Alex Bertoncini's serial cheating.

[KevinTrudeau]

Did you not see the video of him starting with 8 cards in hand at SCG:KC a few weeks ago?

I have indeed; I was the one who first posted that video in this thread after all. One documented play of that nature does not a suspension make. Trey Van Cleave was only retroactively suspended because of the infamous picture of him peeking at Zvi's draft selections because of a history of shady play, in addition to an incident occurring earlier at the same tournament (those details might be completely off, my memory's getting a lot worse as I enter my twenties).

Yugioh is full of cheating! I got cheated out by a judge that was a buddy of my opponent in T8 Elimination of 2004's national championship!

Got warning for cutting opponents deck after shuffling (!!) and he discussed with me about every target I announced and annuled a gamewinning play ... because of.

(For Insiders: i Flip my magician of faith, target raigeki, pull it out of my graveyard pile, reveal it, and put it to my Hand then judge tells me that i have to take a useless discarder...)

Caught the Judge and my opponent lauthing After the match having a coffee. I quitted the game after this;

Damn, sounds like something right out of the TV show.

[BenBleiweiss]

A statement from the President of StarCityGames.com regarding Alex Bertoncini and the creation of a new StarCityGames.com Open Series Prize Policy.

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/s...ertoncini.html

[mindovermatt]

In accordance with this policy, I will not be awarding Alex Bertoncini with any cash prizes or appearance fees from the Charlotte Invitational. Instead,I will be donating all cash prizes and appearance fees Alex was scheduled to receive from the Charlotte Invitational (totaling $10,250) directly to the Child's Play charity, an organization that provides toys and games to children in hospitals across the world.

Thumbs up SCG! This is the best way to deter future cheaters.

[hi-val]

Though I support that decision, taking away the prize after the fact with that statement is moving the goalposts. If Alex wanted to scumbag Magic forever and be permabanned from fun4life, then he could make a real case against SCG and possibly recover that money.

There's a lot of talk about nonexistent terms of service and how gambling laws should bar a prize recovery, but none of that is firmly rooted in the law. I hope SCG lawyered up before doing this, even though there's a miniscule chance they'd get sued.

[ramanujan]

This is, by a wide margin, the best way for this to be handled. I bet AB feels like the "particularly dirty hippy" from the movie "Semi-Pro". He got the huge check that says 10,000 dollars but he isn't getting the money. How amusing is it that the check is for the same amount?

[GGoober]

I'm pretty sure SCG has more than covered their asses in the case Alex goes for a lawsuit (he probably does not have the resource to engage in a lawsuit in the first place) nor will the lawsuit prove to be favorable in his case.

I'm not sure on the exact legal obligations you are obliged to fulfill when participating in an SCG event, but I don't think SCG will foolishly go out and post their update without covering themselves on future bad incidents/news (e.g. getting into a losing lawsuit).

Two thumbs up for SCG for the update. If anything, this really builds up the positive opinions towards SCG.

[Fossil4182]

Even logically, this makes sense to me. The incidents that resulted in his banning took place through out the SCG Open Series this past season. He was competing in the invitational tournament. He's finishes that allowed him to qualify to the invitational are tainted so even if he didn't cheat at the invitational, he never should of been able to attend in the first place. Nothing they do will make everyone happy, but this is better than doing nothing.

[Scordata]

Frightening precedent.

I'm almost always against ex post facto mandates, even if there is a "moral" argument in their favor.

[jrw1985]

Though I support that decision, taking away the prize after the fact with that statement is moving the goalposts. If Alex wanted to scumbag Magic forever and be permabanned from fun4life, then he could make a real case against SCG and possibly recover that money.

There's a lot of talk about nonexistent terms of service and how gambling laws should bar a prize recovery, but none of that is firmly rooted in the law. I hope SCG lawyered up before doing this, even though there's a miniscule chance they'd get sued.

SCG is "moving the goalposts"? You've got to be fucking kidding me. I don't see how a company protecting its brand and product by not handing over a check to a person that essentially stole from them is "moving the goalposts". If you really believe that SCG is in the wrong here, then I'd like you to invite me over to your house. I'm gonna take your stuff. Don't move the goalposts on me.

[hi-val]

SCG is "moving the goalposts"? You've got to be fucking kidding me. I don't see how a company protecting its brand and product by not handing over a check to a person that essentially stole from them is "moving the goalposts". If you really believe that SCG is in the wrong here, then I'd like you to invite me over to your house. I'm gonna take your stuff. Don't move the goalposts on me.

No, no, no, you don't understand where I'm coming from and it's probably because I didn't write enough to explain it(didn't want to snow people with legal boringness). My point is that you cannot, after the fact, change the rules and then expect that to have bearing on what happened before. My point was that SCG had no terms that excluded cheating, no terms saying what would happen to prizes if cheating happened, and who they would trust to tell them that cheating happened.

Yes, this is all stupidly obvious.

But if you're an outsider, you're looking at this and maaaaaybe, the only precedent in your state about an event organizer refusing to pay out a prize happened in, say, 1969 and had to do with a bass fishing tournament. You don't have games of chance [gambling] in your state, or you think that rules governing games of chance shouldn't affect games of skill, like Magic. Maybe that 1969 case was because someone accused BassFisher Fishington of stashing a bigger catch and springing it, but the facts came out that the organizer didn't have the cash on hand and just wanted to get out of an obligation to pay. Maybe there's a bass fishing judiciary, but it's a private entity. Fishington says "look, none of those guys were there, it's a private and bribeable entity (with references), are you going to believe them?"

And then you have to put that question of do we believe Big Bass Fishing Referees Unlimited when they say BassFisher cheated? And that is a question that you MUST to put in front of a jury at a trial.

Or to put this directly at hand, Alex could say: "look, SCG made me agree to nothing. I came, I paid my fees, I won, and they want to take this back. There's a specialized ruling body that was NOT THERE that decided I cheated, but they can't prove anything and anyway, their rules say nothing about cheating anyway. They didn't bar it and they didn't see that anything happened at that event. I went on to win it and only afterward, they decided that I cheated."

And to disprove what Alex said, you'd have to get witnesses on the stand who saw it happen, you'd have to show the jury the film if that's what you're relying on, and you have to prove that in general and in this instance, the DCI is believable enough that you'll take their word, even if they didn't see it happen. By the way, any DCI investigation is barred from admission as evidence and you'll have to bring in all those people they interviewed and get them on the stand to testify.

This sounds like a lot of silliness, and you're right - it is. My central point is that this policy does NOTHING legally to deprive Alex of his claims. NOTHING. This came out after the fact and Alex never agreed to a term that said "yo dawg, don't cheat in this event, I m 4 srs now." Again, this sounds kind of silly. To make it relevant, add enough zeroes after $10,000 to make it interesting again.

I'm not defending scumbag behavior, I'm just pointing out that this won't fix anything that's already happened. If this were for $100,000 or $1m, people would instantly lawyer up.

[Ben]

Wait where did the P9s go?

Also if it weren't for the public out cry I doubt SCG would make the decision as they did now. Since originally they did not have any intention of taking away the prize money at all.

Good thing they changed ToS so this should discourage future cheatyface trying to score for cash.

[cdr]

Also if it weren't for the public out cry I doubt SCG would make the decision as they did now. Since originally they did not have any intention of taking away the prize money at all.

That is false; I expect the decision has nothing to do with quelling the mob and everything to do with Pete being deeply personally affected by the situation.

SCG is not some faceless corporation, it's a collection of (pretty amazing) people.

[dschalter]

That is false; I expect the decision has nothing to do with quelling the mob and everything to do with Pete being deeply personally affected by the situation.

SCG is not some faceless corporation, it's a collection of (pretty amazing) people.

Is it not possible that one of the things that has deeply affected his is the immense backlash against SCG? It's not an either/or situation where he either was affected purely by a desire to placate the mob or by his own moral compass.

[vilik]

SCG is not some faceless corporation, it's a collection of (pretty amazing) people.

What is your affiliation to SCG?

[SpikeyMikey]

No, no, no, you don't understand where I'm coming from and it's probably because I didn't write enough to explain it(didn't want to snow people with legal boringness). My point is that you cannot, after the fact, change the rules and then expect that to have bearing on what happened before. My point was that SCG had no terms that excluded cheating, no terms saying what would happen to prizes if cheating happened, and who they would trust to tell them that cheating happened.

Yes, this is all stupidly obvious.

But if you're an outsider, you're looking at this and maaaaaybe, the only precedent in your state about an event organizer refusing to pay out a prize happened in, say, 1969 and had to do with a bass fishing tournament. You don't have games of chance [gambling] in your state, or you think that rules governing games of chance shouldn't affect games of skill, like Magic. Maybe that 1969 case was because someone accused BassFisher Fishington of stashing a bigger catch and springing it, but the facts came out that the organizer didn't have the cash on hand and just wanted to get out of an obligation to pay. Maybe there's a bass fishing judiciary, but it's a private entity. Fishington says "look, none of those guys were there, it's a private and bribeable entity (with references), are you going to believe them?"

And then you have to put that question of do we believe Big Bass Fishing Referees Unlimited when they say BassFisher cheated? And that is a question that you MUST to put in front of a jury at a trial.

Or to put this directly at hand, Alex could say: "look, SCG made me agree to nothing. I came, I paid my fees, I won, and they want to take this back. There's a specialized ruling body that was NOT THERE that decided I cheated, but they can't prove anything and anyway, their rules say nothing about cheating anyway. They didn't bar it and they didn't see that anything happened at that event. I went on to win it and only afterward, they decided that I cheated."

And to disprove what Alex said, you'd have to get witnesses on the stand who saw it happen, you'd have to show the jury the film if that's what you're relying on, and you have to prove that in general and in this instance, the DCI is believable enough that you'll take their word, even if they didn't see it happen. By the way, any DCI investigation is barred from admission as evidence and you'll have to bring in all those people they interviewed and get them on the stand to testify.

This sounds like a lot of silliness, and you're right - it is. My central point is that this policy does NOTHING legally to deprive Alex of his claims. NOTHING. This came out after the fact and Alex never agreed to a term that said "yo dawg, don't cheat in this event, I m 4 srs now." Again, this sounds kind of silly. To make it relevant, add enough zeroes after $10,000 to make it interesting again.

I'm not defending scumbag behavior, I'm just pointing out that this won't fix anything that's already happened. If this were for $100,000 or $1m, people would instantly lawyer up.

As I mentioned on SCG, policies and laws are open to interpretation. It's not just the letter of the law, it's the spirit of the law as well. That's what we pay judges for. If he goes to court claiming that the money should be his because the contest rules didn't specifically contain a section saying "prizes are forfeit if you cheated to get them", the judge will slap him the fuck down. If I find some clever way to cheat the Powerball or MegaMillions drawing and get caught after winning the drawing, no court in the country is going to let me collect those winnings.

[Tammit67]

What is your affiliation to SCG?

He's a judge

[juppal]

Bertoncini used to wear a North Face coat to a lot of the SCG's....because he never stopped exploring.

[luckme10]

No, no, no, you don't understand where I'm coming from and it's probably because I didn't write enough to explain it(didn't want to snow people with legal boringness). My point is that you cannot, after the fact, change the rules and then expect that to have bearing on what happened before. My point was that SCG had no terms that excluded cheating, no terms saying what would happen to prizes if cheating happened, and who they would trust to tell them that cheating happened.

Yes, this is all stupidly obvious.

But if you're an outsider, you're looking at this and maaaaaybe, the only precedent in your state about an event organizer refusing to pay out a prize happened in, say, 1969 and had to do with a bass fishing tournament. You don't have games of chance [gambling] in your state, or you think that rules governing games of chance shouldn't affect games of skill, like Magic. Maybe that 1969 case was because someone accused BassFisher Fishington of stashing a bigger catch and springing it, but the facts came out that the organizer didn't have the cash on hand and just wanted to get out of an obligation to pay. Maybe there's a bass fishing judiciary, but it's a private entity. Fishington says "look, none of those guys were there, it's a private and bribeable entity (with references), are you going to believe them?"

And then you have to put that question of do we believe Big Bass Fishing Referees Unlimited when they say BassFisher cheated? And that is a question that you MUST to put in front of a jury at a trial.

Or to put this directly at hand, Alex could say: "look, SCG made me agree to nothing. I came, I paid my fees, I won, and they want to take this back. There's a specialized ruling body that was NOT THERE that decided I cheated, but they can't prove anything and anyway, their rules say nothing about cheating anyway. They didn't bar it and they didn't see that anything happened at that event. I went on to win it and only afterward, they decided that I cheated."

And to disprove what Alex said, you'd have to get witnesses on the stand who saw it happen, you'd have to show the jury the film if that's what you're relying on, and you have to prove that in general and in this instance, the DCI is believable enough that you'll take their word, even if they didn't see it happen. By the way, any DCI investigation is barred from admission as evidence and you'll have to bring in all those people they interviewed and get them on the stand to testify.

This sounds like a lot of silliness, and you're right - it is. My central point is that this policy does NOTHING legally to deprive Alex of his claims. NOTHING. This came out after the fact and Alex never agreed to a term that said "yo dawg, don't cheat in this event, I m 4 srs now." Again, this sounds kind of silly. To make it relevant, add enough zeroes after $10,000 to make it interesting again.

I'm not defending scumbag behavior, I'm just pointing out that this won't fix anything that's already happened. If this were for $100,000 or $1m, people would instantly lawyer up.

I'd love to read an article on what exactly is the legal precedent. Someone with a lexis or westlaw account go look up some common law.

[baghdadbob]

It is a damn shame when magic players can't separate the line between whether a player is playing fast in homage to the challenge (ex. speed chess) or if it is just a sleigh of hand in order to cheat. All I can suggest to magic players is that they take time with each match and don't try to rush it. Make sure everything is copasetic. Also fuck this asshole he has brought shame to our community. Keep on trucking magic players!

[cdr]

What is your affiliation to SCG?

I've HJed an Open and worked close to a couple dozen. I've known pretty much all of the events crew since before SCG hired them (SCG hires top-class judges to run the events side of the business) and I've met Ben and Pete and have much respect for them.