Cheating or clever use of the rules?

I am going to say that even testing a 1cc spell against a chalice at 1 is shady and deserves a game warning. I know that it is a players own responsibility to ensure their own triggers are occuring but that is just moral gray area between cheating and playing to win. I would hope that everyone who plays this game has the morals to play by the rules and has fun doing so.

Sad times indeed when I am the voice of reason. This is not a Bertoncini situation, where many incidents were documented by multiple players over years of play. We have one unconfirmed act, that it is still not 100% a cheating situation. With no coroboration, save for a few vague comments on being over competitive. Cheating is fucking serious in this game. And so are accusations of such. It is extremely unfair for anyone to catch that label without some significant proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher

Sad times indeed when I am the voice of reason. This is not a Bertoncini situation, where many incidents were documented by multiple players over years of play. We have one unconfirmed act, that it is still not 100% a cheating situation. With no coroboration, save for a few vague comments on being over competitive. Cheating is fucking serious in this game. And so are accusations of such. It is extremely unfair for anyone to catch that label without some significant proof.

---

Thanks Parcher, this needed to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

Stuff like this shouldn't be happening. The through process behind it is ...."if i can miss the trigger without my opponent catching on I can gain advantage. When he catches it theres no penalty for me.

I feel like if there were harsher penalties people wouldn't be tempted to manipulate the rules.

---

There are harsher penalties. Your example is textbook cheating:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infraction Procedure Guide

4.8. Unsporting Conduct — Cheating
Penalty Disqualification

Definition
A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense
committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.

Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

If all criteria are not met, the offense is not Cheating and should be handled by a different infraction. Cheating will
often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error, and must be investigated by the judge to
make a determination of intent and awareness.
Examples
A. A player alters the results of a match after the match is over.
B. A player lies to a tournament official about what happened in a game to make his case stronger.
C. A player allows her opponent to put a creature into the graveyard even though the creature has not been
dealt lethal damage.
D. A player notices that his opponent resolved only half of the triggered ability of Sword of Feast and Famine
and decides not to call attention to the error.
E. A player peeks at another player’s picks during the draft.
F. A player, after seeing his opponent mana weave and randomize insufficiently, pile shuffles to undo the
weave instead of calling a judge.
G. A player adds cards to his Sealed Deck pool.
H. A player realizes he has accidentally drawn an extra card, then fails to call a judge in order to avoid a
penalty.

---

He is intentionally missing a trigger to gain an advantage from it, that is cheating plain and simple. He should just let the trigger resolve and just target you with the spell. An investigation should have occurred.

A link to the rest of the IPG for the lazy: http://www.wizards.com/ContentResour...Guide_PDF1.pdf

Pretty obviously cheating and if the same judge came back to the table I would expect a game loss. Allowing the Crop Rotation to resolve is just a wuss move from the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meekrab

Pretty obviously cheating and if the same judge came back to the table I would expect a game loss. Allowing the Crop Rotation to resolve is just a wuss move from the judge.

---

Yeah, that it the part that threw me off. I have both played against, and watched Rudolph play. Would I call him over competitive? No. Would I believe he could have missed the trigger for Chalice on Brainstorm? Then made a joke about it to a judge? Sure. That seems right in line with what I have seen from him. But he is a very deliberate, some would say slow, player. And after missing the Brainstorm, his playing too quickly to allow a response on the Crop again seems not only fishy rules-wise, but out of character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

That's very nebulous of course, so just examine the player's actions. You can't just 'speed' your way through a part of the game, that's asinine. Can you imagine how great combat would be? "I'm thinking abooooout... maaaaybe.... hmmmmmmmm. I miiight pass the tuuuuurn, or I miiiiiiiight...." opponent: "will you just GO alre-" you: "ZOMGATTACKYOUWITHEVERYTHING" *writes your new life total down* opponent "hey wtf man i'm not at 6 you didn't give me a chance to block" you: "well too bad, I already wrote it down"

---

That's how small kids play Magic, don't you now? :laugh:

Of course game loss cause he intentionally didnt pass priority twice. Not so hard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

That's how small kids play Magic, don't you now? :laugh:

---

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...0#post10496370

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

That's how small kids play Magic, don't you now? :laugh:

---

I still remember a time when Legacy was played by adults with jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

I still remember a time when Legacy was played by adults with jobs.

---

We play vintage now

:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quasim0ff

We play vintage now

---

So the playerbase of Vintage died because of old age? :eyebrow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacrix

I still remember a time when Legacy was played by adults with jobs.

---

Or bratty little kids with rich parents.

Doesn't it come down in this and the other threat that judges are too soft?

If rules were enforced accordingly more often instead of this wishy-washy comfort bullshit, than maybe cheating would be less rampant.

The tournament rule change about missed triggers opened up an entire new can of worms. I'm expecting it to be altered sooner or later since it opens up alot of possibilities to cheat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barook

So the playerbase of Vintage died because of old age? :eyebrow:

---

IDGI. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parcher

Sad times indeed when I am the voice of reason. This is not a Bertoncini situation, where many incidents were documented by multiple players over years of play. We have one unconfirmed act, that it is still not 100% a cheating situation. With no coroboration, save for a few vague comments on being over competitive. Cheating is fucking serious in this game. And so are accusations of such. It is extremely unfair for anyone to catch that label without some significant proof.

---

Indeed. And on top of that, there was a judge present, a person, tested and verified for competent knowledge of the game, who decided that a simple sanction sufficed. There's no reason to second guess that judge, post an unverified tale of the event in question, and accuse that person, with his name mentioned, of cheating. The chances that this person is an active member of this forum are slim, it's likely that this person is being tarred and feathered atm without even knowing it. THAT is immoral behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The chances that this person is an active member of this forum are slim, it's likely that this person is being tarred and geathered atm without even knowing it. THAT is immoral behaviour.

---

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that he goes by the handle of Rock Lee here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

I am going to say that even testing a 1cc spell against a chalice at 1 is shady and deserves a game warning. I know that it is a players own responsibility to ensure their own triggers are occuring but that is just moral gray area between cheating and playing to win. I would hope that everyone who plays this game has the morals to play by the rules and has fun doing so.

---

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that he goes by the handle of Rock Lee here.

---

If that would be the case, the same effect could still have been achieved if the OP had mentioned 'this forum's Rock Lee' instead of the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

---

100% agreed, suggesting that intentionally playing into a Chalice is cheating is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

100% agreed, suggesting that intentionally playing into a Chalice is cheating is absurd.

---

As a MUD / Workshop player I frequently dump my voltaic keys into my own chalice for 1 to get rid of cards so I can survive under the bridge (ensnaring bridge).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

i can understand that but his violation was intentional and intentional violations of the rules should have stricter punishments IMO. I deserved a warning for failure to maintain game state but he defiantly deserved something stronger IMO.

---

Intentional is up to the judges discretion, but consistently reporting GRVs helps build the case.

This is why if everyone just calmly calls a judge on everything that merits a GRV (assuming competitive REL) these people will get weeded out eventually. If you are just a benign but awful player you'll quickly learn to adapt or you will stop wasting your $20-40 on entry until you do. It's (correct me if I'm wrong but I have some experience with it), GRV, GRV, Game Loss for each after. The judge has the discretion to determine whether missing the trigger was "beneficial".

E.g. round 1 vintage champs I am fucking around with Tangle Wires and other crap and forget my Mana Crypt roll. As I move into my main phase I look at the dice and am pretty certain I missed the roll. A bystander confirms with me that I in fact missed the trigger. I call a judge on myself. It's an easy situation since the possibility of taking damage is clearly to my opponents benefit. The judge using his discretion determines I acted out of stupidity and not malice. My opponent confirms he'd like me to roll for it. I bolt myself and we move on.

If in round 5 I was acting with malice and already had 2 GRVs I'd have to think long and hard about being a cheating piece of dog shit and trying to skip my crypt roll.

There are scores of cheaters at SCGs, there are also scores of people who actually think they can take Wasteland with Vendillion Clique. It's not my job to determine intent. So I just call a judge every time. If I get a few intentional cheaters in the early rounds and discourage them from cheating later then great. If I'm just catching awful / nervous / new players in my wake then oh well. They'll be better off for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedleeds

Intentional is up to the judges discretion, but consistently reporting GRVs helps build the case.

This is why if everyone just calmly calls a judge on everything that merits a GRV (assuming competitive REL) these people will get weeded out eventually. If you are just a benign but awful player you'll quickly learn to adapt or you will stop wasting your $20-40 on entry until you do. It's (correct me if I'm wrong but I have some experience with it), GRV, GRV, Game Loss for each after. The judge has the discretion to determine whether missing the trigger was "beneficial".

E.g. round 1 vintage champs I am fucking around with Tangle Wires and other crap and forget my Mana Crypt roll. As I move into my main phase I look at the dice and am pretty certain I missed the roll. A bystander confirms with me that I in fact missed the trigger. I call a judge on myself. It's an easy situation since the possibility of taking damage is clearly to my opponents benefit. The judge using his discretion determines I acted out of stupidity and not malice. My opponent confirms he'd like me to roll for it. I bolt myself and we move on.

If in round 5 I was acting with malice and already had 2 GRVs I'd have to think long and hard about being a cheating piece of dog shit and trying to skip my crypt roll.

There are scores of cheaters at SCGs, there are also scores of people who actually think they can take Wasteland with Vendillion Clique. It's not my job to determine intent. So I just call a judge every time. If I get a few intentional cheaters in the early rounds and discourage them from cheating later then great. If I'm just catching awful / nervous / new players in my wake then oh well. They'll be better off for it.

---

Agreed on the better players for it part. After I called myself for having a wish target in my main board at SCG it definitely taught me to go over my sideboard before a match begins. Bad players will either quit or improve after their mistakes cost them games enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bed Decks Palyer

That's how small kids play Magic, don't you now? :laugh:

---

When I started playing in 09 I didn't understand the stack or how counters worked so I didn't play blue. I didn't think my reaction time was good enough to counter a spell! Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

---

There is one hell of a difference! In the example given (OP) he just ignores the possible Chalice trigger and tries to force resolution by catching his opponent off guard and creating irreversible gamestates with a reasoning like "Sorry, you didn't say anything and I'm already searching my Library! Can't we not just carry on Judge, because HE forgot to say anything IN TIME?!"

Again: this is not about building storm or filling the GY; it's about IGNORING the rules!


What about those:

1) Put fetch to GY. Pick up Library. "Stifle? Nah, too late! I usually write down my lifeloss after fetching..."
2) Slam 4 Rituals on the table against a Counterbalance-Top "you respond with SDT? That must mean that the first 3 Rituals resolved! Haha!"
3) Cadt infernal, hold priority, move LED to GY, pickup Library "counter? You didn't say anything between casting infernal and Breaking LED! Forget that!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davelin

100% agreed, suggesting that intentionally playing into a Chalice is cheating is absurd.

---

Intentionally playing into a chalice hoping your opponent will miss the trigger. Take it out of context and it means nothing. When your opponent is at 3 and has a chalice at 1 should you flash the lightning bolt and say good game? You can most likely win if the player is not focusing on the game or is stressed out but it is not good sportsmanship and should not be considered "okay".

If you notice a non optional trigger is missed you should say something to keep the game playing like it was designed a "may" trigger is completely up to the owner of the trigger.

I find that if you try to force three game effects in a one second window, and your opponent tells you to hold it after the normal human reaction time, just about every judge on the planet will do what he can to rewind the clock. If your opponent tells you about the trigger during a next turn, he'll be too late, but not if he reacts at a normal pace. The gamestate can normally be rewinded then, even if the guy tried to force several actions in it. I replied to a post which said that playing into a chalice and hoping that the other guy doesn't notice the trigger in itself is cheating. I disagreed with that thesis. Forcing several actions in a second with the intention of creating a gamestate that can't be rewinded EVEN IF THE GUY REPLIES IN A NORMAL HUMAN PACE is different. And in those cases, the judge will normally do what he can to turn it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

There is one hell of a difference! In the example given (OP) he just ignores the possible Chalice trigger and tries to force resolution by catching his opponent off guard and creating irreversible gamestates with a reasoning like "Sorry, you didn't say anything and I'm already searching my Library! Can't we not just carry on Judge, because HE forgot to say anything IN TIME?!"

Again: this is not about building storm or filling the GY; it's about IGNORING the rules!


What about those:

1) Put fetch to GY. Pick up Library. "Stifle? Nah, too late! I usually write down my lifeloss after fetching..."
2) Slam 4 Rituals on the table against a Counterbalance-Top "you respond with SDT? That must mean that the first 3 Rituals resolved! Haha!"
3) Cadt infernal, hold priority, move LED to GY, pickup Library "counter? You didn't say anything between casting infernal and Breaking LED! Forget that!"

---

EDIT: your three examples:

1) faulty use of the stack, that in itself is wrong
2) you can't play more than one spell at once, that's something without a grey area
3) see 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

I find that if you try to force three game effects in a one second window, and your opponent tells you to hold it after the normal human reaction time, just about every judge on the planet will do what he can to rewind the clock. If your opponent tells you about the trigger during a next turn, he'll be too late, but not if he reacts at a normal pace. The gamestate can normally be rewinded then, even if the guy tried to force several actions in it. I replied to a post which said that playing into a chalice and hoping that the other guy doesn't notice the trigger in itself is cheating. I disagreed with that thesis. Forcing several actions in a second with the intention of creating a gamestate that can't be rewinded EVEN IF THE GUY REPLIES IN A NORMAL HUMAN PACE is different. And in those cases, the judge will normally do what he can to turn it back.



EDIT: your three examples:

1) faulty use of the stack, that in itself is wrong
2) you can't play more than one spell at once, that's something without a grey area
3) see 1

---

@your edit:
Faulty use of the stack VS. ignoring the stack ... choose one ... doesn't matter


You can't turn back the actions once he browse through his Library. What do you want to do? Let him shuffle and hand out a warning? A warning is a resonable cost for a deck that plays 4 SDT + 4 BS but only ~4 Fetchlands as shuffle effects (+4 Crop Rotation lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lavafrogg

Intentionally playing into a chalice hoping your opponent will miss the trigger. Take it out of context and it means nothing. When your opponent is at 3 and has a chalice at 1 should you flash the lightning bolt and say good game? You can most likely win if the player is not focusing on the game or is stressed out but it is not good sportsmanship and should not be considered "okay".

If you notice a non optional trigger is missed you should say something to keep the game playing like it was designed a "may" trigger is completely up to the owner of the trigger.

---

Let's separate two things here. Intentionally playing into a Chalice isn't cheating, however doing so and giving your opponent no chance to respond certainly is. That goes with anything, if I resolve a Green Sun Zenith quickly without giving my opponent a chance to do something is against the rules (assuming that a Silence hasn't been resolved, etc.)

To take your example if I play a bolt and you say "shoot, good game" and scoop your cards, I'm not required to tell you that your chalice countered my bolt. Likewise I'm not going to tell you that your creature with reach can block my flyer if you say "I wish I had something that can block your flyer" during the beginning of combat. It your Chalice/Counterbalance/etc., so it's your responsibility to keep track of it. I'm speaking within the context of a Competitive REL here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemnear

@your edit:
Faulty use of the stack VS. ignoring the stack ... choose one ... doesn't matter


You can't turn back the actions once he browse through his Library. What do you want to do? Let him shuffle and hand out a warning? A warning is a resonable cost for a deck that plays 4 SDT + 4 BS but only ~4 Fetchlands as shuffle effects (+4 Crop Rotation lol)

---

Chalice puts triggers on the stack. Playing your spell, then passing priority without telling the opponent what he can do suffices here imo. It's up to your opponent to put that trigger on the stack. That was the situation I replied to. The fetchland example is a very different situation. Each of the given examples hinges on that crucial element: passing priority. The opponent should be given the chance to put his trigger on the stack, but it's up to him to actually think about it. If you want to take a chance and gamble that he'll forget the trigger, that's ok in my book. You'll either win big, or, more likely, look like a noob and fail. I really don't know how to put it simpler than that.

As I said before: the real issue here is that WotC made an action that was once punishable by DQ a 100% legitimate play — and people dislike it and don't want to accept it. I don't like it either, but when I'm sitting down for a tournament, that's not the time to discuss policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koby

Based on the description the OP provided (nevermind if it actually happened, let's assume it's accurate); how would the ruling not be Game loss for the Crop Rotation player?

---

Very simple. It would not be a GL because it would be a DQ for Cheating. The player has been informed that they cannot circumvent Chalice by just "doing stuff really fast". They took an illegal action. They are obviously aware that what they are doing is illegal (and at Comp REL, I would already be working with the assumption that the player is aware of this and would need a lot of evidence to convince me that they're just ridiculously uneducated). They are attempting to gain an advantage. That is textbook UC: Cheating. If I thought that the player missed Chalice being in play, I would give them a warning for Looking at Extra Cards and have them shuffle the unknown portion of the deck (that is, anything that should be unknown, the position of cards put back with Brainstorm or spun to the bottom with Jace +2 would be maintained) and then caution them to communicate better with the opponent on the resolution of spells and abilities. The moment that I heard that the player had already done this before, I would find another judge to watch the players while I went to get the Head Judge.

This is not worthy of a 4-page discussion. As written in the OP (and I'm discussing it as written in the OP, as actual events may have varied), this case was born, raised, lives and works in cheatytown. There is no gray area here. Do not attempt something like this at a tournament, you WILL be disqualified and there may be a suspension involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megadeus

The fact that his opponent was registering the chalice triggers right after he was casting the spells makes it pretty clear his opponent knew what was going on

---

Yeah, this seems very intentional and shady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koby

Based on the description the OP provided (nevermind if it actually happened, let's assume it's accurate); how would the ruling not be Game loss for the Crop Rotation player?

---

Definitely cheating with intent, seems like at least a game-loss, possibly a trip to Dairy Queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Nonsense. There is absolutely no rule in the books against playing into a chalice or counterbalance. For all you know, this guy is filling up his graveyard for a tarmogoyf he intends to cast later. Or he could be building up storm. And even if there is absolutely no other rational explanation than that he speculates on the stupidity/forgetfulness/sloppy play of the opponent, that is absolutely okay in my book. This is no different from the famous 'fear for all legal targets' Profane Command play in that GP top 8 a few years ago. If you can only win the game when your opponent misplays, then speculate on the misplay. A chalice trigger is HIS responsability.

---

In this instance though -- the player is acting as though their spells are just resolving and using speed as a means of pushing the game-state past the point of no return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by original post

Jeremiah: Brainstorm -> reach for deck quickly and pick up his first card without seeing it yet when his opponent stops him.
Opponent: Chalice for once counters it
Jeremiah looks at the judge nearby who was watching and asks "If I picked it up faster would I have resolved the brainstorm?"
Judge looks at him funny as he's clearly in an awkward position and I believe tells him "No, that's not ok"
Jeremiah tosses his brainstorm in the bin and passes

Two turns later Jeremiah rips a Crop Rotation that could potentially save him from immediate death. He casts it, then picks his deck up so fast that nobody could tell him to stop before he was already digging for cards. He clearly did this intentionally and ended up resolving that with (I believe) a warning afterward. He lost the match anyway but I had never seen a situation like this before. At least half of this tournament was aware of what happened and we all kept an eye out for his shenanigans throughout the day but despite him scrubbing out of the event and never actually playing against me, I still felt "cheated" just watching it happen.

---

I used to play against a guy who did the opposite of this; he would declare misrepresented game-states constantly just to rewind time and replay poor attack phases.

I know people want to try and parse this stuff and try to legitimize certain lines of play, and there's a lot of 'compelling' arguments that make rules lawyers sound like Jedi Knights, and this is all just part of a good player's bag of tricks, and so on. Unfortunately, trying to put too fine a point on whether the line is, is like trying to define the difference between art and pornography; no I can't give you a hard definition, but 'I know it when I see it'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TsumiBand

I know people want to try and parse this stuff and try to legitimize certain lines of play, and there's a lot of 'compelling' arguments that make rules lawyers sound like Jedi Knights, and this is all just part of a good player's bag of tricks, and so on. Unfortunately, trying to put too fine a point on whether the line is, is like trying to define the difference between art and pornography; no I can't give you a hard definition, but 'I know it when I see it'.

---

This is where you are wrong. The good "Jedi Knight" will make his opponent allow the resolution of his spell and retrieve verbal confirmation - that's the beauty of the Jedi Mind trick: it makes your opponent do something, he doesnt want. Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

---

Welcome to the internet.

I agree it's completely cheating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

This is where you are wrong. The good "Jedi Knight" will make his opponent allow the resolution of his spell and retrieve verbal confirmation - that's the beauty of the Jedi Mind trick: it makes your opponent do something, he doesnt want. Rock Lee's action were something completly different and if you feel people are in any way defending what he did, you misread basically 99% of what was discussed here.

---

Blimey, I miss one post, and now I've misread the whole thing? Would you have me post a +1 every time I agree with someone?

I didn't see Stan's earlier rebuke. That's my bad. Let's not act as though I've misgauged the entire tone of the thread though, yeah?

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

---

Yep. The actions described in the OP are cheating, and should probably result in a DQ, but I cannot comment on whether they occurred as represented, or if they represent any sort of trend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

The action, as described, is cheating. one guy presents you a personal account of what happened, where he himself admits the judge staff reacted to it. You've got one guy giving an eye-witness account, in which he claims two things: a forum member is a cheater, and the judge sucks. Bold claims. Concluding out of that that the forum member is a cheater is quite a leap of faith.

---

I think we are past conclusions and have hit at "This is what I see as being the issues that players face and have to be aware of" stage. Also I am seeing a swapping of notes on past personal experiences of cheaters, all of which I find to be useful to read so I can keep more of an eye out.

Sent from my mobile.

I know everyone is coming out and calling Rock Lee a cheater based on the OP's information, but I'm reserving judgement until I get all of the facts here - including Jeremiah's. (I'm not calling Norm a liar, I would just like to hear both sides of the story before reserving judgement on what could potentially be considered serious and permanent defamation of character.)

If that's how it actually went down, then that's truly unfortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alphastryk

Definitely cheating with intent, seems like at least a game-loss, possibly a trip to Dairy Queen.

---

Just to clear up what seems to be a fairly common misconception. A judge doesn't decide to give a warning, or a game loss, or a match loss or a DQ for an infraction. There are set infractions. An action falls into a category of infractions or it doesn't. There are still gray areas around the lines, judgement calls to be made, but it's not "kinda cheating" or "cheating with intent" or "almost certainly Cheaty McCheaterton". An action either falls under the definition of 'Unsporting Conduct: Cheating' or it's not cheating. Additionally, we don't make up the level of penalty given for an infraction. I don't say "well, this was cheating, but it's minor cheating, so I'm giving a Game Loss instead of issuing a DQ." The penalty for Cheating is disqualifaction without prize. There are infractions with possible downgrades. There is an upgrade path for repeated infractions. But there is *always* a set penalty for an infraction and it is the penalty that should be issued 95% of the time or more. Deviating from the prescribed penalty is something that should be done very, very rarely.

Not that I can give you guys homework (but I would if I could!), but it would definitely be a good idea for everyone here to read the IPG (Infraction Procedure Guide) and be familiar with it. Not just because it will help you avoid infractions but because it will also help you identify opponent's infractions. Judges are there to make tournaments flow more smoothly. We're not there to hand out punishments, that just happens to be one aspect of the job. Our main job is to handle logistical challenges (fancy way of saying "post pairings, push in chairs and pick up trash"), answer rules questions and fix broken gamestates. Knowing when to call a judge and then actually CALLING THE JUDGE are important to maintaining a smoothly flowing tournament and also in helping us catch people who are engaging in unwanted behavior on a repeated basis.

Hollywood is right. We need all the facts before we brand somebody with the scarlet letter. I don't know the player in question but I think that the OP overstepped his bounds by calling him out by name before a proper investigation could be conducted. Not a lawyer or anything bit it seems that it could be grounds for a libel/defamation of character lawsuit.