X-Originating-IP: [147.124.170.249] From: "etienne madrid" To: wjackson57@hotmail.com, brett@clark.edu, brett@netset.com, brian_weissman@hotmail.com, bymark@gte.net, c.esko@stanleyassoc.com, c16073@email.mot.com, cache@uit.net, callahan@xmission.com, camper@southwind.net, cannonjoe@geocities.com, carynny@ad.com, bolenbono@AOL.COM, ccade@olen-usn.mhs.compuserve.com, CDKDKE@AOL.COM, cdonovan@ic.sunysb.edu, cfisher@cstone.net, cgemma@rp-agro.com, chad@ctpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov, champson@AOL.COM, chat@starburst.cbl.cees.edu, chris@ad.com, christa@goodnet.com, citizen@eskimo.com, cjbuhl@uswnvq.com, clemmd@rpi.edu, cmanning@tas.harvard.edu, cmatares@law.harvard.edu, cole@fia.net, colind@ehsmed.com, coolklaus@AOL.COM, coryc@coffey.com, cosncake@concentric.net, cowley@acsu.buffalo.edu, pp1@cornell.edu, craig@amtec.com, CrazyMike7@AOL.COM, CStelzer@IAStATE.EDU, csuver@microquill.com, ctuten@iquest.net, curts@microware.com, czuba@interaccess.com, d029784c@dc.seflin.org, dabock@students.wisc.edu, dan_lofgren@winnov.com, danbe1@ix.netcom.com, danders5@ix.netcom.com, daniel4@andrew.cmu, Subject: dojo corruption/level iii judge makes erroneous ruling Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 19:02:26 PDT Background: A Dojo article was posted in the Chicago PTQ reports from the Richmond VA qualifier which criticized a decision by Level III Judge David Doust. David Doust sent a reply to Frank which was posted. For those who don't know David Doust is with New Wave Mail Order, a sponsor of the Dojo. After I sent the below article to Frank, showing Doust's ruling to be faulty, it resulted in Frank's removing both Doust's article and the article criticizing Doust, to protect Doust, but of course Frank did not post my article, not wishing to have his sponsor Doust, or high-level judges seen making errors. The pro magic community deserves to hear about this, and deserves adequate judging. As an addendum, the D'angelo rulings declare that a player may concede at any time, and that it is unpreventable. >>>>>Begin Article<<<<< David Doust, Level III DCI Judge recently stated: >"You obviously did not know the story and decided for yourself with none >of the facts >of the situation. This was the real situation: Player A won one game, >player B also won >one game. Time was called, and I asked them about their life total about >5 minutes prior >to that. Then all of a sudden Player A told me that he won the match. I >questioned him >how he won the match in 5 minutes and he said that he was going to win >soon so >Player B conceded the game to him, so that he would a chance to make top >8. ***I then >told him that concesion is only based on your own advantage, meaning >that you can >concede to save time, so that you can get another game in or to avoid >being Jester's >Capped.*** They argued that they could concede anytime, and I told them >that if they >insisted, that I would disqualify them for cheating.(not for >unsportsmanlike conduct) >This is pretty much standard penalty for this kind of infraction. > >If you would like to drop out and play side events, that is fine, but >once you enter a match, >you must finish the match! Throwing matches is consider cheating." > >However, collusion to affect the outcome of a match is *NOT* considered >cheating >by the DCI *Standard Floor Rules*, cited below. It is listed under >unsportsmanlike >conduct. > >"1.3.3 Cheating > > Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews >all cheating allegations, >and if he or she determines that a player cheated, the head judge will >issue the appropriate penalty based on the DCI penalty guide. All >tournament disqualifications are subject to >DCI review, and further penalties may be assessed. Cheating includes, >but is not limited to: > > Receiving outside assistance or coaching > Looking at opponents' cards while shuffling or >*cutting* > Scouting other players' cards > Misrepresenting cards > Underpaying mana > Using marked cards/sleeves > Intentionally marking cards/sleeves during play > Drawing extra cards > Manipulating which cards are drawn from your >*deck* or your opponent's deck > Deliberately stalling the length of a turn to take >advantage of a time limit > Intentionally misrepresenting *public information* >(life totals, number of > cards in library, and so on). > > 1.3.4 Unsportsmanlike Conduct > > Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not >tolerated at any time. >Judges, players, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and >sportsmanlike manner. Collusion to alter the results of a *duel* or >*match* is considered to be unsportsmanlike and >will not be tolerated. Players who engage in collusion, use profanity, >argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or >harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents, will be subject >to the appropriate provisions of the DCI penalty guide and will be >subject to further DCI review. > " > >Also, the DCI only recommends disqualification of a player if: > >"4. Disqualification (A player disqualified from a tournament forfeits >all prizes and standings that he or she might have earned over the >course of the tournament.) > At the head judge's discretion, he or she may upgrade >the penalty for three >warnings to disqualification if: the head judge strongly believes that >the player in question >was cheating; or if the player has received two double warnings or a >triple warning. " > >Far from being the "standard penalty" for unsportsmanlike conduct, >it is only issued in cases of obvious cheating or multiple warnings. > >Webster's Online Dictionary defines collusion as: >"A secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful >purpose; a playing into >each other's hands; deceit; fraud; cunning." > >However, the 'collusion' David describes was neither secret nor >fraudulent. If my opponent concedes, I am the victor. > >Nowhere in the DCI *Standard Floor Rules* does it deal with the issue >of concession, let alone mandate that it can only be done when it >is to the advantage of the "person conceding." > >Finally, should it be argued that it is precedented among judges, though >unwritten in the >books, that a player can only concede when it is to his/her advantage to >do so, consider >this: If my opponent offers me $100 to concede a game, then it is to my >advantage to do >so. If my opponent is a teammate who stands to gain admittance to a top >8, then it is to >my advantage to do so. If I wish to be known as a generous, friendly >player, and can >help someone else make top 8 when I would not even if I won, then it is >to my advantage >to do so. > >This is yet another case of a human trying to play GOD; of judges >guaranteed the 'final say' and therefore sure to get their way. > >Mike Long gets a minor penalty for a mistake which implies, if not >guarantees cheating, while David Doust wants to DQ two players, not >for cheating, but for making an honest agreement similar to the >intentional draw. > >etienne madrid >>>>>>>>End Article<<<<<<<<<< The MTG Pro community deserves better. etienne one__shot@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com