GP Disqualification at 13-1-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caiomarcos

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies

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

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

---

Oh, I will.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

this is wescoe's post on SCG.

so either

1) he is lying

or 2) everyone talking shit about wescoe is dead wrong

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juventus

1) he is lying

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdr

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juventus

this is wescoe's post on SCG.

so either

1) he is lying

or 2) everyone talking shit about wescoe is dead wrong

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dschalter

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

---

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

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

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

Plain. Simple. Perfect.


This breaks down to:

• 1) Wescoe was actually fishing for the win as implied by him answering "We will see" when asked by a friend if he had won the match.

• 2) Wescoe actually believing he might be DQ'ed

• 3) Simple sadistic, malicious intensionss.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMogg

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dschalter

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

---

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

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

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

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

Noted, thanks for clearing this up everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Shake

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

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

Noted, thanks for clearing this up everyone.

---

The Moral is; Chapin gets to be the hero, and Wescoe was quite Nasstyy?
Am I right?

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

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

what a mess :p

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

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

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

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

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

That alone warrants his DQ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies

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

---

Oh, hell. I always liked this joke so much....

What an asshole. If I´d be on a tournament where this guy shows up, i´d stand next to him all the time hes playing and by the smallest mistake I´d call the Judges. Hopefully they heard about him and punish as hard as possible.