Does he now believe that cheating is not worth it because it's morally reprehensible, regardless of discovery or not, or because the possible repercussions outweigh the gains?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Alara
Printable View
Does he now believe that cheating is not worth it because it's morally reprehensible, regardless of discovery or not, or because the possible repercussions outweigh the gains?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Alara
1) Does it matter? The system put in place has either reformed someone who previously flouted its rules or acted as a sufficient deterrent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
2) Regardless of what the answer is, would you (or anyone else here, for that matter), buy into it?
The punishment has been served, he's got every right to participate again. Believing that the punishment wasn't severe enough is a critique of the system/rules, not of the people governed by it/them.
If you're honest with yourself, you'd see the two are the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
How is his case different from Jared Boettcher's then who got DQ and then appealed? Clearly unbanning Alex did not benefit just him. It benefited the community ( in the way that it showed we can forgive and people could possibly change.
I am not saying what Alex did is something to role model after , but just the fact that we can forgive shows the strength and exceptional good faith of the MTG community ( Not just Legacy).
My view is that the public shame and scrutiny experienced by both Alex and Jared have forced to reform their views, but maybe I am just optimistic player.
-Onar
WTF are you talking about? It's not restoring the right to vote or own property. The DCIs mission isn't to forgive and rehabilitate pieces of cheating shit and show us how they can change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Alara
Not trying to to start a war but the way you state the DCI's mission , you portray it as a Inquisition institution. Thats not the way its supposed to function . The DCI is supposed to uphold the law but it also is supposed to accept rehabilitation .Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
I understand you may have your own personal history but do not let it cloud your judgement. Magic the Gathering is a game not a prison structure. As I stated before Public opinion and scrutiny is often more powerful and deterrent than any official punishment.
- Onar
You are falsely reading an implication that Bertoncini doesn't have the right to participate from my question of clarification. My clarification is, indeed, directly related to system/rules. And it matters very much for that. When a convict is interviewed to determine the length of punishment and possibility of parole, one of the things that's looked into is remorse. Does the individual believe that what he/she did is wrong? Is he/she simply sorry that he/she got caught? Will he/she be a positive reintroduction to the community?Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam
And yes, I would definitely buy into it. If Bertoncini was on record saying that he knows what he did went way past craftiness, and he can't believe how scummily he previously behaved, and he's serious about maintaining the integrity of the game and not insulting those who he's cheated, there would be less skepticism. Signs that point in different directions sometimes mean the person's mindset is the same and, as you put it, there isn't sufficient deterrent.
I'm being quite honest, and I disagree wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by PirateKing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott
And you are falsely connecting both portions of my posts together. The two questions were directed at you, the rest is simply a generic statement. It is fairly obvious that very few people, least of all randoms on an internet site, can objectively decide if someone has either reformed or is only keeping in line for fear of censure. You could subjectively take a stand on that, to which the answer would simply be that it is your opinion. The role of a justice system is primarily to reform, while acting as a deterrent. To me, as long as he falls in line after serving a punishment, whose severity or lack thereof is out of his control, he has to be regarded as a tabula rasa.
Saying all that is well and good, but ignores the fact that 1) he isn't answering to you, at least not directly, 2) this isn't parole -- he's served the entire sentence, 3) you asking if he will be a positive reintroduction is a pre-emptive construction of a strawman -- you don't know the answer to that outside of a potentially flimsy interpretation of a few quotes.
My only interaction with Alex was at GP Toronto in one of the later rounds of day 2. Alex and his opponent were deck checked (heh) and Alex was yapping his mouth off very loudly while I was trying to win a very close match against my opponent to keep my top 16 hopes alive. Luckily Alex and his opponent got their decks back and started to play and they quieted down so I could focus on my own match. One of my buddies was in his draft 1 pod and beat him, which I'm pleased about.
Let the dude play until he's found to have cheated again.
Can you sick bastards stop persecuting this poor white child? Don't you think that white people have it bad enough? He clearly did what he had to do, in order to succeed in a system built to make him fail. Poor Bertoncini...
As a long-standing member of the DCI (through numerous guidance and policy changes) I can say that the DCI's mission, at least as far as Judges are concerned, is as follows: "The DCI Judge Certification Program is designed to ensure consistency in all rulings and penalties at sanctioned tournaments, and to identify and recognize experienced and knowledgeable judges." It's unfortunate that this situation has overshadowed the 'consistency' part of that statement, because Alex has (IMO) been treated similarly to other individuals who have been determined to have exhibited ban-worthy behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by nedleeds
The side of the DCI that manages sanctions is not a Parole board, they do not re-open cases or recommend additional observation when someone is reinstated. The goal of the system is the arbitrary nature of the process - rehabilitation is only a factor if a person commits another offense, and the case history is dealt with as a whole. We do not 'pre-cog' events, there isn't centrally-guided increased focus, and if he is found to be cheating again, I hope the DQ writeup has no mention of prior behavior because that shouldn't matter in the incident - only at the investigation level.
Taken from a recent shardless bug tournament report before it is buried by tons of posts:
"R9 vs esperdeathblade. One of Shardless Bug's best matchups. My opponent was Alex Bertoncini. He was very nice and pleasant to play against (and also was when I played near him in earlier rounds). I was anxious to win to try to top 8 but even more so because of an earlier round situation vs my friend at x-1. During that round, after drawing their opening hands, my friend asked how many cards Alex was holding. He responded 7. My friend asked him to count twice and 7 was the answer. Then my friend asked him to lay them flat and found 8 cards. The judges ruled it a warning and a forced mulligan. "
Link for reference?
I am just the messenger but figured I would allow the community to dive in. Here is the report I took it from:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/s...l=1#post796995
Only a warning? That seems odd--if what transpired occurred as described, one would expect that the act of lying about the number of cards in your hand would at least result in a game loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kap'n Cook
So how many strikes is this kid going to get before the dci bans him or the community kneecaps him? Someone should start an opinion poll on which comes first. Id enter any game vs him with a very poor attitude and high suspicions of every play he makes. Hes bad for the game no one should have to feel that uncomfortable and that forced to check every play thier oponent makes cheating with a smile and a pleasent attitude is still cheating and rather crafty.
Drawing extra cards is a game loss, lie or no lie. This story seems a little shady in my opinion, if I caught someone drawing an 8 card opener and a judge came and ruled it a warning I would instantly appeal to the Head Judge.
And... the Head Judge would uphold, because the Warning is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammafistRoob
Drawing too many cards on the opening hand, or on a mulligan, is Game Play Error — Improper Drawing at Start of Game, section 2.4 of the IPG. Penalty is a Warning, plus remove two cards (the extra, plus one) at random from the hand. If the game has not yet begun, they're shuffled away and continue with any desired mulligans. If the game has begun, put them on top of the library in random order.
The dividing line from Improper Draw at Start of Game to Drawing Extra Cards (which does carry a base penalty of a Game Loss) is if the game has begun and the player who has too many cards has taken a visible, legal game action.
He lied twice which means intentionnal cheating. He is a known cheater caught cheating again. Ban life not warning.
Dont be so harsh Lejay. Obv. the poor guy simply can not solve problems with numbers up to 10 yet. Maybe he needs to retake Elementary school Math class 1 and 2 again :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lejay
1, 2, many, many many!