turn structure that will require passing priority about 10-20 times.

[rleader]

^

http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/the-riki-rules-%E2%80%93-the-definitive-chess-clock-article/

[cupajoe]

First of all, I agree that chess clocks would be impractical and definitely not worth it at FNM, GPTrials PTQualifiers or other smaller tournaments.

However, at PTs and GPs, I think it's reasonable. When the stakes are higher, people are more likely to cheat or bend the rules because real money is on the line. It's just human nature. There's a big incentive to stall out the clock in many matches, and it would be very difficult to catch except the most egregious violators.

I read the link and I am unconvinced that the logistics would be difficult at higher level tournaments. If people are not punching their clock because they forgot that priority was passed to them, well, shame on them, and they'll learn and get used to it. Just like when you first started playing Magic you probably drew your card before untapping your permanents. It took time and practice to do it the right way.

The response from Wizards was also unconvincing......it sounds like the chess clocks would actually HELP people learn the rules, not the other way around.....

Most people at GPs and PTs, I would think, are sufficiently serious about Magic that they would want to prepare themselves by practicing with the clocks.

The only issue I see is that the clocks should begin when the game actually begins, and not during shuffling, presenting, etc. I think that's an easy fix....just give players a set amount of time to do the pre-game stuff and then have the round begin....

As far as who should provide the clocks....that's obvious....Wizards should buy many of them and make them available on site. If they want to have a one-time fee for players to help make the purchase, people would complain, but I think the people that attend PTs and GPs are generally so hard-core that they would pay the fee. If you're already spending lots of money on Magic, what's a $10 fee toward purchasing punch clocks?

Here's a decent sports analogy. If you're playing tennis during a club league match, the players call the ball in or out on their side of the net. At high-level amateur tournaments, or maybe a big high school match (state tourney) you might have a chair umpire calling the lines. At pro tournaments, you have a chair umpire and linespersons calling the match. And at REALLY high-level pro tournaments, like Wimbledon or the U.S. Open, you also have computer technology that helps with the line calls.

The PT is the highest level of Magic, and yet, at least in terms of clock management, Wizards is treating it like a high school tennis match.

[SpikeyMikey]

To me, it's the additional slowing of the game that makes clocks a bad idea. Even if you're figuring 1 second to announce change of phase/step and punch the clock, you're talking several minutes of additional time. Say 5 minutes per round (passing priority only at phase changes, i.e. No spells being cast or creatures attacking, this would mean a little over 8 full turns per game over 3 games) which is 10% of the time allocated for the round. I know I have a real issue with time on MTGO, even with paring down my stops (which has caused issues before). I certainly wouldn't consider myself a slow player, but the additional time of stopping at every time priority is passed to click a button means that there are times when I run low on time. I've only lost one game to time, but compared to the number of games I've played on MTGO, the number of games decided by the clock (1 loss and 2 wins) is significantly higher than the number of games that have gone to turns IRL.