I was disappointed in his bushleague trolling attempt with the most misunderstood legacy card answer. I was really hoping there would be 2 Explores in his sideboard, I'm sure he could have found room. Really dropped the ball.
Printable View
I was disappointed in his bushleague trolling attempt with the most misunderstood legacy card answer. I was really hoping there would be 2 Explores in his sideboard, I'm sure he could have found room. Really dropped the ball.
Not sure which makes SCG look worse; letting him back or blacklisting him for life.
This is the problem. He was only eventually punished after being caught MULTIPLE TIMES ON VIDEO. He just finally got punished once, not caught once. It's not a 1 time occurence. There should have been a separate punishment for each piece of video proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdr
Maybe not sanctioned magic ban, but SCG wants to let him play any of their events after he robbed them of a set of power and all those prizes that should have gone to legit players? Dumb.
Where is that Ben Bleinwess (did I typed it right?) when we need him?
I think it's spelled Ben Blindwuss. Because he's looking the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayradis
Ba-Da-Bing!
Why would blacklisting him be worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
A legitimate business and tournament organizer falling victim to mob justice when the otherwise ruling judicial system (DCI) has already rendered and investigation and punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
Like let's say SCG puts out a statement saying they won't allow tournament entries for convicted felons, without some sort of joint venture between the courts, purely on their own precedent. Is everybody okay with that? If everybody was okay with that, would it still be okay?
The game has rules, and if you break them, there are rules for that.
This is silly. The DCI or whatever doesnt set rules how a private store can conduct its business. If SCG feels allowing him entry hurts their business (which you can certainly argue for), its fully within its rights to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
To me, it's like if someone got caught cheating at a LGS and got banned from the store. Even if their DCI suspension is up, the LGS is under no obligation to allow them back into their store.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
I don't think I follow you here. SCG is running a business with their tournaments and bertoncini cheated in their tournaments to the extent that he won thousands and thousands of dollars. Most stores/businesses would not continue to do business with someone that had previously cheated/stolen from them. He came in second in this recent tournament, right? So they just paid out even more prize support to him after we all know he has previously gotten large prizes illegitimately.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
It'd be like a store allowing someone that was caught shoplifting there to continue to be a regular customer. It's certainly possible but it seems like a strange choice to make.
If a small store wants to ban someone from their tiny weekly $20 store credit tournaments, it's their venue, they can enforce whatever discrimination they see fit, unless otherwise outlawed.
But Star City Games, as a tournament organizer, is just a little but bigger then that. They've positioned themselves to be industry leaders in the scope of the secondary market and tournament organization. Which is to say, they should be held to a higher standard. Any action they take coinciding with a press release and references to procedure guide illustrating why they did what they did.
Though all this is just what I think they should do. Everybody is right, SCG is under no real obligation to let him in or ban him. Hell, the could write the rules such that everybody is allowed to enter, but a list of people are ineligible for prizes. But i would not be okay with it.
This argues more for the ban, not against.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
I think this sums it all!
The argument is against having, at this point, two equally large organizations (SCG/DCI) potentially having inconsistent and conflicting outcomes to the same event. If he's banned he should be banned, and if he's not, then unmolested he shall play. I'm not arguing for or against him, I just don't want an precedent where someone is investigated by the DCI for cheating, found innocent, then have the world's largest tournament organizer say no prizes and get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by davelin
I'm not sure what the issue is with consistency, especially when the two organizations have different goals and different things at stake. I'm perfectly fine with two different organizations having two separate responses to the same event.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
As a reminder, "the DCI" doesn't actually exist and never really did. There's an investigation committee of senior judges that sends recommendations to WotC. WotC used "the DCI" as a pretext to look more professional from the mid 90s to mid 00s, but they dropped even the DCI name years back.
I would substitute "WotC" personally, but whatever floats your boat.
Did Drew ever apologize for his gambling? I remember him denying it, claiming it was just a joke. But keep calling the kettle black bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by r3dd09
Betting ain't cheating, and he probably wouldn't be DQed again today in the same circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by clavio
I think they're goals and stakes are very much intertwined, but if you're fine with different responses, then okay.Quote:
davelin
I've been personally substituting "shadow government" as I type these out, but find people take a different tone then. But yeah, the governing body of tournament rules and infractions of Magic by Wizards, the people who manage and maintain the Suspended DCI Membership list, and thus, admittance into any sanctioned tournaments.Quote:
cdr