Subject: Crime and Punishment Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:08:30 PDT From: "Catherine Nicoloff" To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com * Crime and Punishment - 1998 World Championships * In all honesty, I went to the World Championships expecting to be disappointed. I was so disheartened after US Nationals that I wasn't even sure that I wanted to attend the World Championships. In the end, I went because I wanted to see the small handful of friends I care about. I wanted to play around with the digital camera. And I wanted to get some cards signed. It was finally my turn to be pleasantly surprised. At the players' meeting, Jeff Donais handed down possibly the strictest code of penalties I have ever seen in a Pro Tour event. I had to resist the urge to start applauding spontaneously. For the past year, I have hoped and prayed fervently for stricter penalties for even mundane infractions. The ridiculous belief in top-level "accidents" and "mistakes" has held the Pro Tour back from being a professional environment for too long. Niceness be damned. Come prepared and don't play sloppy. I had an opportunity to witness Tommi Hovi (FIN) play versus Tomi Walamies (FIN) in the Standard portion of World's. I was stunned. => Hovi casts Prosperity for 4, lays the card down in "limbo", puts a die on top set to "4" to indicate the X portion of the cost. => Walamies casts Force Spike, lays it on top of the Prosperity. => Hovi pays the 1 mana, the Force Spike goes to the graveyard. => Walamies casts another Force Spike, lays it on top of the Prosperity. And so on... They resolved all their spells this way, creating spell batches and stacks. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how Magic is played. It was an absolute dream to watch their match. American players perhaps don't realize how boring it is to watch a sloppy game. When you cast your spells directly to the graveyard, when you play your permanents in piles and don't fan your hand out for us to see, how do you expect us to maintain interest in your game? Anyway... I think I was busy saying how wonderful the new penalties are. It's nice to see that WotC expects us to behave like professionals for once. There's just one problem remaining, one that I hope they fix before too long. Inconsistent rulings. I've got a couple of examples here. *** 3 Extra Turns *** Brian Weissman (USA) vs. Matt Dickinson (AUS). Time is called. Weissman has the game locked and will win in 2 turns. He asks for 3 extra turns. => The judge refuses on the grounds that there is no evidence of stalling in the match. The match ends in a draw, 1-1. Manuel Bevand (FRA) vs. Sigurd Eskeland (NOR). Time is called. Game balance is in Eskeland's favor, but the game is not locked. A judge has been present for almost the entire final game, to prevent stalling. The match is tied at 1 game apiece. => The judge declares that there is no evidence of stalling in the match, yet awards the match 3 extra turns. Eskeland wins the match, 2-1. What is the message here from Bevand's perspective? If you stall, you get a warning and a draw. If you don't stall, you get a game loss. Why didn't Dickinson get his game loss for not stalling, too? If I were Bevand, I know I'd rather have the warning. *** Marked Sleeves *** Scott Johns (USA) versus Raphaël Levy (FRA). Johns asks a judge to examine Levy's card sleeves. => The judge declares them marked (due to excessive wear) and requires Levy to desleeve or replace his sleeves. Levy receives a game loss. Levy asks a judge to examine Johns' card sleeves. => The judge declares them marked (due to excessive wear). Johns is ordered to replace them. Johns does not receive a game loss. The official reason for this insanity? Johns had his sleeves examined by a judge between every round to check them for wear. Therefore his sleeves were marked, but only kinda-sorta-not-bad-like. Levy failed to take this completely obscure precaution. Therefore his sleeves were marked suspicious-icky-bad-cheater-like. Message to cheaters everywhere: Sleeve your deck with unmarked sleeves. Have a judge examine them. Mark them before you begin play. You can get a free game win that way. Are you paying attention? Marked sleeves are marked sleeves are marked sleeves. *** Insult to Injury *** To my utter astonishment, the abuse of Raphaël Levy didn't end there. Levy went to his next round, still shaking his head, trying to clear out a little of those bizarre circumstances from his mind. He shuffled and began to play. His opponent called a judge. => Levy had only 59 cards in his deck. He was missing a Wall of Blossoms. He was penalized for attempting to play with an illegal deck. Raphaël got his second game loss in as many rounds. But he's cool. I looked at him, alarmed. He just shrugged. They found his Wall in Scott Johns' deck. => Since Scott Johns had elected to intentionally draw that round, he did not attempt to play a match with 5 Walls of Blossoms in his deck. So he didn't get a game loss. The moral? Only your opponent gets screwed if you take a card from his/her deck. Having your cards stolen is bad. Actually stealing cards from another player is not. *** Pairings *** Tomi Walamies (FIN) vs. Mikko Snygg (FIN). Walamies and Snygg are both members of the Finnish national team. To make things fair for the team competition, members of the same national team should not play each other. Tomi and Mikko asked for new pairings. => The judge refused. Later in the tournament, one of the Finns is suddenly re-paired and receives an American opponent. The American is Matt Linde, member of the USA national team. Linde was paired against another member of the USA national team, so both Americans asked a judge for new pairings. => So they got new pairings. *** Issues of Language *** The World Championships is an intensely international event. What surprises me is that there seem to be very few systems in place to help players who do not speak English fluently. I was watching yet another reality dispute when I turned to my right and saw Peter Radonjic (CAN) also watching. I am like a magnet to game disputes. Maybe Peter is, too. He leaned to my ear and whispered, "The judges always rule in favor of the guy who speaks fluent English." Catino arrived. => He ruled in favor of the guy who spoke fluent English. Now here's the whole story: This was one of the later rounds of Day 1, only 2 matches still in progress. I wandered over to watch the match between Dan Clegg (USA) and Manuel Bevand (FRA). I like both of these players a lot. I noticed the differences in the styles of play between the two competitors. Clegg was very vocal, announcing everything verbally and specifically. Bevand preferred to use motions of indication to communicate his plays. Bevand had a Change of Heart in his hand. He had been using it on his opponent's Spirit en-Kor every turn. Now Bevand casts it with buyback, takes the Change of Heart, and taps the corner of the card onto Clegg's Cloudchaser Eagle. I got very intrigued about the strategy of this change. I assumed that Bevand wanted Clegg to attack with the en-Kor. => A judge was already watching this match for stalling. Dan Clegg is a very slow player. The casting of Change of Heart backs Clegg out of his declaration of attack phase. Clegg casts Seething Anger with buyback, once, twice... on his Cloudchaser Eagle. Clegg tries to attack with the Eagle. Bevand stops him, reminding him that the creature cannot attack. They both appeal to the judge who was watching the match. => The judge wasn't actually paying attention. So I am the only witness. Several judges are called. Nobody asks for my version of what I saw. I am forced to speak up and remind them that I was present. I give the details of what I saw to Catino. Bevand is astonished. Not that there is a disagreement, but that Clegg is practically shouting. Clegg demands that the judge allow him to take back the play, on the grounds that Manuel did not actually verbally declare his target. This was where Radonjic arrived and gave me his sage interpretation. What I witnessed was discounted, possibly because of potential bias. Manuel Bevand has been one of my best friends for months. The judges could not have known, since they didn't ask, that I participated in getting a ruling *against* Manuel for an illegal play earlier that same day. After all, an illegal play is an illegal play. Flickering Ward set to protection from white buries itself. Anyway... Manuel played slowly and carefully and skillfully the entire match versus Clegg. => The judge decided that this was too much of an advantage for Bevand, and allowed Clegg to take back his ridiculous mistake. Clegg won the match, 2-1. Bevand later said to me, "Am I responsible when my opponent and my judge are not paying attention?" I'm sorry, Manuel. I suppose you are. ********** What protections do non-fluent players have in tournaments? I looked at a copy of the deck registration sheet. It says at the bottom that players must use English card names only. If I do not speak English well, and I write down "Drain Power" instead of "Drain Life", I will get a match loss for an illegal deck and be forced to play Bloom/Drain Power for the rest of the tournament. => Bloom/Drain Power is not a good deck. Players who speak English poorly or not at all have no reasonable chance in a reality dispute. They must communicate with gestures and without the benefit of specific English-language game terminology. They cannot abuse the existence of language nuances to make themselves sound more convincing. They must trust their translators to be effective and their judges to be fair. => Peter Radonjic may be cynical, but perhaps he is right. - Cathy Nicoloff Team Legion - http://the.site.will.be.fixed.soon Props to Raphaël Levy - one of the few players in the world who can truthfully claim that Jon Finkel is his bitch. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com