Agreed on both points. WotC seems to want to like the idea of having a small group of recognizable "pro" players, and to make the top events more exclusive to turn it in to a more spectator-friendly game, a la pro poker. If that really is what they're shooting for, they need to start adopting some of the protections that WPT uses like the table cameras, and possibly a table judge (or judges?) exclusively for watching for non-game-state-related infractions. Hell, if they're going to make pro events exclusive, high-stakes affairs, maybe they should have a judge shuffling decks too.Originally Posted by cdr
In big, open events the onus is definitely on the players to keep each other honest. If you're like me and you mostly just play to enjoy the game and meet like-minded people, the idea of treating everyone like a crook seems terrible, but so does getting cheated...
I think the biggest thing is the deep seeded emotional understanding that the right play is the right play regardless of outcomes. The ability to make a decision 5 straight times, lose 5 times because of it, and still make it the 6th time if it's the right play. - Jon Finkel
"Notions of chance and fate are the preoccupation of men engaged in rash undertakings."
You know, that's a heck of an idea. The shuffling wouldn't be tough, and you might even be able to rent or buy a single deck shuffler for relatively cheap to save time. In fact, it might expedite that judge's role to have them operate as a dealer. It's a big deviation from the casual Magic environment, but I at least would think it was cool, kind of like the line in Bull Durham: "When you're in the show, someone else carries your bags."
Obviously, some things could still get by, but this would get rid of some of the easier cheats to pull, like drawing extras, or "forgetting" to put cards back after a Brainstorm.
Aha, but the terms of the contest advertised states pretty clearly that there will be a prize going to the winner. It says nothing about "prizes at our discretion," and I'd wager that letting TOs do takesie-backsies at their discretion is bad for public policy. You agree to something like that and then you get FNM shop owners saying "well no, I won't give you your prize for winning the draft; I don't like you."
baghdadbob, I agree- everyone playing the game knows that you can't make Ancestral Recall out of a card called Brainstorm!
Not currently remotely realistic - WotC is downsizing the PT, very much including staff. The judge staff of a PT is going from around 100 (at its height pre-change) to around 25. Granted, much of that staff was for public events (which no longer exist) and maybe a quarter was volunteers, but things are going to be running very lean at PTs now. You're going to have a 15:1 player:judge ratio if you include everyone, and more like 25:1 player:floor judge.
A year or two ago WotC also decided to end the questionably legal way judges were traditionally compensated, so each judge costs real money now and they can't take volunteers.
The PT is already the place cheaters are most likely to get caught, since both the players and the judges are super sharp.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Careful with metaphors, reductio ad absurdum is a dirty arguing strategy that doesn't get anyone anywhere. This isn't setting a precedent for any tournament organizer anywhere to take away a prize for whateverthefuck reason they want. The kid cheated. This isn't something we should try to turn into a slippery slope argument. I don't think a person out there believes Bertoncheaty should get the money based on what he did to get to the winning position.
If we want to give a direct reason, let's argue instead that what he did doesn't count as a win in the tournament, and not that the tournament directors are taking the prize from the winner.
He made no metaphors.
LOL you think indirect proof isn't a viable method? So when Euclid used an indirect proof to determine that the square root of 2 was irrational, he wasn't getting anywhere?
Let's argue an obvious falsehood? Whether or not you agree with his methods, of course he won the tournament. And the organizers aren't "taking" anything from Alex, they're refusing to issue the check.
^This. Reductio ad absurdum is perfectly logically correct. (unless you were trying to say he was doing slippery slope, but I don't think that was particularly slippery slope-y?)
I don't think it was even that absurd. It's not a "if we allow X, men will marry sheep and cats and dogs will live together." If someone can point to a court decision that says that an event organizer has unspoken discretion to revoke promised prizes, then people will use that when they want to avoid paying a prize.
Or to put it another way, you're at a tournament. There's a $200 prize. Nine people show up and it doesn't cover the door fee. Can the organizer reduce the prize at their discretion so they don't lose money? Are we going to support giving TOs this power? Does it change if the prize is guaranteed? What if the TO says the winner cheated? What if the DCI bans the person for cheating the next week, but they did not cheat a single time in that event?
I could make this into a Torts exam question : )
How is any of this relevant? The man cheated into the winning slot, with video evidence of the cheating. SCG isn't revoking his prize for "Cheating... and not enough people showed up."
Again, this is not what happened. He cheated during the tournament, as per video footage. He didn't get caught during because the judges and players weren't observant enough. This isn't the tournament organizers going back on their promise to give out money even, I assume they'll have a receipt showing they have given it to charity.What if the DCI bans the person for cheating the next week, but they did not cheat a single time in that event?
I could make this into a Torts exam question : )
He compares SCG not giving out prizes to Bertoncini to any TO revoking prizes because they don't like someone. But let's be the troll who breaks down every little thing, shall we?
With well defined numbers and mathematical objects, it is a viable method. When comparing two inherently different social interactions, by all means no it is not.LOL you think indirect proof isn't a viable method? So when Euclid used an indirect proof to determine that the square root of 2 was irrational, he wasn't getting anywhere?
They're "taking back" their promise of money, of course they are taking something from him. I question his victory, as he should have been disqualified (and now there's video evidence so, I would hope, this could be enacted after it happens) this means his games would not have been considered wins. Therefore he wouldn't be the winner of the tournament, as he would be disqualified.Let's argue an obvious falsehood? Whether or not you agree with his methods, of course he won the tournament. And the organizers aren't "taking" anything from Alex, they're refusing to issue the check.
I realize the DCI is backwards in this respect, and have seen improper game losses given out, unable to be retracted since they were "in the system already," but I still wish something like this could happen.
He cheated during the Invitational? I haven't seen anyone allege that.
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Consider this: an athlete qualifies to the Olympics which would start next month. He is selected for drug testing, and turns out positive after a lengthy testing. However, in the mean time, he already won a gold medal during the first day of the competition. Would it be right to take away his medal? My money is on yes.
No one has. But the fact that he got a ton of byes and such from cheated wins means that the invitational could have gone quite differently if he ha to play out the first few rounds, or was DQ before that. I think the main idea behind not issuing the prize is that he shouldn't have been in the tourney in the first place.
And while everyone is addressing what could happen if you allow TOs to retroactively take back prizes, consider the consequences of the reverse. You send a pretty clear message if you issue the prize that cheaters can win an awful lot of money so long as they are ok with getting banned/suspended
That's an imperfect analogy if our performance drugs, as they usually do, stay in the body for an extended period of time and confer benefits. I think you could figure out if the person were under their influence at the time.
Consider a race car driver who wins a race; afterward, they find out that in a different race, he used a fuel with an octane rating that violated policy. Everyone knows you can't use that fuel. We have no evidence that he used that fuel on the day he won the race, though. Can we rightfully strip him of his prize?
Can a TO tell you, after you've won a draft, that he heard you slipped an extra rare into your sealed deck last week and you had a pretty good draft deck, so he won't pay you the prize this week?
According to the buzz at the PTQ today, he cast a lot of Vapor Snags during a feature match.
Delver enthusiast and avid practitioner of blind flipsmanship.
Follow me on Twitter: @AllSunsDawn
A key difference here is that is is not hearsay, it is factual proof that he cheated. There is video and picture evidence of him cheating, not just someone saying 'oh he cheated'. Whether or not he cheated at the event in particular does not quite require much debate because he would not have been at the event in or even in the position he was in, if he had not cheated to get there.
While I do agree it sets a dangerous precedent to remove the cash prize, I feel it was necessary and warranted as an action. There is not Guarantee from starcity that you will receive money if you cheat.
We could go back and forth ad infinitum (I know Latin too =P), so if you want to argue over the precedent this sets, make a new thread for it please so this thread is left open for how much people love the "Great explorer" or have opinions on how he cheated. I would love to argue semantics and battle with wordplay elsewhere, it seems like it would be fun.
Belcher
Delver
Dredge
When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
Only time will tell
Ugh, why did you have to use the h-word : ) The video and pictures are legally considered hearsay (out-of-court statement brought in for its truth value). Now there are plenty of ways to get this into evidence, but it'd need to be authenticated and have a chain of custody. I could go further, but I'll just point out that you can't auto-admit things like videos or pictures. In the legal word, they don't speak for themselves.
For the record, if there were ever a time to rescind a prize, this is it.
A key difference is that it could be admitted where a TO hearing Joe Schmoe say So-and So put in extra rares, verses the other evidence, I guess my point was more the example you used was not quite interchangeable with the situation that actually happened.
Dredge
When your heart won't beat, your eyes go black
There's a light in the tunnel and you can't turn back
Your friends can't save you, your family's gone
You're waiting on your judgment at the foot of the throne
Will you beg for some mercy? Will you cop some pleas?
Will you stand on your own or get down on your knees?
Will your angels release you from where demons dwell?
Will you make it into Heaven or go right back to Hell?
Only time will tell
If the reason he qualified for said race is because he cheated in those previous races, then yes, yes you can strip from it.
#mtgfinance follow on twitter: @mtgStaples
Team Brown & Team Unicorn. Does that make me a Brown Unicorn?
It seems that SCG approached this in a careful way. They did not target Alex with any specific action that was not within their rights to do. Specifically, they only revoked his titles and removed his player club points. The subsequent refusal to pay was not an action targeted at Alex, but merely the result of a new policy that SCG instituted and it happens to apply to Alex. Since Alex had not been paid as of Friday, the policy took effect immediately and it clearly states that a player found to be suspended will have their prizes donated to charity if they won said prize while under investigation and had not been paid as of yet. The rules may appear to be targeted at Alex, but they'll argue that it was a general policy change that just happened to impact him. Even if his actions were the basis for or inspired the change in policy, the refusal to pay is not a targeted action against him since their decision is based off of a rule that was universally applied it to everyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote