PTLA - Final Results
Charles Keith-Stanley
Masters' Division, Quarterfinal Results
Bui vs Mills Mills 2, Bui 1
Possemier vs Comer Comer 2, Possemier 1
Weissman vs Hovi Hovi 2, Weissman 0
Immordino vs Yoo Yoo 2, Immordino 0
Semi-final Results
Mills vs Yoo Mills 3, Yoo 0
Comer vs Hovi Hovi 3, Comer 2
Final Results
Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
Pro Tour events. Mills led Hovi 2 games to 1 when the infraction took
place, early in the fourth game of the best-of-5 match.)
Junior Division, Quarterfinal Results
Kline vs Zimmerman Kline 2, Zimmerman 0
Mowshowitz vs Gordon Mowshowitz 2, Gordon 0
Pollock vs Harding Harding 2, Pollock 1
Valleroy vs Means Means 2, Valleroy 1
Semi-final Results
Kline vs Means Means 3, Kline 1
Mowshowitz vs Harding Mowshowitz 3, Harding 2
Final Results
Means 3, Mowshowitz 2
David J. Low
Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
>Master's Division Final Results
>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>Pro Tour events.
Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
:-/
Regards,
David.
--
{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "The words of the Prophets are }
{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | written on the subway walls...." }
Paul Barclay
d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
>>Master's Division Final Results
>>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>>Pro Tour events.
> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> :-/
Or the better question: "Which judge broke the rule that the enforced penalty
should be no less than the normal penalty".
Paul Barclay.
x
Oystein Buene
x <x...@anon.com> wrote in article <331ACF...@anon.com>...
Well... Mills did not tap mana to cast his spell (I don't know whichone it
was). He had done the exact same error at an earlier point in the
tournament, and thus by the 2 warnings for the same infraction rule, he
should be dqed from the tournament.
Basically I think that rule is somewhat harsh when it comes to stupid
mistakes like this one. It is not like he was trying to cheat heavily (like
drawing an extra card) or something. On the other hand the game is about
tapping mana to cast spells, so that a player in the finals in a Pro-Tour
event can't remember this is just unbelievable.... I'm sure he will
remember it in the future though... "gee, I forgot to tap mana to cast this
spell... oh well it only cost me $10000" =)
Well... just my opinion...
Öystein
Paul Barclay
>Paul Barclay wrote:
>>
>> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>>
>> >Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
>> >>Master's Division Final Results
>> >>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>> >>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>> >>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>> >>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>> >>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>> >>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>> >>Pro Tour events.
>>
>> > Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
>> > :-/
>>
>> Or the better question: "Which judge broke the rule that the enforced penalty
>> should be no less than the normal penalty".
>>
>> Paul Barclay.
>What was the exact rules infraction anyhow ?
It appears to be (from another post) "faliure to tap for <correct?> mana
before casting spells". This could range from a trivial infraction to a real
cheating problem (with a counterspell deck - casts something but doesn't tap
out). The infraction was a second breach of the same rules offence, for which
the prescribed penalty is almost always ejection (I've asked Dave Delaney to
confirm this point).
I actually think that judges _should_ have the option to do this (reduce a
penalty in certain circumstances), but at the moment they do not.
Paul Barclay.
Thomas K. Almroth III
>
> I actually think that judges _should_ have the option to do this (reduce
a
> penalty in certain circumstances), but at the moment they do not.
>
> Paul Barclay.
The judges, including the tournament manger, should have no option to
change the rules. Giving a judge too many options in his or her decisions
is precisely why the US court and jail systems are such a mess. This
decision set a terrible precedent and sends an awful message to the
players. It sends this message to a player playing his or her final match
for a specific position: "If I am going to lose I might as well try and
bend the rules or cheat because the worst that will happen is I will get
the position I am already guaranteed." I feel that the decision was made
more for PR than for the integrity of the game and the rule system. There
is no reason why a match in the finals should be judged any differently
than any of the matches on the first day of the Pro-Tour (or any match on
any day in any sanctioned tournament for that matter).
Here are some additional facts about said incident:
1) The second warning and the following match DQ was given for casting a
Grave Servitude without first tapping the required mana.
2) At the time of the DQ Mills hand contained a Meddle (something that
undoubtedly weighed heavy in the decision).
3) While watching the match at the Queen Mary the warnings were not
broadcast but it was apparent that Mills received one in an earlier game
when he laid a Wake of Vultures without first tapping any mana. There was
a brief pause and then he picked up the card. After another brief pause he
tapped some mana and correctly cast Wake of Vultures.
4) After speaking with one of the judges who was judging the master's
finals it came to light that Mills had actually received 5 warnings for the
misrepresenting a card. Obviously only 2 were "real" warnings. The other
3 were "if you do that again I will give you a warning"
pseudo-pre-warnings.
bob blabbins
David J. Low wrote:
>
> Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> >Master's Division Final Results
> >Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> >second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
> >penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> >required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
> >prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
> >that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
> >Pro Tour events.
>
> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> :-/
OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
(then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
that.
You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
somantic mistake.
Enquiring minds want to know,
bishop
Sam Ward
David J. Low wrote:
>
> Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> >Master's Division Final Results
> >Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> >second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
> >penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> >required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
> >prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
> >that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
> >Pro Tour events.
>
> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> :-/
>
Last Year :-)
"How Can You Miss? They're All Full Tosses!"
-Stan McCabe,
Aussie Cricketer commenting on his Baseball Prowess
--------------------------------------------------
Sam Ward sam...@mail.argo.net.au
Fragman on IRC http://argo.net.au/samward/
--------------------------------------------------
anon...@anonymous.com
Anyone participating at this level has thousands of games of Magic
behind him/her. It is very difficult to believe that this was simply
oversight or carelessness. Genuine cheating or even hints of
impropriety, as well as the lack of quick, decisive, and proper
punishment will kill the credibility of the pro tour. This incidient
is most troubling.
A Ranked Pro
Rudy Edward
(David J. Low) wrote:
> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> :-/
>
Give me a break! this isnt even an unenforced rule, but its not a rule!
check your rule book, standard floor rules, and all that jazz. It's all
about interpretation. to Mills, he hasnt cast his card until he's paid
the mana, so he's not tapping his mana after he *plays* a card, but
rather after he *shows* the card.
now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mills should have gone
unpenalized, neccessarily, but for David Low to insinuate that WotC was
too lenient on Mills is absurd. I was there, and to kick him out for
doing something half the pro tour players do is a stupid idea. David Low.
Give it up.
I doubt I will respond further to this thread until after I post my
complete thoughts about the incident, as well as my opinion on how to
handle problems like this in the future... If you are interested in my
take on how the rules apply to this, as well as how they should be
enforced, look for my post "Critique of PT Los Angeles" soon... I wont be
dealing with it in my tourney report...
Lonousisme
With all the trash talking that goes on, and the attempts at cheating and
questionable conduct that goes on, and people get away, why did this have
to happen? Does Tom Wylie think that it would make a statement not to
screw around with the judges at a pro-tour? And if so what screwing around
was going on?
I have to comment as an outsider who was not there and am only
getting the facts through second hand info (at best). But if David Mills
was DQed for simply stating what he was going to do, what kind of an
infraction is that? With all the underhanded stuff that takes place in Pro
Tours and qualifiers, and hell, any other tournament. Here is a guy who
was not trying to pull something fast, simply stating what his actions
were going to be.
WOTC makes a circus out of the PT anyways, video taping and
cybercast... It seems to me that Mills was simply being verbal possibly
for the sake of an audience, or maybe for his opponent who was from
another country ( I have no idea of how good his english is).
If WOTC thinks that it can pacify people by saying that at least they
allowed Mills to retain 2nd place, they are crazy. Can you imagine if they
did DQ Mills, denied him the money of second place, and then told him that
he could never again participate in a Pro Tour? I for one would be
outraged and cease attending and helping at PTQ's and other sanctioned
events.
WOTC, the public knows that you have to enforce your rules, but you
must do it to preserve the spirit of the game, not the letter of the law.
The Pro Tour is still a relatively new thing, and it will take some time
to work out all the flaws and make rules to cover everything. Learn from
your heartless mistakes and don't rob others in the future.
Bahama Papa
Julian Wiffen
bob blabbins wrote:
:-/
>
> OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
> was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
> for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
> spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
> (then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
> that.
That's a rules infraction?
So if I say - "I cast my Ernham" as I move my hand to the table to tap
the mana, I am breaking the rules?
What if I say "I am going to cast my Ernham"?
(note that this statement does not include any specified time -
grammatically speaking I could be refering to the fact I'm going
to cast my ernham some time in next week's tournament.)
Where can I find a copy of the 'Advanced Rulebook' that clearly exists
but I haven't seen?
Julian Wiffen
David J. Low
bob blabbins <cfi...@cstone.net> writes:
>OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
>was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
>for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
>spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
>(then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
>that.
>final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
>consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
>somantic mistake.
Seems like a clear-cut call: he gets DQ'd under the rules. Bad luck,
mate, don't do it again.
Once there's one rule for the good guys, and another rule for the bad
guys (I hesitate to mention the Nate Clark incident....), you enter the
realm of favouritism and who-knows-who. A professional organisation
can't survive like that. If in the light of this incident they want to
reformulate their rules, no worries - but that does *not* affect what has
already happened.
Yes, it's harsh. But that's life. One wonders what the ruling would
have been if situations had been reversed, or in an extreme case of a
known cheater and all-round varlet making the fractional infringement.
The rules apply to everyone, equally - at least, in places where the
legal system isn't money-dependant :-/
Because one you start making exceptions to the rules, you've removed the
basis for fair and just resolution of problems, and gone from a situation
where everyone knows where they stand to anarchy (or a dictatorship :-/).
If they make an exception here, who knows what they might make an
exception for in the future?
And judges all around the world will now know that they are perfectly
free to ignore the rules in cases where they think the rules are bad. Is
that good? Desleeving, intentional draws....once the DC allows the line
to be crossed, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems. Who is to
say what level of ignoring the rules is OK?
Regards,
David.
Michael Orben
>Masters' Division, Quarterfinal Results
>
>Bui vs Mills Mills 2, Bui 1
>Possemier vs Comer Comer 2, Possemier 1
>Weissman vs Hovi Hovi 2, Weissman 0
>Immordino vs Yoo Yoo 2, Immordino 0
>
>Semi-final Results
>
>Mills vs Yoo Mills 3, Yoo 0
>Comer vs Hovi Hovi 3, Comer 2
>
>Final Results
>
>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>Pro Tour events. Mills led Hovi 2 games to 1 when the infraction took
>place, early in the fourth game of the best-of-5 match.)
>
This is clearly a violation of DCI Tournament Rules #1.2.2 Cheating.
It seems to me that whoever was the judges for this tournament, were
in violation of performing their duties as outlined in the guidelines
for judges. If this was any other tournament, this guy would have been
dq'd with any comment, but since there is money on the results, they
did nothing. I think DCI should step in and penalize the guy &
de-certify the judge and the head judge involved, for not following a
very simple rule!
if you agree, please email the DCI and voice your complaints!>
x
Michael Orben wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Mar 1997 18:05:20 -0800, Charles Keith-Stanley
>
> de-certify the judge and the head judge involved, for not following a
> very simple rule!
>
> if you agree, please email the DCI and voice your complaints!>
Wasn't the judge Tom Wyle? Wouldn't this make all rules (ever ?)
suspect?
How would r.g.t-c.m.rules survive (where Tom's word is still final)?
X
Mike Donais
> > Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> > >Master's Division Final Results
> > >Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> > >second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
> > >penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> > >required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
> > >prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
> > >that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
> > >Pro Tour events.
> >
> > :-/
>
>
> was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
> for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
> spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
> (then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
> that.
> You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
> final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
> consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
> somantic mistake.
>
> bishop
Actually, Tom told me he told him not to do it 4 times before he even
gave him a warning. After he violated the rules a 5th time he gave him
a warning. And after he violated the rules a 6th time he gave him the
second warning. I agree it is not a huge rule but he did get 6 chances
and he did only get a match loss. Had it been a more important rule
he would have got 4 less chances to improve himself and would have
had a disqualification instead of a mere match loss.
Those are the facts, and that is how Tom ruled it.
I think breaking any rule 6 times in one match is enough for 2 warnings
no matter what the rule is.
--
Mike Donais. (BOFH) don...@uwindsor.ca, Http://supernova.uwindsor.ca/~donais
Kendall Redburn
Rudy Edward wrote:
>
> (David J. Low) wrote:
>
> > Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> > :-/
> >
>
> check your rule book, standard floor rules, and all that jazz. It's all
> about interpretation. to Mills, he hasnt cast his card until he's paid
> the mana, so he's not tapping his mana after he *plays* a card, but
> rather after he *shows* the card.
>
> now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mills should have gone
> unpenalized, neccessarily, but for David Low to insinuate that WotC was
> too lenient on Mills is absurd. I was there, and to kick him out for
> doing something half the pro tour players do is a stupid idea. David Low.
> Give it up.
No, I have to disagree with you, and I am glad to see this rule
enforced.
The problem stems from information gathering. I have a fireball, but I
need
to know just how much to cast if for. To little, and you cast healing
salve,
to much and you spell blast. So I can by showing you the spell, and
anouncing that
I can kill you with it, trick you into revealing information I otherwise
would
not know. I know you don't believe this but:
If I can do this in friendly play, great, or if it standard practice
then,
I show the fireball and say "your dead." If you don't have the
counterspell,
you're just going to say "Ok, I'm dead" but if you don't say that, you
are
giving away that you do have the spell, or whatever. THe point is, it's
each
players responsibility to play correctly. The correct response when a
player
shows you a card is to call the judge over.
Personally I would rather the spell be forfiet but this means you can
just discard cards at will, which is not a good thing either.
Quiffle
I have seen a lot of questions raised about this "infraction" of not
tapping mana before casting a spell. Many people seem to think it is not
that big of a deal. It is important to note, however, that it *can* be a
way to cheat.
Say a match between Opponent A and Opponent B is going on in the lower
realms of a Pro Tournament. Opponent B is in a win/lose situation - if he
can summon a blocker for one turn, he can Torch his opponent to death when
he lays a land next turn.
Opponent B casts a Raging Spirit without tapping mana. He has 4
mountains, 2 Islands and 2 swamps in play. His opponent responds with
Memory Lapse. What we have here is a potential cheating situation.
Opponent B committed to no specific mana to cast his spell. Opponent A
has already made a response, allowing Opponent B to decide *after* the
response (which he potentially did not predict beforehand) which mana are
still untapped. This is cheating. This deserves a warning.
Many people will get tripped up by this rule because that is their style
of play. Some players have cultivated sloppiness in play to a high
degree, throwing down their cards and then tapping mana, arranging their
mana in undecipherable piles, all at different angles, keeping their
graveyard strewn all over the right side of the table, mingling with their
cards in play, etc...
2 warnings for a small infraction like that shouldn't result in DQ, but if
those are the rules, it is up to the player to play by them, and receive
consequences by them.
Cathy Nicoloff
Mario Robaina
In article <331ba5f8.9174617@news> mi...@infinet.com (Michael Orben) writes:
>>
>This is clearly a violation of DCI Tournament Rules #1.2.2 Cheating.
>It seems to me that whoever was the judges for this tournament, were
>in violation of performing their duties as outlined in the guidelines
>for judges. If this was any other tournament, this guy would have been
>dq'd with any comment, but since there is money on the results, they
>de-certify the judge and the head judge involved, for not following a
>very simple rule!
>
>if you agree, please email the DCI and voice your complaints!>
>
Get real. If this had been any other tourny, the guy would never have
been given any warning at all. I was one of the color commentators
during the match and it was clear that Dave was not cheating. He was
unfortunately in the habit of playing sloppy and it caused his
elimination from the tournament. Fortunately, the Andrew had the ability
to change the letter of the rules on the fly to cover a circumstance that
is really not covered in the rules. I think Basketball is the best
analogy here for what happened. There are fouls and then there are
flagrant fouls. Clearly Mills was not trying to gain any advantage in
this situation, but he did break the rules.
Later,
Mario Robaina.
Gefr
I think if a player shows a card to his opponent then pays the mana for
the spell, that nothing is wrong with this type of play. I know that when
i have an opponent throw out an Ernham, i ask him to tap his mana. After
doing this i either respond with a spell of my own or pause and let him
know that the Ernham is in play. It seems to mess with their minds more
that way.
Mario Robaina
In article <5fgqfl$bh5$1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>bob blabbins <cfi...@cstone.net> writes:
>>OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
>>was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
>>for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
>>spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
>>(then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
>>that.
>>You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
>>final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
>>consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
>>somantic mistake.
>
> mate, don't do it again.
I really do disagree here. I think the rule was made to stop cheating,
and in my opinion, Dave was not cheating. It's sort of the difference
between a foul and a flagrant foul in basketball. When you foul out of a
game that's it, your gone, but you don't get fined. I think there should
be rules that take into account being tossed for sloppy play vs. being
tossed for cheating.
> Once there's one rule for the good guys, and another rule for the bad
> guys (I hesitate to mention the Nate Clark incident....), you enter the
> realm of favouritism and who-knows-who. A professional organisation
> can't survive like that. If in the light of this incident they want to
> reformulate their rules, no worries - but that does *not* affect what has
> already happened.
Once again, I disagree. This is a new sport and there are times when
situations come up that conflict with the intent of the rules. In this
case, WotC had the chance to make the right call and let Dave keep the
money and the invites. This game is young and there rules allow for the
tournament director to modify the rules on the fly. I'm glad that they
could in this case.
> Yes, it's harsh. But that's life. One wonders what the ruling would
> have been if situations had been reversed, or in an extreme case of a
> known cheater and all-round varlet making the fractional infringement.
> The rules apply to everyone, equally - at least, in places where the
> legal system isn't money-dependant :-/
I'm very concerned by what you are insinuating when you say something
like "if the situations had been reversed".
> Because one you start making exceptions to the rules, you've removed the
> basis for fair and just resolution of problems, and gone from a situation
> where everyone knows where they stand to anarchy (or a dictatorship :-/).
> If they make an exception here, who knows what they might make an
> exception for in the future?
They make exceptions all the time. Get used to it.
> And judges all around the world will now know that they are perfectly
> free to ignore the rules in cases where they think the rules are bad. Is
> that good? Desleeving, intentional draws....once the DC allows the line
> to be crossed, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems. Who is to
> say what level of ignoring the rules is OK?
I think that in this case the intent of the rules didn't jibe with the
letter of the rules, and since the actual authors of the rules were the
organizers and interpreters in this case they were able to fix what
otherwise would have been quite ugly.
Later,
Mario.
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
--
sprm...@netcom.com
Mario Robaina
In article <01bc284f$db515840$f635d4cc@dionysus> "Thomas K. Almroth III" <tese...@primenet.com> writes:
>>
>> I actually think that judges _should_ have the option to do this (reduce
>a
>> penalty in certain circumstances), but at the moment they do not.
>>
>> Paul Barclay.
>
>The judges, including the tournament manger, should have no option to
>change the rules. Giving a judge too many options in his or her decisions
>is precisely why the US court and jail systems are such a mess. This
>decision set a terrible precedent and sends an awful message to the
>players. It sends this message to a player playing his or her final match
>for a specific position: "If I am going to lose I might as well try and
>bend the rules or cheat because the worst that will happen is I will get
>the position I am already guaranteed." I feel that the decision was made
>more for PR than for the integrity of the game and the rule system. There
>is no reason why a match in the finals should be judged any differently
>than any of the matches on the first day of the Pro-Tour (or any match on
>any day in any sanctioned tournament for that matter).
>
>Here are some additional facts about said incident:
>1) The second warning and the following match DQ was given for casting a
>Grave Servitude without first tapping the required mana.
>2) At the time of the DQ Mills hand contained a Meddle (something that
>undoubtedly weighed heavy in the decision).
So? You have left out that there was only three total mana on the table
and there wer no other spells that Mills could cast after paying for the
Grave Servitude.
>3) While watching the match at the Queen Mary the warnings were not
>broadcast but it was apparent that Mills received one in an earlier game
>when he laid a Wake of Vultures without first tapping any mana. There was
>a brief pause and then he picked up the card. After another brief pause he
>tapped some mana and correctly cast Wake of Vultures.
>4) After speaking with one of the judges who was judging the master's
>finals it came to light that Mills had actually received 5 warnings for the
>misrepresenting a card. Obviously only 2 were "real" warnings. The other
>3 were "if you do that again I will give you a warning"
>pseudo-pre-warnings.
>
Later,
Mario.
--
sprm...@netcom.com
Karl Allen
In article <sprmarioE...@netcom.com> sprm...@netcom.com
>Get real. If this had been any other tourny, the guy would never have
>been given any warning at all.
Would you agree that with this kind of money on the line the rules
should be strictly enforced? If not, I don't see how you can expect
to avoid controversy and acrimony, not to mention a new breed of
Pro Tour player who bases his style on good decks, good play, and
abuse of every unenforced "rule" to gain any possible advantage.
>I was one of the color commentators
>during the match and it was clear that Dave was not cheating. He was
>unfortunately in the habit of playing sloppy and it caused his
>elimination from the tournament.
Okay, it was clear to you how? Because you know Dave? Because he's
a good guy? Are we to add to the judges problems by making them not
just enforce rules, but make judgement calls as to when someone is
"sloppy" and when someone is "cheating"? I'd rather we just make
everyone follow the same rules.
>Fortunately, the Andrew had the ability
>to change the letter of the rules on the fly to cover a circumstance that
>is really not covered in the rules.
I'm not so sure this is fortunate. It follows a bad habit we've seen
too much of in Magic tourneys at this level - changing the rules pell
mell whenever they become inconvenient. We've had trouble with bribes
("Sure, you can!" "No, you can't"), Type II eligibility ("Last X sets"
"No! Whatever's widely available"), and now this. Pick some rules,
and stick to them - having a situation where people can hope that
rules won't be enforced on them is asking for trouble.
>I think Basketball is the best
>analogy here for what happened. There are fouls and then there are
>flagrant fouls.
Basketball is the worst sport you could pick, I think. In basketball a
rookie gets whistled for taking a couple of steps with the ball.
Mr Jordan, on the other hand, could run the full length of the court
without getting called for traveling. Do you really want the Pro
Tour to emulate this style, so that established players get a break
while unknowns have the rules strictly enforced? Do you want to
have every Pro tour stop turn into hours of shouting matches as
people angrily demand to know why refs didn't enforce this or that
"judge's discretion" rule?
>Clearly Mills was not trying to gain any advantage in
>this situation, but he did break the rules.
Clearly to you - and I believe that he wasn't cheating. If you
have rules, though, you can't enforce them based on intent, but
rather on practice. If you break the rules, you pay the price. Mr.
Mills got more than enough warnings to alter his play style,
and unfortunately deserved the DQ.
I remain,
K
Mario Robaina
In article <5fi27i...@duncan.cs.utk.edu> kal...@cs.utk.edu (Karl Allen) writes:
>In article <sprmarioE...@netcom.com> sprm...@netcom.com
>(Mario Robaina) writes:
>>Get real. If this had been any other tourny, the guy would never have
>>been given any warning at all.
>
>Would you agree that with this kind of money on the line the rules
>should be strictly enforced? If not, I don't see how you can expect
>to avoid controversy and acrimony, not to mention a new breed of
>Pro Tour player who bases his style on good decks, good play, and
>abuse of every unenforced "rule" to gain any possible advantage.
I agree that they should be enforced, but the guy I responded to said
that in any other tourny he would have been DQ'ed when that is obviously
false. I have never heard of anybody being DQ'ed for that offence,
including Dave who played like that all the way to the finals.
>>I was one of the color commentators
>>during the match and it was clear that Dave was not cheating. He was
>>unfortunately in the habit of playing sloppy and it caused his
>>elimination from the tournament.
>
>Okay, it was clear to you how? Because you know Dave? Because he's
>a good guy? Are we to add to the judges problems by making them not
>just enforce rules, but make judgement calls as to when someone is
>"sloppy" and when someone is "cheating"? I'd rather we just make
>everyone follow the same rules.
Because upon casting that Grave servitude there where no other spells he
could have possibly cast in his hand with either an island or swamp left
untapped.
>>Fortunately, the Andrew had the ability
>>to change the letter of the rules on the fly to cover a circumstance that
>>is really not covered in the rules.
>
>I'm not so sure this is fortunate. It follows a bad habit we've seen
>too much of in Magic tourneys at this level - changing the rules pell
>mell whenever they become inconvenient. We've had trouble with bribes
>("Sure, you can!" "No, you can't"), Type II eligibility ("Last X sets"
>"No! Whatever's widely available"), and now this. Pick some rules,
>and stick to them - having a situation where people can hope that
>rules won't be enforced on them is asking for trouble.
This is sort of absurd. Where have you ever heard of any governing body
not chance the rules. Football (2pt conversion, no conversion),
Basketball (3pt baskets, no 3pt baskets), etc.....
>>I think Basketball is the best
>>analogy here for what happened. There are fouls and then there are
>>flagrant fouls.
>
>Basketball is the worst sport you could pick, I think. In basketball a
>rookie gets whistled for taking a couple of steps with the ball.
>Mr Jordan, on the other hand, could run the full length of the court
>without getting called for traveling. Do you really want the Pro
>Tour to emulate this style, so that established players get a break
>while unknowns have the rules strictly enforced? Do you want to
>have every Pro tour stop turn into hours of shouting matches as
>people angrily demand to know why refs didn't enforce this or that
>"judge's discretion" rule?
>>Clearly Mills was not trying to gain any advantage in
>>this situation, but he did break the rules.
>
>Clearly to you - and I believe that he wasn't cheating. If you
>have rules, though, you can't enforce them based on intent, but
>rather on practice. If you break the rules, you pay the price. Mr.
>Mills got more than enough warnings to alter his play style,
>and unfortunately deserved the DQ.
>
>
>I remain,
>
>K
Icepick
> >What was the exact rules infraction anyhow ?
>
> It appears to be (from another post) "faliure to tap for <correct?> mana
> before casting spells". This could range from a trivial infraction to a
real
> cheating problem (with a counterspell deck - casts something but doesn't
tap
> out). The infraction was a second breach of the same rules offence, for
which
> the prescribed penalty is almost always ejection (I've asked Dave Delaney
to
> confirm this point).
Okay, time for me to throw in MHO:
Being warned at least once (and according to other reports, upto 3 times)
for a given rules infraction is enough.
He wasn't play by the rules, via a bad habit, cheating, or what ever.
Plain
and simple. Especially at the PT level, where a little mistake such as
tapping the wrong mana to cast something can cost you. He should
have known this and played that way.
I support this ruling, but still think that he should have been DQ'd.
There's just no excuse for making this mistake. You'd think that
he would have been more careful after being warned.
-Josh
my faith my grief my fear my blood my trust my flesh my hate my love
no more no less no fear no need no height no depth too great godspeed
Frederick Scott
qui...@aol.com (Quiffle) writes:
>2 warnings for a small infraction like that shouldn't result in DQ, but if
>those are the rules, it is up to the player to play by them, and receive
>consequences by them.
I think the problem is that you tend not to find out exactly what the
harsh rules are until you play in front of Tom Wylie in the final match
of the day. *IF* those are the rules, by the same token, WotC officials
and all other officials of PTQ touranments and probably D.C. tournaments
as well (for consistency) should enforce the same nitty little rules.
But I'll bet that very little priority is put on judges learning to do
so during the certification process.
Now by the time you're on the *sixth* warning, I would think the point
should have sunk in, though. If the part about the extra, informal warnings
was true, I won't grieve that much for Mr. Mills.
Fred
Raver Efreet
Thomas K. Almroth III wrote:
>
> >
> > I actually think that judges _should_ have the option to do this (reduce
> a
> > penalty in certain circumstances), but at the moment they do not.
> >
> > Paul Barclay.
>
> The judges, including the tournament manger, should have no option to
> change the rules. Giving a judge too many options in his or her decisions
> is precisely why the US court and jail systems are such a mess.
sorry, but youre talkin about two entirly different things here. Either
way though, a judge should have the ability to use some dicretion in
enforceing the rules. It is one of the reasons that futbol is known as
haveing one of the best referee systems around, and i for one would
never referee without the ability to "bend the rules". the whole point
of being a judge is to use your judgement, otherwise all you need is an
enforcer, to enforce the rules.
Raver Efreet
insert sig.txt here
Raver Efreet
Quiffle wrote:
>
> I have seen a lot of questions raised about this "infraction" of not
> tapping mana before casting a spell. Many people seem to think it is not
> that big of a deal. It is important to note, however, that it *can* be a
> way to cheat.
> Say a match between Opponent A and Opponent B is going on in the lower
> realms of a Pro Tournament. Opponent B is in a win/lose situation - if he
> can summon a blocker for one turn, he can Torch his opponent to death when
> he lays a land next turn.
> Opponent B casts a Raging Spirit without tapping mana. He has 4
> mountains, 2 Islands and 2 swamps in play. His opponent responds with
> Memory Lapse. What we have here is a potential cheating situation.
> Opponent B committed to no specific mana to cast his spell. Opponent A
> has already made a response, allowing Opponent B to decide *after* the
> response (which he potentially did not predict beforehand) which mana are
> still untapped. This is cheating. This deserves a warning.
Actually, if the players really knew the rules, this is what would
happen. You would notice that a mandatory step had been missed, and so
following the rulebook, you would back up to that step and then
re-proceede. So player A now knows that player b has a memory lapse, and
can cast accordingly. Player B now has the option of withdrawing his
memory lapse, if he so chooses. From there the game continue as normal.
This is what the rulebook suggests in this area, and after the fact it
is all that can be done. If it happened more than once against me, I
would definatly call over a judge, but better yet, why not ask the
opponent if he wants to tap any mana for the spell, or if he wants to
let it fizzle due to lack o mana?
> 2 warnings for a small infraction like that shouldn't result in DQ, but if
> those are the rules, it is up to the player to play by them, and receive
> consequences by them.
>
> Cathy Nicoloff
I would add, it is up to the judge to determine if the punishment fits
the crime.
Paul D. Wood
bob blabbins wrote:
>
> OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
> was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
> for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
> spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
> (then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
> that.
> You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
> final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
> consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
> somantic mistake.
This incident should be a clear lesson for everybody who ever makes it
to the elimination rounds of any Pro Tour or Qualifier tournament. TAKE
YOUR TIME! There are no time limits on the elimination rounds, so there
is no excuse for what Mills did. After the first warning he should have
been thinking all along about what he was doing.
The other lesson can be taken from the military. "You fight like you
train." Broken down for us Magic players it means, "Learn and practice
playing under standard floor rules all the time." Mills lost because
obviously he was playing in the same relaxed way most of us (including
myself) play with normal human beings. The problem is that relaxing is
not allowed in Pro Tour matches. Not to sound like an ultra-lifer or
anything, but develop good habits early and you won't run into this
problem.
FC1 Wood, Paul D. USN sends.
end.
Jamie Wakefield
Just another quick thought.
I was laying a blue deck with my green white deck the other day in Arena.
I cast Vitalizing cascade before I start my turn, but I am ready for a
power sink.
But thats beside the point - the point is - heres the play.
I announce that I am playing vitalizing cascade and show this card to my
opponent.
He is surprised, and asks, how much are you paying that for?
I had tapped no mana.
I proceeded to tap enough to gain a significant amount of life, but not
enough so a sink would kill the spell.
It was a fun game, not even ante at stake. But, it was still wrong.
If we were playing for arena, a tournament, or in a pro tour, I can now
assume he has a sink in hand, when if I had played it correctly, the
knowledge really shouldn't be mine. I would have had to make the correct
play without him HAVING TO ASK.
I do this all the time, its a filthy habit, but until now, I didn't know
how filthy.
Bad.
later
--
Jamie C. Wakefield
The...@sover.net
Bard of The Five Colors of Death
18th at Pro Tour 1 in NY
Just About Dead Last at Pro Tour 6 in Dallas
Gefr <ge...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970304200...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Aziz
> > > Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> > > >Master's Division Final Results
> > > >Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> > > >second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
> > > >penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> > > >required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
> > > >prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
> > > >that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
> > > >Pro Tour events.
> > >
> > > :-/
> >
> >
> > was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
> > for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
> > spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
> > (then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
> > that.
> > You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
> > final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
> > consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
> > somantic mistake.
>
> gave him a warning. After he violated the rules a 5th time he gave him
> a warning. And after he violated the rules a 6th time he gave him the
> second warning. I agree it is not a huge rule but he did get 6 chances
> and he did only get a match loss. Had it been a more important rule
> he would have got 4 less chances to improve himself and would have
> had a disqualification instead of a mere match loss.
>
> Those are the facts, and that is how Tom ruled it.
> I think breaking any rule 6 times in one match is enough for 2 warnings
> no matter what the rule is.
>
> --
merely among the many players who play that way. He played that way
throughout the final 8 and was not warned about it until he got to the
actual finals. Apparently, that judge was the only one who took exception
to it. Most of the other pro players I was standing with reacted with
exceptional distress at David's disqualification. It is truly a blow to
the game of Magic to have the finals of a Pro Tour end in such a fashion.
Tommi Hovvi himself told me and a few others that he plays the same way,
David simply had too many other things on his mind to adjust his playing
style.
Aziz
Team 5 Guys With a Peter
Aziz
You are correct, David Mills does have thousands of games behind him, and
in every single fucking game, he has laid his spells on the table, and
then tapped the mana. Never did he have the intention of taking the spell
back, or not paying for it. I can name many (in this case, probably about
as many as one third) players who do the same thing. It has never been
enforced as the correct way to play, nor is it written anywhere that I
have looked. No one in their right mind who saw the finals (as I did)
could possibly think that David was trying to cheat or even gain an
advantage. I see this as sooo basic, it's almost like some people using
dice to keep track of life, while some write it down.
I was curious about how often people cast their spells without tapping
mana, so for the remainder of the day on Sunday, I wandered around and
watched people play. You might be surprised how many people play the same
way David plays. Then again, if you're like me, you probably wouldn't be
surprised. It's extremely common, and I've never heard anyone complain
about it until now. Many of the people I saw doing it are established
pro tourney players, too. This should never have been made into a big
deal.
David J. Low
Rudy Edward <bjexc...@earthlink.net> writes:
>(David J. Low) wrote:
>> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
>> :-/
>
Still smarting after the thread with that name a few months back, mate?
:-)
>this isnt even an unenforced rule, but its not a rule!
>check your rule book, standard floor rules, and all that jazz. It's all
>about interpretation. to Mills, he hasnt cast his card until he's paid
>the mana, so he's not tapping his mana after he *plays* a card, but
>rather after he *shows* the card.
Five warnings would seem to be a lot, though....and, as is often pointed
out, what *Mills* thinks the rule is has nothing to do with what the rule
*is*. Where does a procedural rule differ from a rule of the game?
Adding guidelines on unsportsmanlike conduct becomes even trickier, but
this is a clear-cut (in the judges' opinion) procedural violation, with a
clearly-defined penalty for multiple infractions.
The rules in question come under "Misrepresenting a card", I believe.
Look it up.
>now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mills should have gone
>unpenalized, neccessarily, but for David Low to insinuate that WotC was
>too lenient on Mills is absurd. I was there, and to kick him out for
>doing something half the pro tour players do is a stupid idea. David Low.
>Give it up.
Never going to happen :-) This sets an interesting precedent: I can now
rule that I feel that forced desleeving is a silly rule with too harsh a
penalty for non-compliance, for example. Someone else might rule that
offering an opponent multilands to concede isn't collusion....Can of
worms. A PT final is nothing special, except that it is a showpiece for
how the rules are to be interpreted. We can never justify applying the
full penalty again, now :-(
And how does Nate Clark feel about getting pinged for not being fully in
his seat, now? :-/ Subsequent actions notwithstanding, but the first is
now open to question, which it wasn't before.
Alan Cade
Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> wrote:
>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>Pro Tour events. Mills led Hovi 2 games to 1 when the infraction took
>place, early in the fourth game of the best-of-5 match.)
I remember specifically asking a question at the rules meeting regarding
this situation. Interesting how an identical situation came up in the
final rounds of a Professional Tournament. It is also interesting to note
that this in NOT the first time it occurred at PT6. In fact, a Junior was
disqualified (Placed 13th), and was forced to forfeit his scholarship
prize as well as his invitations to future Professional Tournaments.
I find it interesting that WotC did the right thing to a Junior... the
right thing when everybody thought it was correct and the general public
would not know. But then it happened in the finals. And the result was
different- Mills was awarded the money, and the slots. This raises an
interesting question- why is WotC so hypocrytical?
They make the rules, and enforce the rules when it is convenient. Then
when they don't like the ensueing riots and potentially horrible
publicity, they decide to change the rules. After the Mills decision,
that Junior competitor appealed and recieved his money and slots.
However, WotC had no intention of awarding that Junior his money and
slots, nor would have had the Mills situation not occurred. So why is
WotC so hypocrytical?
WotC had to change the rules to ensure the integrity of the winners of
their professional tournaments. Nobody respects a winner who wins on
account of forfeit. Likewise, nobody will respect an organization who
over-penalizes players for making honest mistakes. I have two feelings
regarding this issue. First of all, I feel that WotC should maintain
consistency throughout their decisions. If they say they will react to a
situation in a given way, then they should do that. And they did, as
shown with that Junior competitor. With that feeling, Mills should have
been disqualified and forfeited all money. This is to ensure the
integrity of the tournament promoters. I would find it difficult for
professional players to justify playing in a tournament that is run
unprofessionally, i.e. inconsistently. However, there is the other side
to this issue. Is it acceptable to have winners on account of
disqualification for minor rules infractions? No, it is not. The winners
must also have their integrity ensured. I think that WotC made a wise
decision to award Mills the money and slots, however, I also feel that the
situation could have been dealt with even better.
The Mills Incident is important because it will hopefully mark the
beginning of a new set of rules regarding Minor Infractions at
tournaments. Some rules violations are minor, such as the one that Mills
was penalized for. Some are major, such as drawing extra cards. I think
it is time for the DCI to sit down and determine which infractions
determine what consequences. A possible solution includes various steps
to disqualification. The current rule states that two of the same
infraction or three different infractions throughout an entire event are
grounds for immediate disqualification. This policy is much too strict
though. Perhaps a system of warnings per game/match would better suit the
integrity of both the winners and the promoters. For example, the first
warning is free. The second warning (of a different type is free). Then
any repeat of any warning, or any third or subsequent warning is grounds
for loss of game. Should an opponent then repeat the mistake after losing
a game, he then loses the match. I do not feel that minor rules
infractions should be grounds for disqualification, ever. Not in the
past, present, nor future.
Thus far, WotC has been inconsistent and many players feel they cannot
trust the word of WotC. I bid WotC the best of luck in modifying the
rules as soon as possible, to ensure the integrity of the promoters and
the players.
-Chris Cade
"Better Lucky Than Good!"
x
Mario Robaina wrote:
> >>I was one of the color commentators
> >>during the match and it was clear that Dave was not cheating. He was
> >>unfortunately in the habit of playing sloppy and it caused his
> >>elimination from the tournament.
> >
> >Okay, it was clear to you how? Because you know Dave? Because he's
> >a good guy? Are we to add to the judges problems by making them not
> >just enforce rules, but make judgement calls as to when someone is
> >"sloppy" and when someone is "cheating"? I'd rather we just make
> >everyone follow the same rules.
>
> Because upon casting that Grave servitude there where no other spells he
> could have possibly cast in his hand with either an island or swamp left
> untapped.
Ask your self did his opponent know that?
If they did not then he would have gained an advantage.
X
x
Mario Robaina wrote:
> >Here are some additional facts about said incident:
> >1) The second warning and the following match DQ was given for casting a
> >Grave Servitude without first tapping the required mana.
> >2) At the time of the DQ Mills hand contained a Meddle (something that
> >undoubtedly weighed heavy in the decision).
>
> So? You have left out that there was only three total mana on the table
> and there wer no other spells that Mills could cast after paying for the
> Grave Servitude.
>
David J. Low
sprm...@netcom.com (Mario Robaina) writes:
>In article <5fgqfl$bh5$1...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>>
>> Seems like a clear-cut call: he gets DQ'd under the rules. Bad luck,
>> mate, don't do it again.
>
>I really do disagree here. I think the rule was made to stop cheating,
>and in my opinion, Dave was not cheating.
From what I've heard publically and privately, I also have no problems
with this. However, IMHO, it's not the point, and never has been :-/
>It's sort of the difference
>between a foul and a flagrant foul in basketball. When you foul out of a
>game that's it, your gone, but you don't get fined. I think there should
>be rules that take into account being tossed for sloppy play vs. being
>tossed for cheating.
There certainly should be: the problem is, there aren't :-/ It sends a
bad message (to some people :-) ) when the rules change to take account
of it takes place *during* an event. IMHO, the intelligent course of
action would have been to follow the rules as they stood, *then* deal
with it under the mandatory DC review after the event - compare the Hogan
case. Even if I don't agree with the final result of the Hogan case
(removal of ban), due process was followed, and we stick by the umpire's
(er, "ref's") decision. To do what could possibly be interpreted as
backing down in the face of a mob isn't good :-(
>This is a new sport and there are times when
>situations come up that conflict with the intent of the rules. In this
>case, WotC had the chance to make the right call and let Dave keep the
>money and the invites. This game is young and there rules allow for the
>tournament director to modify the rules on the fly. I'm glad that they
>could in this case.
I agree that the *result* might be right, but I think the timing stinks
:-/ And yes, there's an important reason why that makes a difference:
appearances. At the event, follow the rules as they stand so that
everyone is on a level playing field. Afterwards, review and determine
appropriate action, away from the hordes.
>> Yes, it's harsh. But that's life. One wonders what the ruling would
>> have been if situations had been reversed, or in an extreme case of a
>> known cheater and all-round varlet making the fractional infringement.
>
>I'm very concerned by what you are insinuating when you say something
>like "if the situations had been reversed".
I'm not confident of the mob to stand up for a Finn as readily and
vocally as they would for a local :-) That's not very PC, I'll agree,
but it wasn't meant to be a major point because here, there's basically
no difference. The second example is far more applicable - I am not
confident that I, in DM's position, would have had people storming the
stage on my behalf :-) Nate might have had people storming the stage
demanding they DQ him. *None* of those immature stage-storming actions
should have any bearing on the way the rules are handled, though.
That being said, sorry if you thought I was implying they'd try to shaft
Hovi. Not intended at all, bad wording on my part.
>They make exceptions all the time. Get used to it.
As soon as they tell me I can make exceptions to the rules, I'll take
great delight in getting used to running things "my way" :-/ Since I
can't see that happening, though, I'm going to continue getting used to
the written rules they send out :-(
>I think that in this case the intent of the rules didn't jibe with the
>letter of the rules, and since the actual authors of the rules were the
>organizers and interpreters in this case they were able to fix what
>otherwise would have been quite ugly.
I have no problem with them fixing it. Doing it the way they did,
though, creates the problem :-( A review after the event, a
well-thought-out letter explaining the decision after "careful
consideration", or whatever, and DM's cheque in the mail (hopefully!) -
no worries at all (well, less :-) ). However, the general feeling given
the way they actually dealt with it isn't a good one for those not there.
And I'd venture to say that "those not there" is the more important group
in terms of the long-term future of the game.
If they'd taken the above route, what would the Net be saying now?
Interesting to think about it :-) Regret on some people's part, open
hostility on others. Pretty similar to what we've got now :-) Given
that, the only real difference is in the process they followed to achieve
the result which is acceptable - and IMHO people would have been happier
if they'd followed the rules as written, *then* reviewed.
Well, the people not in the maddened mob, at least :-)
Paul Barclay
sprm...@netcom.com (Mario Robaina) writes:
d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>>bob blabbins <cfi...@cstone.net> writes:
>>>You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
>>>final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
>>>consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
>>>somantic mistake.
>>
>> Seems like a clear-cut call: he gets DQ'd under the rules. Bad luck,
>> mate, don't do it again.
>I really do disagree here. I think the rule was made to stop cheating,
>and in my opinion, Dave was not cheating.
No, he wasn't. But he broke the rule. Six times. If you get two identical
warnings, the only possible penalty is ejection. Check out the Pro Tour rules
if you don't believe me.
> I think there should
>be rules that take into account being tossed for sloppy play vs. being
>tossed for cheating.
There certainly should be. However, there aren't (yet).
>> Once there's one rule for the good guys, and another rule for the bad
>> guys (I hesitate to mention the Nate Clark incident....), you enter the
>> realm of favouritism and who-knows-who. A professional organisation
>> can't survive like that. If in the light of this incident they want to
>> reformulate their rules, no worries - but that does *not* affect what has
>> already happened.
>Once again, I disagree. This is a new sport and there are times when
>situations come up that conflict with the intent of the rules. In this
>case, WotC had the chance to make the right call and let Dave keep the
>money and the invites. This game is young and there rules allow for the
>tournament director to modify the rules on the fly. I'm glad that they
>could in this case.
Except that no rules have been changed. They just ignored a couple.
>> Because one you start making exceptions to the rules, you've removed the
>> basis for fair and just resolution of problems, and gone from a situation
>> where everyone knows where they stand to anarchy (or a dictatorship :-/).
>> If they make an exception here, who knows what they might make an
>> exception for in the future?
>They make exceptions all the time. Get used to it.
I can't. I now can't justify DQing any player in any tournament for any
offence, as the "top" judges in the world decided that they could ignore the
rules in a major final.
What they should have done was to use the full punishment, and then change the
rules later on, in time for Paris (I doubt that the rules will be changed in
time for Paris, though).
>> And judges all around the world will now know that they are perfectly
>> free to ignore the rules in cases where they think the rules are bad. Is
>> that good? Desleeving, intentional draws....once the DC allows the line
>> to be crossed, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems. Who is to
>> say what level of ignoring the rules is OK?
>I think that in this case the intent of the rules didn't jibe with the
>letter of the rules, and since the actual authors of the rules were the
>organizers and interpreters in this case they were able to fix what
>otherwise would have been quite ugly.
They haven't fixed anything. They've just given everbody else more problems.
Paul Barclay.
David J. Low
sprm...@netcom.com (Mario Robaina) writes:
>This is sort of absurd. Where have you ever heard of any governing body
>not chance the rules. Football (2pt conversion, no conversion),
>Basketball (3pt baskets, no 3pt baskets), etc.....
That might be a bad example, Mario - after all, I don't think these guys
change the rules (or the interpretation of them) *during* a game :-/
We had a famous incident in the Australian national league, actually
(fine, netball not basketball, but any sledges will get giggled at) - the
scorers made an error. The result of that error was that one team got
one extra point, and the other team got one less. The final margin was
just one point - with the "robbed" team losing.
Naturally, there was outcry. Upon checking the rules, it was determined
that the scorers recording of the game was the *only* admissable record -
not the TV, not the thousands of spectators, just the scorers. Bad luck,
you lose.
And while there was angst (and a *really* good revenge match the next
year :-) ), it had to be accepted, because those were the rules they were
playing under. Yes, the rules were subsequently changed - but the result
stood. As it should have. For an order of magnitude more money, and a
far wider audience than MtG.
ObCulture: ask an Australian how far you get by arguing with the umpire
in footy or cricket :-) The answers are both distance-based: 50m and
100m respectively :-)
Jarno Kokko
> WOTC makes a circus out of the PT anyways, video taping and
>cybercast... It seems to me that Mills was simply being verbal possibly
>for the sake of an audience, or maybe for his opponent who was from
>another country ( I have no idea of how good his english is).
This is NOT an issue. Finnish people generally speak english very well.
About 95-97% of all finnish people under the age of 30 or so
have studied english in schoold between 3 and 6 years minimum.
Those who study more than the absolute bare minimum
will usually have 9 years of learning english under their belt,
and if you excuse our sometimes little crappy pronouncation,
there should be no problems.
I can personally vouch that all players from Finland attending the PT
know english just fine. Sometimes even better that some of these
AOL mee-toos that you can see on the net.
And for the record: If Tommi Hovi would have gotten DQd for such an idiotic
reason as not tapping mana into pool before announcing his spell, we
wouldn't be screaming for the DQ, we would be screaming at Tommi for doing
such an idiotic mistake at PT level. He'll probably get some heat from his
fellow finnish players for his mistake in first (or was it second) finals
game where he didn't attack with his Jungle Wurm while he could have or when
the Torched Mills for less than max and lost the game basically
to Remedy.
There is no excuse for such mistakes at PT level. And Mills was
warned TOTAL 4 TIMES before he got DQd. Three unofficial warnings
and one official warning. If he can't play by the rules, it's really
too bad. I
've seem similar players who actually forget to tap their
mana .. they usually are too newbie to even dare to enter local
tournaments because they fear they get swept. If this type of player
can play his way to the PT finals, I have no pity for him if he
gets DQd for mistake like this. He proved to the field that
he's a good player and the does a 1st-day-magic-player-grade mistake.
And he does that multiple times, knowing he already has been warned
unofficially and, later offically.
> If WOTC thinks that it can pacify people by saying that at least they
>allowed Mills to retain 2nd place, they are crazy. Can you imagine if they
>did DQ Mills, denied him the money of second place, and then told him that
>he could never again participate in a Pro Tour? I for one would be
>outraged and cease attending and helping at PTQ's and other sanctioned
>events.
You are free to voice out your opinion, but in MY opinion DCI/WotC/Judges
made the right decision here. Total DQ would have been the 'inhumane'
to-the-letter-of-the-rules decision. Now he only lost the match and got
still plenty of money and PT invitations. I know several people who have
gotten complete DQ from normal DCI sanctioned tournaments due to similar
mistakes. It may sound bad, but it's usually completely their own fault. I
for example took completely stupid warning at recent tournament by not
retrieving Political Trickeried lands from opponent's deck. I learned my
lesson as I forfeited a game due to that. Didn't make same mistake again
that day for sure.
> WOTC, the public knows that you have to enforce your rules, but you
>must do it to preserve the spirit of the game, not the letter of the law.
>The Pro Tour is still a relatively new thing, and it will take some time
>to work out all the flaws and make rules to cover everything. Learn from
>your heartless mistakes and don't rob others in the future.
>
IF they would have allowed the game to continue (with possibly one
game awarded to Tommi, which he was winning anyway) THAT would have
been a total foul-up. DCI would have publicly stated that 'hey, we
have these rules, but we can throw them out of the window if
the game is really big and important...'
That would have hurted the game much more IMHO.
-- Jarnis (Jarno Kokko) -------------------------------------------------
jar...@megabaud.fi / jar...@cute.cute.fi / http://www.megabaud.fi/~jarnis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1997 Jarno Kokko. Microsoft Network is prohibited
from redistributing this work in any form,in whole or in part.
Distribution license for this work is available to Microsoft
for US$1000, distribution constitutes an agreement to these terms.
Permission is granted for all other distribution of this complete
work, and for personal use of this signature in whole or in part.
Karl Allen
In article <sprmarioE...@netcom.com> sprm...@netcom.com
(Mario Robaina) writes:
>I agree that they should be enforced, but the guy I responded to said
>that in any other tourny he would have been DQ'ed when that is obviously
>false. I have never heard of anybody being DQ'ed for that offence,
>including Dave who played like that all the way to the finals.
Okay, I'll give you that in most tourneys you wouldn't get DQ'ed for
this, at least not very quickly. That seems to me to be a fault
of other tourneys, though, in that they don't enforce the rules. That
Dave got away with it for awhile is no excuse for not heeding the
multiple warnings he received.
>>>it was clear that Dave was not cheating.
>>Okay, it was clear to you how? Because you know Dave? Because he's
>>a good guy? Are we to add to the judges problems by making them not
>>just enforce rules, but make judgement calls as to when someone is
>>"sloppy" and when someone is "cheating"? I'd rather we just make
>>everyone follow the same rules.
>Because upon casting that Grave servitude there where no other spells he
>could have possibly cast in his hand with either an island or swamp left
>untapped.
So Judges now need to not only know the rules, but keep track of
every detail of the game to make sure that if someone does break the
rules it's only in an unabusable situation? The simplest solution, and
I would argue the *only* solution that will work in the long run, is
to consistently enforce the rules at all times.
Besides which - I was under the impression that this was the "Pro" Tour,
where Magic was being raised to the level of an intellectual sport? Pro
players live by pro rules - sometimes those rules are strict, but by
playing in a Pro Tour event you agree to follow them. Had Dave been
nailed on his first infraction, I'd have some sypathy, but enough is
enough.
>This is sort of absurd. Where have you ever heard of any governing body
>not chance the rules. Football (2pt conversion, no conversion),
>Basketball (3pt baskets, no 3pt baskets), etc.....
Sure the rules can change - but it seems like the Magic tourney rules
change constantly, often without much notice. (In this case, they made
the decision to not enforce the proper punishment on the spot). When
the governing body is making changes mid-season, and even worse mid-game,
you're asking for an attack of the rules lawyers. I guarentee if you
have a collection of "judges option" rules like letting people play
cards before tapping if there is "no advantage to be gained" lots of
Pro Tour games are going to degenerate into shouting matches between
players and judges as the players demands that "optional" rules be
enforced. Even worse, players with good reputations will gain a
competitive edge, since the judges will "know" they wouldn't cheat and
therefore won't call "optional" penalties on them. Unpopular players,
meanwhile, will probably be made to toe the line. It's WotC Pro Tour,
so they can do what they want. If they want to be taken seriously, though,
they need to strictly enforce the existing rules, and not modify them
mid-stream.
I remain,
K
Chris Otwell
And do you really want WotC to have to explain to the guy that he gets squat
after DQing him for a really stupid thing?
"Yes sir, I play 1500 Matches, going undefeated into the finals... And I get DQ'd?
I recieve $0.00????!! I'm going to kill someone now...."
Oh, yeah, I can see it now....
Chris
In article dcd1...@bergen930.online.no, "Oystein Buene" <oyst...@stud.ntnu.no> writes:
>
>
> x <x...@anon.com> wrote in article <331ACF...@anon.com>...
> > Paul Barclay wrote:
> > >
> > > d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
> > >
> > > >Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> > > >>Master's Division Final Results
> > > >>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> > > >>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is
> normally
> > > >>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> > > >>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the
> second-place
> > > >>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible
> for
> > > >>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in
> future
> > > >>Pro Tour events.
> > >
> > > > Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper
> penalty?"
> > > > :-/
> > >
> > > Or the better question: "Which judge broke the rule that the enforced
> penalty
> > > should be no less than the normal penalty".
> > >
> > > Paul Barclay.
> > What was the exact rules infraction anyhow ?
>
> Well... Mills did not tap mana to cast his spell (I don't know whichone it
> was). He had done the exact same error at an earlier point in the
> tournament, and thus by the 2 warnings for the same infraction rule, he
> should be dqed from the tournament.
>
> Basically I think that rule is somewhat harsh when it comes to stupid
> mistakes like this one. It is not like he was trying to cheat heavily (like
> drawing an extra card) or something. On the other hand the game is about
> tapping mana to cast spells, so that a player in the finals in a Pro-Tour
> event can't remember this is just unbelievable.... I'm sure he will
> remember it in the future though... "gee, I forgot to tap mana to cast this
> spell... oh well it only cost me $10000" =)
>
> Well... just my opinion...
>
> Öystein
>
---
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher E. Otwell otw...@rmtc.central.sun.com
My Goal: To help every Magic player in the world to better understand,
better prepare for, and to be capable of competing in type 1, even without the
"Power 9". I am open to opinions and suggestions from All players, as well
as helping as many players as I can possibibly help out.
Afterall, this *SHOULD* be a goal of every Magic Player, to help others
become better players in the long run. And only those that truely love
Magic can.
Raver Efreet
Paul Barclay wrote:
>
> I can't. I now can't justify DQing any player in any tournament for any
> offence, as the "top" judges in the world decided that they could ignore the
> rules in a major final.
>
If you really do believe this, then there is no point in conversing on
this topic. But this also means that any player playing against you
could not only destroy your cards, but physically assault you, and you
have to lobby to the judge NOT to dq him.
"Sure he broke my arm, but its only one arm, hows about he just forfiet
a game?"- can you really see yourself doing this?
If you cant see the value in subjective ruleings, then I ask, what is
the point of haveing judges? Why not just make a computer program to
spit out the ruleings based solely on standard rules? Regardless of any
outside circumsatnces involved. Is that really what you want?
Raver Efreet
"There are those who think that they've been dealt a losing hand,
the cards were stacked against them,
they weren't born in lotus land."
-rush-free will-
Bill Guerin
Quiffle wrote:
<snip>
> those are the rules, it is up to the player to play by them, and receive
> consequences by them.
>
> Cathy Nicoloff
I must disagree here. The rules are very plain as to what _should_ have
been done to him - an automatic DQ - no questions asked. I, as a judge,
cannot waive penalties - this is also very specifically laid out in the
rules. Now, is the DCI saying I can impose a different penalty if I so
choose? I know, have mercy on him, you might say - but I can't under the
way the rules are written now. Change the rules if you don't like them.
My .02,
Bill
David Bedno
sprm...@netcom.com said:
-
-I agree that they should be enforced, but the guy I responded to said
-that in any other tourny he would have been DQ'ed when that is obviously
-false. I have never heard of anybody being DQ'ed for that offence,
-including Dave who played like that all the way to the finals.
He wasn't dq'd for not tapping mana, he was dq'd for violating the same
rule *3* times within a single match. That's a big difference. After his
second warning, he should have made a deliberate effort to tap his mana
before casting a spell.
Geez...it only takes my cats two warnings before they realize not to do
something when I'm around. For $10k (and potentially $26k if they'd dq'd
him from the tournament) I could re-learn some habits fairly quickly.
For a while, anyway.
--
David Bedno <URL: http://www.evolve.com/~drseuss>
drs...@crl.com Minister of Truth, DNRC
"There is more simplicity in the man who eats caviar on impulse than in the
man who eats grape-nuts on principle." - G. K. Chesterton
Raver Efreet
Lets play semantics, our contestants, me and david j low :)
David J. Low wrote:
It's all
> >about interpretation. to Mills, he hasnt cast his card until he's paid
> >the mana, so he's not tapping his mana after he *plays* a card, but
> >rather after he *shows* the card.
>
> Five warnings would seem to be a lot, though....and, as is often pointed
> out, what *Mills* thinks the rule is has nothing to do with what the rule
> *is*. Where does a procedural rule differ from a rule of the game?
> Adding guidelines on unsportsmanlike conduct becomes even trickier, but
> this is a clear-cut (in the judges' opinion) procedural violation, with a
> clearly-defined penalty for multiple infractions.
>
> The rules in question come under "Misrepresenting a card", I believe.
> Look it up.
>
How do we know that he really wasnt dqed for unsportsman like conduct.
Maybe the judge felt it was unsportsman like to continually interpret
the rules different from his suggestion. It wasnt that he was breaking
procedure, it was that he was not being a good sport. Now what do you
think about the penalty?
> >now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mills should have gone
> >unpenalized, neccessarily, but for David Low to insinuate that WotC was
> >too lenient on Mills is absurd. I was there, and to kick him out for
> >doing something half the pro tour players do is a stupid idea. David Low.
> >Give it up.
>
> Never going to happen :-) This sets an interesting precedent: I can now
> rule that I feel that forced desleeving is a silly rule with too harsh a
> penalty for non-compliance, for example. Someone else might rule that
> offering an opponent multilands to concede isn't collusion....Can of
> worms. A PT final is nothing special, except that it is a showpiece for
> how the rules are to be interpreted. We can never justify applying the
> full penalty again, now :-(
Wrong. First, it is not your decision to make it is the judge's. Second,
as it should be, it is up to the judges discretion weather or not, and
how, the rules will be enforced. Did you know that you dont have to
de-sleeve if you dont want to? You can call a judge over, and it is up
to him weather or not you will de-sleeve. If you can give a good reason
why you shouldnt have to, and your opponent cant give a good reason why
you should, more than likely the judge will not force you to discard. If
you think this is a bad thing, haveing rules be subjective, let me play
my soldier of fortune deck vereses youre power oop deck, and we will see
if I can change your mind.
>
> And how does Nate Clark feel about getting pinged for not being fully in
> his seat, now? :-/ Subsequent actions notwithstanding, but the first is
> now open to question, which it wasn't before.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
Aparently it was open for debate, seeing as how Scott was penalized for
the call. I stand by that decision as well though.
Mario Robaina
In article <5fjdmc$q...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net> Alan Cade <Alan...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>I find it interesting that WotC did the right thing to a Junior... the
>right thing when everybody thought it was correct and the general public
>would not know. But then it happened in the finals. And the result was
>different- Mills was awarded the money, and the slots. This raises an
>interesting question- why is WotC so hypocrytical?
Chris, you obviously don't have all the information...
>They make the rules, and enforce the rules when it is convenient. Then
>when they don't like the ensueing riots and potentially horrible
>publicity, they decide to change the rules. After the Mills decision,
>that Junior competitor appealed and recieved his money and slots.
>However, WotC had no intention of awarding that Junior his money and
>slots, nor would have had the Mills situation not occurred. So why is
>WotC so hypocrytical?
This decision was made the evening before the Mills situation.
>WotC had to change the rules to ensure the integrity of the winners of
>their professional tournaments. Nobody respects a winner who wins on
>account of forfeit. Likewise, nobody will respect an organization who
>over-penalizes players for making honest mistakes. I have two feelings
>regarding this issue. First of all, I feel that WotC should maintain
>consistency throughout their decisions. If they say they will react to a
>situation in a given way, then they should do that. And they did, as
>shown with that Junior competitor.
Wrong...
Paul van Gool
bob blabbins <cfi...@cstone.net> wrote:
>OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
>was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
>for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
>spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
>(then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
>that.
>You make the call. Keep in mind that both "infractions" happened in the
>final rounds under close supervision. Obviously, if David was playing
>consciously for some subtle advantage he wouldn't have repeated his
>somantic mistake.
OK, seeing everybody giving their opinion about this I couldn't help
adding my 2ct.
There are 2 aspects of this problem.
1. David Mills did do something (playing cards without tapping mana
first) that wasn't according to the rules. Should he have gotten
warnings for this. I don't think so. Many players use this style,
first putting the cards down and than tapping their mana. Ofcourse the
otherway around is the way it should have been done. Sloppy yes,
breaking the rules don't think so. I have even seen a posting a few
months ago (by WotC people) that exactly described how many mana you
had to tap if you acted like this (especialy usefull if you are
casting an X-spell).
2. The judge (Tom, I suspect) decided to give David 2 warnings (and as
far as I understand after giving him 4 pre-warnings before). Now the
tournamentrules are very simple in this case. You get DQ (removed from
the tournament) if you get 2 warnings for the same thing. According to
this David should have been removed from the tournament.
If the judges didn't want to DQ him than they shouldn't have given
David the warnings. Now they have given the warnings they should have
DQ him. Sorry, but that are the rules. And even Tom shouldn't be able
to bend them.
Brian Thomas Habing
Raver Efreet <rtr...@sprintmail.com> writes:
>>
>> And how does Nate Clark feel about getting pinged for not being fully in
>> his seat, now? :-/ Subsequent actions notwithstanding, but the first is
>> now open to question, which it wasn't before.
>>
>Aparently it was open for debate, seeing as how Scott was penalized for
>the call. I stand by that decision as well though.
^^^^^
very punny :)
-brian
jhealy22
put forth any argument as to why you are right and Chris is wrong.
Maybe in your mad rush to post you forget that you need to have
a point, otherwise you make a total ass out of yourself. I'm
sure you do have some valid points, but maybe if you told them
to us we might agree with you. Just a thought, don't clog the
newsgroup with any more crap, we've got enough as it is. :-)
And don't take this to personally.
Swahealy
Brian Thomas Habing
jhealy22 <jhea...@gwi.net> writes:
<over 100 lines of needlessly repeated text snipped>
<still more snip>
>Just a thought, don't clog the
>newsgroup with any more crap, we've got enough as it is. :-)
Kindly do the same by not needlessly repeating entire posts
to make profanity laced points that could be done much
more succinctly.
>And don't take this to personally.
ditto
-Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
http://www.stat.uiuc.edu/~habing/games.html
je...@virginia.edu
> No, he wasn't. But he broke the rule. Six times. If you get two identical
Wow! First he did it 5 times, now 6. Both are wrong. He had one
psuedo-warning, and the two official warnings.
> warnings, the only possible penalty is ejection. Check out the Pro Tour rules
> if you don't believe me.
I may be wrong on this, but I do believe that somewhere WOTC reserves
the right to change anything at anytime.
Slaughter
BTW, the alleged rules god Wylie was judging Mills' semifinal match and
did not mention a warning of this sort at any time, and as he likely
committed this severe infraction earlier, such as when Wylie was
judging, that the rule was actually being enforced discriminatorily in
some sense, i.e. only in the finals.
Christopher H. Yee
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Raver Efreet wrote:
> is all that can be done. If it happened more than once against me, I
> would definatly call over a judge, but better yet, why not ask the
> opponent if he wants to tap any mana for the spell, or if he wants to
> let it fizzle due to lack o mana?
I am surprised you wrote this. A lack o mana doesn't cause a spell to
fizzle...or is that another ruling from Mr. W.?
Frederick Scott
No, I don't think it is. Or Black Vise just became worthless.
Fred
Paul J McCabe
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Paul Barclay wrote:
> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>
> >Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
> >>Master's Division Final Results
> >>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
> >>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
> >>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
> >>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
> >>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
> >>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
> >>Pro Tour events.
>
> > Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
> > :-/
>
> Or the better question: "Which judge broke the rule that the enforced penalty
> should be no less than the normal penalty".
>
> Paul Barclay.
>
>
From what I understand, he was given two warnings for failing to tap mana
for a spell. That's just sloppy play, not really an attempt to cheat.
I personally think the rules are doing a poor job at catching the
cheaters, who continue to prosper, and end up just harassing innocents.
Paul
Jeremy Fuller
anon...@anonymous.com wrote:
>Anyone participating at this level has thousands of games of Magic
>behind him/her. It is very difficult to believe that this was simply
>oversight or carelessness. Genuine cheating or even hints of
>impropriety, as well as the lack of quick, decisive, and proper
>punishment will kill the credibility of the pro tour. This incidient
>is most troubling.
Have you ever been to a tournament? =) Around here, anyway, I could
tell you that a lot, if not most, people, at at least one point during
a match, drop spells and then pay for mana. Dropping spells without
paying mana, or paying the wrong amount of mana is indeed cheating,
but simply putting down a spell and then paying for it?? What it
truly is is saying "I'm about to cast this.." right before paying. I
agree that if Mills was intentionally cheating he should not have only
lost the match, but should have been DQed... but he was not cheating
at all. He shouldn't have even gotten a first warning.
Jeremy Fuller
Rudy Edward <bjexc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>(David J. Low) wrote:
>> Which of course begs the question, "Why not the full and proper penalty?"
>> :-/
>>
[8<]
>now dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mills should have gone
>unpenalized, neccessarily, but for David Low to insinuate that WotC was
>too lenient on Mills is absurd. I was there, and to kick him out for
>doing something half the pro tour players do is a stupid idea. David Low.
>Give it up.
[8<]
If he did in fact break the rule twice in a row, the floor rules say
he should be disqualified. If he did in fact break the rules twice,
he should have been disqualified. If they instead make him simply
lose a match and the DCI agrees with it, they are hypocrites.
Now, with that said, I don't think Mills should have been DQed. I
don't think he should have lost the match. He didn't break any rules.
What happened in LA was the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
Jeremy Fuller
Kendall Redburn <kred...@echip.com> wrote:
>No, I have to disagree with you, and I am glad to see this rule
>enforced. The problem stems from information gathering. I have a fireball, but I
>need to know just how much to cast if for. To little, and you cast healing
>salve, to much and you spell blast. So I can by showing you the spell, and
>anouncing that I can kill you with it, trick you into revealing information I otherwise
>would not know.
[8<]
I would agree with you, but:
1) Mills didn't say "you're dead" or "done" after he cast his spell..
most likely, he would have paid for the spell just as the judge said
"you're disqualified."
2) I would agree with this being a serious offense only if he knew
Hovi had effects that were like counters/remedies/etc.
3) We aren't talking about a Fireball, a Drain Life or a Torch.
We're talking about a Grave Servitude, fergodsakes. It didn't matter
one bit what mana he was using! This is as ridiculous as someone
saying "I fountain of youth at the end of your turn bringing me to 3"
and then bolting them at the beginning of their turn saying "you
didn't tap your mana"...
Stuart Smith
I have run small tournaments in my home town many times, and have
read the official tournament rules that have been sent to me every
time. The rules for disqualification and warnings are not nearly
as clear and irrevocable as suggested by other postings. If someone
knows of specific rules that are enforced at Pro Tours which are
different rules, I would like to see them quoted. For instance, there
is no clause in the tournament rules I have seen that says "Three warnings
of any kind or two for the same offense result in disqualification."
I have looked at the posting at WotC of the tournament rulings and
have only found the following possibly relevant sections:
1.1a All consequences resulting from violations of the DCI
Standard Floor Rules that come to the attention of the Judge MUST
be enforced. ...
1.21a ... stalling... may result in a warning or disqualification from
current competition at the discretion of the Judge. ...
1.22 ... Players caught cheating will automatically be disqualified from
current competition. ... [Some examples of cheating are listed, but failing
to tap mana before announcing a spell is not one of them.]
1.23 Unsportsmanlike conduct ... profanity, argue, or act belligerently ...
Repeat warnings will result in a player's disqualification ...
1.24 Card Elevation ... A second violation may result in a player's
disqualification.
Clearly, players must follow the rules of Magic. Whether it's clear or
not, announcing your spell before tapping your land is not following the
rules of magic. What penalty should be assigned for failure to do so is
simply not addressed in the tournament rules at all, as far as I can tell.
The closest clause I can find to cover this is:
1.1b Regardless of the wishes of the competitors involved, Judges must
correct any rules mistake (whether from the Standard Floor Rules or from
the rules for Magic: The Gathering tm) they notice or that is brought to
their attention, and must ensure that the appropriate consequences are
applied.
However, "appropriate consequences" is not defined.
It seems to me it is within the Judge's discretion to decide on an
"appropriate consequence" and that the consequence chosen in this case
was reasonable and appropriate.
---
Stuart Smith
== Any opinions expressed are my own and do not represent the company ==
Aziz
>
> This incident should be a clear lesson for everybody who ever makes it
> to the elimination rounds of any Pro Tour or Qualifier tournament. TAKE
> YOUR TIME! There are no time limits on the elimination rounds, so there
> is no excuse for what Mills did. After the first warning he should have
> been thinking all along about what he was doing.
He was never warned about it UNTIL the finals themselves. No one
mentioned anything like it to him during the final 4, 8 etc.
> The other lesson can be taken from the military. "You fight like you
> train." Broken down for us Magic players it means, "Learn and practice
> playing under standard floor rules all the time." Mills lost because
> obviously he was playing in the same relaxed way most of us (including
> myself) play with normal human beings. The problem is that relaxing is
> not allowed in Pro Tour matches. Not to sound like an ultra-lifer or
> anything, but develop good habits early and you won't run into this
> problem.
Relaxed? How can someone be relaxed when it's their first pro tour and
they are in the finals? I think it was the exact opposite that caused him
to forget the repeated warnings.
Aziz
Team 5 Guys With a Peter
Aziz
> Seems like a clear-cut call: he gets DQ'd under the rules. Bad luck,
> mate, don't do it again.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
> Once there's one rule for the good guys, and another rule for the bad
> guys (I hesitate to mention the Nate Clark incident....), you enter the
> realm of favouritism and who-knows-who. A professional organisation
> can't survive like that. If in the light of this incident they want to
> reformulate their rules, no worries - but that does *not* affect what has
> already happened.
A professional organization also cannot survive when the players who
support it are disgusted by the call of a judge. You should have seen the
outcry in LA when Mills was told that the match was over. Mark Justice
started screaming about "bullshit, this etc." He got up on the stage and
told everyone there (quite a few people) that we as players cannot allow
things like this to happen or it will ruin our fledgling professional
sport. Most seemed to agree with him, but all seemed to be very vehement
in whichever opinion they chose. It wasn't pretty. Had Mills been
completely disqualified, several players agreed to boycott the Paris Pro
Tour. Truly, how can a sport survive with controversy like that? Agreed,
it sends a mixed message, but it is a no win situation that could've been
avoided had the judge not made the call like he did. THAT was the real
error.
> Because one you start making exceptions to the rules, you've removed the
> basis for fair and just resolution of problems, and gone from a situation
> where everyone knows where they stand to anarchy (or a dictatorship :-/).
> If they make an exception here, who knows what they might make an
> exception for in the future?
It had to be done, as I said above.
> And judges all around the world will now know that they are perfectly
> free to ignore the rules in cases where they think the rules are bad. Is
> that good? Desleeving, intentional draws....once the DC allows the line
> to be crossed, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems. Who is to
> say what level of ignoring the rules is OK?
This wasn't a small thing... It wasn't done lightly either. Andrew Finch
had to get in front of everyone there and explain the situation and their
decision. To take away 2nd place from David would've been inhuman. Few
people want DCI to seem inhuman. This would cause more problems than what
you've outlined, by far.
Raver Efreet
Jarno Kokko wrote:
>
> This is NOT an issue. Finnish people generally speak english very well.
> About 95-97% of all finnish people under the age of 30 or so
> have studied english in schoold between 3 and 6 years minimum.
> Those who study more than the absolute bare minimum
> will usually have 9 years of learning english under their belt,
> and if you excuse our sometimes little crappy pronouncation,
> there should be no problems.
>
just for the record, big deal. I know people who have studied forign
languages for 4+ years that couldnt say ok in a forign language. study
is one thing, but use is another.
> I can personally vouch that all players from Finland attending the PT
> know english just fine. Sometimes even better that some of these
> AOL mee-toos that you can see on the net.
>
thats not saying much :)
personally i agree that this is not an issue here. it is the old style
of play that mills used that got him in trouble.
>
> > WOTC, the public knows that you have to enforce your rules, but you
> >must do it to preserve the spirit of the game, not the letter of the law.
> >The Pro Tour is still a relatively new thing, and it will take some time
> >to work out all the flaws and make rules to cover everything. Learn from
> >your heartless mistakes and don't rob others in the future.
I do think this was the attempt, weather or not people agree with what
they did, well...
> IF they would have allowed the game to continue (with possibly one
> game awarded to Tommi, which he was winning anyway) THAT would have
> been a total foul-up. DCI would have publicly stated that 'hey, we
> have these rules, but we can throw them out of the window if
> the game is really big and important...'
>
> That would have hurted the game much more IMHO.
>
funny thing is, some people think thats exactly what they did.
raver efreet
lack o sig
Alan Cade
Paul J McCabe <mcc...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Paul Barclay wrote:
>
>> d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J. Low) writes:
>>
>> >Charles Keith-Stanley <lia...@wizards.com> writes:
>> >>Master's Division Final Results
>> >>Hovi adjudicated victor due to Mills match-forfeit. (Mills received a
>> >>second warning for a given rules infraction. Such a warning is normally
>> >>penalized by a tournament disqualification, however Mills was only
>> >>required to forfeit the match, leaving him eligible for the second-place
>> >>prize; a tournament disqualification would have made him ineligible for
>> >>that prize, and could have affected his ability to participate in future
>> >>Pro Tour events.
>>
>> > :-/
>>
>> should be no less than the normal penalty".
>>
>> Paul Barclay.
>>
>>
>From what I understand, he was given two warnings for failing to tap mana
>for a spell. That's just sloppy play, not really an attempt to cheat.
>
>I personally think the rules are doing a poor job at catching the
>cheaters, who continue to prosper, and end up just harassing innocents.
>
>Paul
Paul- I couldn't agree with you more. I feel that you got ripped off at
PT6 in Los Angeles. During the second draft on Friday, Paul was
disqualified from the draft after failing to draft within the time
allotted, twice, hence two warnings. I believe that recieving the random
card is more than enough penalty during the draft for not drafting within
the allotted time. However, to give warnings in addition to giving the
random card is just rediculous. Paul was forced to withdraw from the
drafting and had to play with the cards that he had already drafted to
that point. As a result of his withdrawal from the draft table, his deck
was significantly weaker than the rest of the table's, and likewise, the
rest of the table was able to draft significantly better cards. Clearly
the punishment did not fit the crime. It seems that WotC has some work to
do regarding Minor Rules infractions.
David J. Low
Raver Efreet <rtr...@sprintmail.com> writes:
>Lets play semantics, our contestants, me and david j low :)
I don't play semantics :-) It's not a fun game....
>David J. Low wrote:
>> how the rules are to be interpreted. We can never justify applying the
>> full penalty again, now :-(
>
>Wrong. First, it is not your decision to make it is the judge's.
I'm speaking *as* a judge :-( How can I possibly justify applying that
rule? Or any similar rule? Players can, quite rightly, point to
precedent. The Borer-Kastle ruling is used as a showpiece - why no riot
there? Because it was a rules-procedural call as well. Or the Junior
who was DQ'd for the same reason? Why does it make a difference because
it happened in the final?
Second,
>as it should be, it is up to the judges discretion weather or not, and
>how, the rules will be enforced. Did you know that you dont have to
>de-sleeve if you dont want to? You can call a judge over, and it is up
>to him weather or not you will de-sleeve. If you can give a good reason
>why you shouldnt have to, and your opponent cant give a good reason why
>you should, more than likely the judge will not force you to discard.
The trouble is, what constitutes a "good reason". Try this on the PT -
as has been discussed at length on the CONV-L list, and confirmed by the
DC-boss, "Because I want you to desleeve" is a good enough reason.
I would love to be able to use total discretion in my enforcement of the
rules. Unfortunately - and perhaps, for the good of the game - I cannot
impose my personal feelings on people. I have a duty to follow the
rules, modified by precedent. I'm wondering how to interpret *this*
precedent, and justify it in future rulings....
Julian Wiffen
Raver Efreet wrote:
>
> Paul Barclay wrote:
> >
> > I can't. I now can't justify DQing any player in any tournament for any
> > offence, as the "top" judges in the world decided that they could ignore the
> > rules in a major final.
> >
> If you cant see the value in subjective ruleings, then I ask, what is
> the point of haveing judges? Why not just make a computer program to
> spit out the ruleings based solely on standard rules? Regardless of any
> outside circumsatnces involved. Is that really what you want?
>
> Raver Efreet
But Paul is not looking at this as a player - he is looking at the
problem from a referee's standpoint. If the rules say - for offense
X, a player must be disqualified, a referee can fairly say - "you
broke rule X - out!"
But now the players can say that the referee is not bound by the
rules - disqualification is now totally at the referee's discretion
and in the eyes of the offender, any disqualification is now an
unfair judgement against them and a personal bias by the ref.
Julian Wiffen.
DeAnn Iwan
It's further complicated by the fact that the behavior in question used
to be legal (at least it was considered so around here). When Lions Eye
Diamond first came out, I wrote WotC a question asking if I couldn't
just cast the Lion's Eye, then cast the spell I wanted (that was in
hand), then pull the mana out of the Lion's Eye at interrupt speed to
pay for it. The reply I got was "wait until Mirage comes out to ask
this question." And, of course, when Mirage did come out the new little
rule book explicitly said that you had to have the mana in your pool
BEFORE you cast the spell. So, even WotC wouldn't tell me that Mills
action was illegal a few months ago.
If, for example, tapping were changed to turning your cards 180 degrees
to upside down instead of 90 degrees, a player would be pretty ticked at
being DQed for forgetting and tapping them only 90 degrees a few times
during the tournament.
WotC has set itself up in a lose lose situation: follow their explicit
rules, and DQ someone for two of the same warning (for something that
used to be legal), they look like Heartless, Thoughtless, Rule following
{explitives deleted}. If they don't follow their own rules, they look
like Favorite-Playing Wishy Washy {explitives deleted}. Now no one
knows what to expect from judging, and everyone has a right to call foul
when DQed.
Clearly, WotC needs to re-examine their rules.
Matt Franklin
> We had a famous incident in the Australian national league, actually
> (fine, netball not basketball, but any sledges will get giggled at) - the
> scorers made an error. The result of that error was that one team got
> one extra point, and the other team got one less. The final margin was
> just one point - with the "robbed" team losing.
I prefer the analogy of the U.S.-Russia Olympic basketball game in the
80's (1988?). Near the end, U.S. leading (by 1 or 2), Russia calls a
time out which they don't have, which is granted because the refs forgot
they were out. This then allows them to win the game (by stopping the
clock).
This caused quit an outcry, especially among supporters of the U.S.
basketball team. :) In further review, no one knew what the hell
happened, what the rule was in that case, or what they should do about
it. The judges, in a highly charged, secret meeting, said, "screw it.
Let's go get pizza!" And that was that, the ruling stood. :)
Matt Franklin
> 1. David Mills did do something (playing cards without tapping mana
> first) that wasn't according to the rules. Should he have gotten
> warnings for this. I don't think so. Many players use this style,
> first putting the cards down and than tapping their mana. Ofcourse the
> otherway around is the way it should have been done. Sloppy yes,
> breaking the rules don't think so. I have even seen a posting a few
> months ago (by WotC people) that exactly described how many mana you
> had to tap if you acted like this (especialy usefull if you are
> casting an X-spell).
It is breaking the rules, as a matter of fact. Even in the
ultra-confusing, super-mini rulebooks they include with starters, the
timing and mana pool rules are fairly clear-- you can read up on them
there, if you'd like.
As far as the argument of, "even it it was against the rules, lots of
players play like this." Well, lots of players play lots of ways. Lots
of it is regional. These various regional styles come into conflict in
a PTQ-- hence, the rules are the best common ground.
> 2. The judge (Tom, I suspect) decided to give David 2 warnings (and as
> far as I understand after giving him 4 pre-warnings before). Now the
> tournamentrules are very simple in this case. You get DQ (removed from
> the tournament) if you get 2 warnings for the same thing. According to
> this David should have been removed from the tournament.
I agree there. If they want a separate rule for "minor infractions,"
they should make one, and let this sort of thing qualify as minor.
Matt Franklin
> I am surprised you wrote this. A lack o mana doesn't cause a spell to
> fizzle...or is that another ruling from Mr. W.?
What does happen to it?
Raver Efreet
David J. Low wrote:
>
> >David J. Low wrote:
> >> how the rules are to be interpreted. We can never justify applying the
> >> full penalty again, now :-(
> >
> >Wrong. First, it is not your decision to make it is the judge's.
>
> I'm speaking *as* a judge :-( How can I possibly justify applying that
> rule? Or any similar rule? Players can, quite rightly, point to
> precedent. The Borer-Kastle ruling is used as a showpiece - why no riot
> there? Because it was a rules-procedural call as well. Or the Junior
> who was DQ'd for the same reason? Why does it make a difference because
> it happened in the final?
>
the difference is intent. and yes it is up to a judge to judge the
intent of the player. no harm-no foul is not a bad idea, and if a judge
cant do this unbiasedly, he has no buisness judgeing!
>
> The trouble is, what constitutes a "good reason". Try this on the PT -
> as has been discussed at length on the CONV-L list, and confirmed by the
> DC-boss, "Because I want you to desleeve" is a good enough reason.
really, I have heard this ruled exactly the opposite way. I believe most
of the debate happend around pt dallas time, when type 1 was a more
popular tourney type. It was decided that if it appeared that the intent
of the de-sleeve was for the purpose of damaging cards, through means
such as soldier of fortune and the like, a judge did not have to force
someone to de-sleeve. it was up to the judge discretion, although it was
strongly recomended to make most people de-sleeve, there was that room
to allow judges to be flexible.
>
> I would love to be able to use total discretion in my enforcement of the
> rules. Unfortunately - and perhaps, for the good of the game - I cannot
> impose my personal feelings on people. I have a duty to follow the
> rules, modified by precedent. I'm wondering how to interpret *this*
> precedent, and justify it in future rulings....
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
but david, can you not be flexible and and not impose personal feelings
into the game? i remeber playing soccer(read futbol for the americanlly
chalenged :) , if a player kicked a ball and it hit someone in the hand,
this did not automatically mean you blow the whistle. you *judged* the
situation, and determined weather or not a fould needed to be called,
and what penalty needed to be given- all this even though there are laws
that state what you should do in case of a hand-ball.
If you find yourself curious about wich path to follow, assume the
precedence set to be it is the spirit of the game that is most
important, and then adjucate from there.
raver efreet
sig
Hacksaw
Hope you don't mind if I jump in here.
If you don't have the mana required to cast a spell the spell can never
legally even be announced. See page 30 of the Mirage rulebook.
Thus about all that has happened in this situation is that you have
tipped your opponent off as to one of the cards in your hand.
--
_____________________________
//--\-------------------------\
|) | hac...@fix.net ||
|) |_________________________|/
|) \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Raver Efreet
> Julian Wiffen wrote:
> > Raver Efreet wrote:
> > > Paul Barclay wrote:
> >
> > But Paul is not looking at this as a player - he is looking at the
> > problem from a referee's standpoint. If the rules say - for offense
> > X, a player must be disqualified, a referee can fairly say - "you
> > broke rule X - out!"
> >
> > But now the players can say that the referee is not bound by the
> > rules - disqualification is now totally at the referee's discretion
> > and in the eyes of the offender, any disqualification is now an
> > unfair judgement against them and a personal bias by the ref.
> >
> > Julian Wiffen.
>
So what? They can believe what ever they want to. If they really have a
problem, tell them to file a grevance. Am I the only one capable of
seeing you can give two different punishments for the same crime and
still not have a personal bias against those players? if you cant do
that, then you need to stop judgeing. There are so many cases in magic
when you can make game mechanical mistakes and not be cheating, that to
force judges to be automan's in enforcement is insane. Even in chess you
get players feeling that the judges have a personal bias against them,
it happens in every sport. Judges have to have the perserverence to
accept that, and to be able to stand behind their decisions, regardless
of what the players want. Again, if you cant do this, you have no
buisness judgeing.
Raver Efreet
insert sig.txt here
Nathaniel Greig
Just wanted to ask a question I haven't seen answered yet.
DID DAVID's OPPONENT *EVER* COMPLAIN TO THE JUDGE ABOUT
HIM NOT TAPPING HIS MANA FIRST?
If his opponent *NEVER* mentioned it then the Judge should
have *NEVER* stepped in and gave him *EVEN ONE* warning. It
seems to me that everyone is debating the wrong issue. The
judge made a terrible decision and now every "JERK" on the
Pro Tour will be calling a judge over everytime someone doesn't
tap their mana. I don't know how many times I've said
"Erhnam on the table!" Threw him down and then tapped my 4 mana.
I've had guys do the same thing at Qualifiers everywhere, and
I've *NEVER* complained about it.
John Fysh
Julian Wiffen <julian...@zsassoc.co.uk> wrote:
>bob blabbins wrote:
>:-/
>>
>> OK, straight from the horse's mouth, here's what really happened: David
>> was called twice in the final match by Tom Wylie, head judge at the Tour
>> for the first time in several stops. The infraction: announcing a
>> spell before tapping his mana. David: "I cast my Wake of Vultures"
>> (then taps a Swamp and three generic.) Nothing more complicated than
>> that.
>That's a rules infraction?
>So if I say - "I cast my Ernham" as I move my hand to the table to tap
>the mana, I am breaking the rules?
>What if I say "I am going to cast my Ernham"?
>(note that this statement does not include any specified time -
>grammatically speaking I could be refering to the fact I'm going
>to cast my ernham some time in next week's tournament.)
>Where can I find a copy of the 'Advanced Rulebook' that clearly exists
>but I haven't seen?
Actually, they send you the complete rules (which are availible at the
WoTC website anyways) when you qualify for the pro tour. If you
qualify you'll recieve a nice big package with everything you need to
know including the penalty for being warned twice about the same
infraction.
Of course, I agree that the ruling was ridiculous but only because
WoTC was so strict with Mills and not with players previously in the
pro tour.
Mike
Shawn Baker
On 6 Mar 1997 04:35:49 GMT, d...@cyclone.maths.monash.edu.au (David J.
Low) wrote:
> I would love to be able to use total discretion in my enforcement of the
> rules. Unfortunately - and perhaps, for the good of the game - I cannot
> impose my personal feelings on people. I have a duty to follow the
> rules, modified by precedent. I'm wondering how to interpret *this*
> precedent, and justify it in future rulings....
The precedent seems clear to me, it says be a JUDGE.
I've read ALL of your posts on this topic, both here and on CONV-L,
and they all boil down to the same thing, "follow the rules to the
letter as they are written today, fix them tomorrow".
I'm sorry David, but this just isn't good enough. We, the judges (you
and me), are there to bring our judgement to the situation. That
doesn't imply emotions or irrationality. It implies informed decision
making based on the rules, the situation, the people involved and
countless other factors.
What the DCI is saying with the above ruling is that it's OK to use
common sense in addition to the rules. They aren't saying throw out
the rules, they aren't saying never give out the full penalty, they
aren't saying use you're emotions to determine the result. They ARE
saying "use your head, be a judge".
As I see it, several informed people sat around a table and came to a
rational decision. They did themsleves proud. They were in a difficult
situation and they found a fairly reasonable solution?. They did what
they were there to do. They JUDGED.
Shawn Baker
sh...@frozen.mb.ca
http://www.frozen.mb.ca
Karl Allen
In article <331fbb86...@news.pangea.ca> sh...@frozen.mb.ca
(Shawn Baker) writes:
* snip *
>We, the judges (you
>and me), are there to bring our judgement to the situation. That
>doesn't imply emotions or irrationality. It implies informed decision
>making based on the rules, the situation, the people involved and
>countless other factors.
If you want to judge that way I suppose you can, but it seems to me
you're making the job infinitely harder. Now you not only have to
know what a rule is, you have to decide whether you should enforce it -
then you'll get the lovely task of defending that judgement to the
players, and possibly the head judge when a player who feels you're
showing favoritism calls him or her over. You might think you're being totally
logical and rational in not enforcing a rule such as "Tap your mana
before laying the spell"; after all, you *know* the guy doing it
isn't cheating! But I guarentee the person you're ruling against won't
see it your way. And there'll be no way you can prove to him you're
not biased. You can't point to page 33 of the rulebook and say "See,
it says right here that if you've got three mana on the table, and
cast a Grave Servitude without tapping mana, and you don't have anything
else in your hand you can cast, you don't get the penalty". I think
you're setting yourself up for trouble if judges start making calls
as to when to enforce rules, and when not to.
>What the DCI is saying with the above ruling is that it's OK to use
>common sense in addition to the rules.
Common sense is rarely the same for any two people, *especially*
when there's great big wads of cash on the line.
>They aren't saying throw out
>the rules, they aren't saying never give out the full penalty, they
>aren't saying use you're emotions to determine the result. They ARE
>saying "use your head, be a judge".
Would you agree that maybe they're also saying "Bend the rules and argue
like a big dog - maybe you'll convince the judge not to penalize you".
For the record, I do think there's a difference between Mills getting
the DQ and the decision to let him have the prize money. I
probably would have given him the money too - but I definitely would
have disqualified him if he ignored repeated warnings. So I guess
I'm wishy-washy - I think rules should be strictly enforced when
it comes to judging whether or not someone should forfeit a game or match,
but I'm more flexible when it comes to awarding someone the prize
for their previous efforts.
I remain,
K
Chris Otwell
In article 43...@leland.stanford.edu, Matt Franklin <star...@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
> > I am surprised you wrote this. A lack o mana doesn't cause a spell to
> > fizzle...or is that another ruling from Mr. W.?
>
> What does happen to it?
It can't be legally cast/declared as a cast spell.
Consider this similair to a person wanting to swords a black knight.
He attempts to do, but after taking note that it's not a legal play, the card
goes back to his hand, since it could NOT of been cast.
Chris
---
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher E. Otwell otw...@rmtc.central.sun.com
My Goal: To help every Magic player in the world to better understand,
better prepare for, and to be capable of competing in type 1, even without the
"Power 9". I am open to opinions and suggestions from All players, as well
as helping as many players as I can possibibly help out.
Afterall, this *SHOULD* be a goal of every Magic Player, to help others
become better players in the long run. And only those that truely love
Magic can.
Atog Boy
True.. But old timers like me still do something like:
I have 3 Forests and I Islands Untapped.
I place down my Ernham.
Now here's where it can get messy... The way my friends and I play is
that if that happens (we are getting much better at tapping first),
that player must tap his mana *BEFORE* his/her oppenent responds.
That way, if I tap all 3 Islands and 1 Forest, if my oppenent Swords
my Ernham, I cannot use the Counterspell in my hand because I tapped
all my Islands.
Rules are Rules, but a player shouldn't be DQ'd for his/her playing
style. I can live with rules like this, but the game is ment to be
fun. But just as long as I don't get DQ'd because I only tap things
45 Deg., or I pronounce mana as mah-nuh, I'll be ok.
On 4 Mar 1997 19:35:18 GMT, qui...@aol.com (Quiffle) wrote:
>I have seen a lot of questions raised about this "infraction" of not
>tapping mana before casting a spell. Many people seem to think it is not
>that big of a deal. It is important to note, however, that it *can* be a
>way to cheat.
>
>Say a match between Opponent A and Opponent B is going on in the lower
>realms of a Pro Tournament. Opponent B is in a win/lose situation - if he
>can summon a blocker for one turn, he can Torch his opponent to death when
>he lays a land next turn.
>
>Opponent B casts a Raging Spirit without tapping mana. He has 4
>mountains, 2 Islands and 2 swamps in play. His opponent responds with
>Memory Lapse. What we have here is a potential cheating situation.
>Opponent B committed to no specific mana to cast his spell. Opponent A
>has already made a response, allowing Opponent B to decide *after* the
>response (which he potentially did not predict beforehand) which mana are
>still untapped. This is cheating. This deserves a warning.
>
>Many people will get tripped up by this rule because that is their style
>of play. Some players have cultivated sloppiness in play to a high
>degree, throwing down their cards and then tapping mana, arranging their
>mana in undecipherable piles, all at different angles, keeping their
>graveyard strewn all over the right side of the table, mingling with their
>cards in play, etc...
>
>2 warnings for a small infraction like that shouldn't result in DQ, but if
>those are the rules, it is up to the player to play by them, and receive
>consequences by them.
>
>Cathy Nicoloff
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc: 5-Mar-97 Re:
PTLA - What Really Happ.. by Paul van Go...@iaehv.nl
> far as I understand after giving him 4 pre-warnings before). Now the
> tournamentrules are very simple in this case. You get DQ (removed from
> the tournament) if you get 2 warnings for the same thing. According to
> this David should have been removed from the tournament.
>
I believe one of the biggest problems we (the people that were actually
THERE) had with the final match and it's outcome was the fact that it
seemed to have been judged by some judge none of us recognized. He was
the one that intervened and dq'd David, from what we could tell.
As for everyone who thinks it would have been the just thing to not give
David Mills his $ and PT slots...have you ever heard the story about the
people in glass houses?
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.strategy: 5-Mar-97
Re: PTLA - Final Results by David J. L...@cyclone.mat
> Naturally, there was outcry. Upon checking the rules, it was determined
> that the scorers recording of the game was the *only* admissable record -
> not the TV, not the thousands of spectators, just the scorers. Bad luck,
> you lose.
Don't you think that is simply DUMB!?
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Matt Franklin
We have a nice long list of logical absurdities in this thread. Let's
see if we can't track some of 'em down and show this entire thread to be
rediculous.
>>>> I can't. I now can't justify DQing any player in any tournament for any
>>>> offence, as the "top" judges in the world decided that they could ignore the
>>>> rules in a major final.
First, we have Mr. Absurd Generality. Let's look at an analogy:
I tried to go fishing once, but they told me the lake was temporarily
closed to fishing. Hence, I can never go fishing again.
Another analogy, perhaps closer? Here goes:
I'm a referee in the NBA. During the Finals, they didn't call Jordan
for a charging foul because it would've fouled him out. Hence, I can
never justify calling a charging foul again (or, as long as we're
generalizing this much, any foul ever again).
Or, here's what I consider a better analogy, because it better captures
the true problem with his line of reasoning:
We're in the major finals of oh, what the heck, a Magic tourney. Gunmen
are running rampantly through the building; President Clinton is making
an appearance. A space-time singularity is busy wreaking havoc at the
next table, and aliens have just landed. A player makes an illegal
play, and is not DQed, but still loses. Hence, no judge can ever
justify DQing a player again, under any circumstances.
What's the problem here? Wildly excessive generalization, and a failure
to consider the circumstances. Under any remotely logical code of
ethics, they play a part-- I don't care if you prefer Kant's, Mill's, or
just the morals of some guy off the street. Circumstances will alter
the actions of people, and the outcome of those actions.
Justification? It's a widely recognized human talent to be able to
"justify" anything. But try looking at the real reasons behind things,
first.
> > > If you cant see the value in subjective ruleings, then I ask, what is
> > > the point of haveing judges? Why not just make a computer program to
> > > spit out the ruleings based solely on standard rules? Regardless of any
> > > outside circumsatnces involved. Is that really what you want?
Of course, the point was made much more succinctly here. There would,
of course, be logistical difficulties. :)
> > But Paul is not looking at this as a player - he is looking at the
> > problem from a referee's standpoint. If the rules say - for offense
> > X, a player must be disqualified, a referee can fairly say - "you
> > broke rule X - out!"
> >
> > But now the players can say that the referee is not bound by the
> > rules - disqualification is now totally at the referee's discretion
> > and in the eyes of the offender, any disqualification is now an
> > unfair judgement against them and a personal bias by the ref.
And the problem here? Well, the rules don't say "for offense X, a
player must be disqualified." They contain a high amount of "judge's
discretion." You can read much of this on the DCI page.
> It's further complicated by the fact that the behavior in question used
> to be legal (at least it was considered so around here). When Lions Eye
> Diamond first came out, I wrote WotC a question asking if I couldn't
> just cast the Lion's Eye, then cast the spell I wanted (that was in
> hand), then pull the mana out of the Lion's Eye at interrupt speed to
> pay for it. The reply I got was "wait until Mirage comes out to ask
> this question." And, of course, when Mirage did come out the new little
> rule book explicitly said that you had to have the mana in your pool
> BEFORE you cast the spell. So, even WotC wouldn't tell me that Mills
> action was illegal a few months ago.
Here's even a more obvious fallacy, simply stated: "Since WotC wouldn't
tell me whether or not a particular action was illegal, it was legal."
Any more explanation here? As far as the "at least it was considered so
around here" clause, it appears we certainly aren't dealing with a host
of logicians. :)
> If, for example, tapping were changed to turning your cards 180 degrees
> to upside down instead of 90 degrees, a player would be pretty ticked at
> being DQed for forgetting and tapping them only 90 degrees a few times
> during the tournament.
Changed when? During the tournament? Yes, that would be annoying. Or
right before the tournament? Annoying too. However, none of this has
anything to do with the discussion at hand, since players have always
been required to have the mana in their mana pool in order to
successfully cast a spell. It may have had patchy enforcement, but the
player under discussion received multiple warnings. If he can't play by
a fairly obvious and major rule, then he certainly shouldn't win a
tournament which is supposedly based, in part, on your ability to play
the game.
> WotC has set itself up in a lose lose situation: follow their explicit
> rules, and DQ someone for two of the same warning (for something that
> used to be legal), they look like Heartless, Thoughtless, Rule following
> {explitives deleted}. If they don't follow their own rules, they look
> like Favorite-Playing Wishy Washy {explitives deleted}. Now no one
> knows what to expect from judging, and everyone has a right to call foul
> when DQed.
Again, casting a spell without mana in your mana pool has never been
legal. And certainly not during the playing period involved in the Type
II tourney.
As far as having to DQ anyone for two warnings on anything to look
consistent, that doesn't follow. By allowing a significant amount of
judge discretion, such things as intent to cheat and severity of
infraction certainly can enter into calculations.
Raver Efreet
Shawn Baker wrote:
>
> The precedent seems clear to me, it says be a JUDGE.
>
> the rules, they aren't saying never give out the full penalty, they
> aren't saying use you're emotions to determine the result. They ARE
> saying "use your head, be a judge".
> they were there to do. They JUDGED.
>
Hey Shawn, you and I are going to take over the DCI, thats what I think.
Keep up the good work spreading rational ideas through the net.
Raver Efreet
"there are those who think that they've been dealt a losing hand,
the cards were stacked against them,
they weren't born in lotus land."
-rush-free will-
Raver Efreet
Matt Franklin wrote:
>
> > I am surprised you wrote this. A lack o mana doesn't cause a spell to
> > fizzle...or is that another ruling from Mr. W.?
>
> What does happen to it?
In case you missed it elsewhere, the spell would go back to your hand.
If youre wondering about this, think black vise.
-and just a side note, in friendly play we usually let the opponent
decide weather the spell would fizzle or go back to your hand-
raver efreet
insert sig.txt here
Raver Efreet
Matt Franklin wrote:
>
> It is breaking the rules, as a matter of fact. Even in the
> ultra-confusing, super-mini rulebooks they include with starters, the
> timing and mana pool rules are fairly clear-- you can read up on them
> there, if you'd like.
>
Its not so much that it is against the rules, it is that it is against
the rules NOW. It used to be legal to annmounce the spell, then tap the
mana, wich is why so many people still do it that way. Only under the
wisdom of 5th edition rules is it now illegal.
Aziz
> >Where can I find a copy of the 'Advanced Rulebook' that clearly exists
> >but I haven't seen?
>
> Actually, they send you the complete rules (which are availible at the
> WoTC website anyways) when you qualify for the pro tour. If you
> qualify you'll recieve a nice big package with everything you need to
It's really not that big. :)
JOSHUA L BRADFORD
Paul D. Wood (els...@totacc.com) wrote:
: This incident should be a clear lesson for everybody who ever makes it
: to the elimination rounds of any Pro Tour or Qualifier tournament. TAKE
: YOUR TIME! There are no time limits on the elimination rounds, so there
: is no excuse for what Mills did. After the first warning he should have
: been thinking all along about what he was doing.
Ok, try this. What if one day they decide to make it illegal to tap lands
to the left, but you must tap them to the right, but the didn't tell
anyone and no one ever enforced the rule. Then one day in the Pro Tour
Finals, one of the players (who is for the first time ever, playing in
front of a very large audience (tho not directly) and is playing for
$10,000 and is therefore extremely nervous) is warned for tapping his
lands the wrong way. Personally, I find it highly improbable that most
(90%+) of the people who play magic would be capable of not doing it
multiple times with multiple warnings in a 5 game match. And this is
EXACTLY what happened to David Mills. It's hard enough as it is to stop
doing something that you've done every time you've played in thousands if
nto tens of thousands of games, but to do it while under extreme pressure?
and immediately? I don't think so.
: playing under standard floor rules all the time." Mills lost because
: obviously he was playing in the same relaxed way most of us (including
: myself) play with normal human beings. The problem is that relaxing is
: not allowed in Pro Tour matches. Not to sound like an ultra-lifer or
Relaxed?!? RELAXED?!?!?!
You obviously did not watch the match.
Alex McConnell (not Josh)
Chad J Day
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz (dani...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: THERE) had with the final match and it's outcome was the fact that it
: seemed to have been judged by some judge none of us recognized. He was
: the one that intervened and dq'd David, from what we could tell.
hmm. i don't get it. since you don't recognize him, this makes him
unqualified to judge? what Mills did isn't exactly the hardest
thing for a judge to spot.. plus, with all the people there, and
all the people watching on the screens, a 5 year old could judge
finals.
--
_ ___/|
\ O.o
=(___)=
U - pthth.
Paul Barclay
Nope. It's called "Following the Rules", and it's something that happens quite
a lot. I just hope they'll change the rules before Paris.
Paul Barclay.
Paul Barclay
Matt Franklin <star...@leland.stanford.edu> writes:
>We have a nice long list of logical absurdities in this thread. Let's
>see if we can't track some of 'em down and show this entire thread to be
>rediculous.
>>>>> I can't. I now can't justify DQing any player in any tournament for any
>>>>> offence, as the "top" judges in the world decided that they could ignore the
>>>>> rules in a major final.
>First, we have Mr. Absurd Generality.
That seems to be me, then. Hi.
>What's the problem here? Wildly excessive generalization, and a failure
>to consider the circumstances.
The only circumstances that my comment took into account was the "2 Warnings =
Goodbye" rule, which was broken. Whether the warnings should have been given
isn't something that I can say conclusively (although I do have opinions on
it).
>Under any remotely logical code of ethics, they play a part
There isn't a code of ethics in the tournament rules. The tournament rules are
all we have to go on when judging.
>-- I don't care if you prefer Kant's, Mill's, or
>just the morals of some guy off the street. Circumstances will alter
>the actions of people, and the outcome of those actions.
Yep. Does the fact that the judges made an illegal decision occur to you at
all? I don't think for a minute that David Mills _should_ have been
disqualified based on his actions, but they had no choice under the rules
other than disqualify him, after giving him two official warnings. They broke
the rules.
>Justification? It's a widely recognized human talent to be able to
>"justify" anything. But try looking at the real reasons behind things,
>first.
Reasons like "We don't want to look bad" from the DCI? Reasons like "We like
David Mills and we don't like Nate Clark" from the DCI? I'd like to see these
real reasons, but I'm never going to be told them officially, so I have to try
to work out what they are myself. I doubt that I'll get them right.
The reason that I now don't feel able to justify DQing someone for recieving
two warnings is that they will have a good case for saying "but you're just
victimising me", as the PT judges didn't DQ someone in a PT final, they just
gave him a match loss.
>> > But Paul is not looking at this as a player - he is looking at the
>> > problem from a referee's standpoint. If the rules say - for offense
>> > X, a player must be disqualified, a referee can fairly say - "you
>> > broke rule X - out!"
>> >
>> > But now the players can say that the referee is not bound by the
>> > rules - disqualification is now totally at the referee's discretion
>> > and in the eyes of the offender, any disqualification is now an
>> > unfair judgement against them and a personal bias by the ref.
>And the problem here? Well, the rules don't say "for offense X, a
>player must be disqualified."
Er, in three words: "Yes, they do". The rules say _exactly_ this. There is
_no_ room for argument. You get two official warnings for the same offence,
you are _out_. You get no prizes or anything.
> They contain a high amount of "judge's
>discretion." You can read much of this on the DCI page.
The "judge's discretion" stuff is all about _whether_ to give warnings in the
first place, not what the penalties are for those warnings.
I hope I've cleared this up for you sufficiently.
Paul Barclay.
Michael Rand
In article <5fkl75$i...@noc1.gwi.net>
jhealy22 <jhea...@gwi.net> writes:
> You disagree with a ton of things that Chris says but you don't
> put forth any argument as to why you are right and Chris is wrong.
> Maybe in your mad rush to post you forget that you need to have
> a point, otherwise you make a total ass out of yourself. I'm
> sure you do have some valid points, but maybe if you told them
> to us we might agree with you. Just a thought, don't clog the
> newsgroup with any more crap, we've got enough as it is. :-)
> And don't take this to personally.
>
>
Um, if you'd have read the newsgroup thorougly, you'd realize that
Mario has been writing his point all over this newsgroup, and his point
has been one of the most refreshing arguments out there. Granted,
Chris brings up some very good points, but if you'd find Mario's other
arguments, you'd see a nice conversation going on here. It's
considered dishonesty if you comment on someone's argument without
first finding the whole argument. Well done, Chris and Mario, for
providing a thoughtful look to this mess.
Michael Rand '00
Dartmouth College
michael...@dartmouth.edu
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." The Law of
Wobble
(Browse) Phil Folgio
Paul Barclay
Aziz <aaa...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> writes:
> Seems like a clear-cut call: he gets DQ'd under the rules. Bad luck,
>> mate, don't do it again.
>You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, the guy gained 2 identical warnings. That's a Declaration of Forfiture
(there is _no_ provision for anything else in the rules). Did he deserve to be
DQed? No way - the offence he committed wasn't very serious. Did the judges
have another legal choice? No, they didn't. 2 Warnings = You're out. Final.
>> Once there's one rule for the good guys, and another rule for the bad
>> guys (I hesitate to mention the Nate Clark incident....), you enter the
>> realm of favouritism and who-knows-who. A professional organisation
>> can't survive like that. If in the light of this incident they want to
>> reformulate their rules, no worries - but that does *not* affect what has
>> already happened.
>A professional organization also cannot survive when the players who
"professional organisation". Hmm. That'll be the day. Maybe in 100 years.
>support it are disgusted by the call of a judge. You should have seen the
>outcry in LA when Mills was told that the match was over. Mark Justice
>started screaming about "bullshit, this etc."
And no action was taken against him? I bet if I'd have stood up on stage and
shouted that, I'd have been thrown out really fast. Friends look after
friends. The rest of the world has to look after itself.
> He got up on the stage and
>told everyone there (quite a few people) that we as players cannot allow
>things like this to happen or it will ruin our fledgling professional
>sport.
Things like "following the rules". He thinks that ignoring the rules is a
better idea? Maybe we could just play without any rules at all? The last one
left alive will win. What do you think? An improvement.
>Most seemed to agree with him, but all seemed to be very vehement
>in whichever opinion they chose. It wasn't pretty. Had Mills been
>completely disqualified, several players agreed to boycott the Paris Pro
>Tour.
Maybe you Americans (in general, not you specifically) shouldn't be coming
over to Paris, then. Players in Europe seem to respect the rules, and don't
>Truly, how can a sport survive with controversy like that? Agreed,
>it sends a mixed message, but it is a no win situation that could've been
>avoided had the judge not made the call like he did. THAT was the real
>error.
Not really. David was warned (4 times unofficially) for doing the same thing
6 times in one match. Surely David could have altered his playing style enough
to prevent getting DQed. I would, however, be interested to see a timeline of
when each of the 6 warnings were given. That might shed some more light on
things. Have you any information on this?
>> Because one you start making exceptions to the rules, you've removed the
>> basis for fair and just resolution of problems, and gone from a situation
>> where everyone knows where they stand to anarchy (or a dictatorship :-/).
>> If they make an exception here, who knows what they might make an
>> exception for in the future?
>It had to be done, as I said above.
It _had to be done? Surely they had other choices. Some of those choices were
actually in the rules.
>> And judges all around the world will now know that they are perfectly
>> free to ignore the rules in cases where they think the rules are bad. Is
>> that good? Desleeving, intentional draws....once the DC allows the line
>> to be crossed, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems. Who is to
>> say what level of ignoring the rules is OK?
>This wasn't a small thing... It wasn't done lightly either. Andrew Finch
>had to get in front of everyone there and explain the situation and their
>decision.
I bet he didn't even say "I'm breaking the rules by doing this", did he? The
fact still stands - they broke their rules, so now their rules don't mean
squat.
>To take away 2nd place from David would've been inhuman.
I agree, to an extent. The final punishment was of a reasonable strength.
>Few people want DCI to seem inhuman.
How many people want to see the DCI follow it's own rules? Because if it
doesn't, then _nobody_ else has to. This is the big problem we now have. I
couldn't care less what happens to some bloke that I've never met, in the
final of a tournament, but what happened to him has direct, long-reaching and
lasting implications
>This would cause more problems than what you've outlined, by far.
The DCI standing up and saying, "These were the rules. We had no choice. We're
not going to give David Mills a ban, and we are going to fly him to the next
Pro Tour because we think that Disqualifying him for doing what he did is too
harsh a penalty. We're now going to change the rules to a more sensible
penalty system.", wouldn't have been better than "Oh, by the way, we're just
going to ignore these five rules here, so that we don't look bad".
Paul Barclay.
Remember Nate Clark.
Remember the Junior who was DQed at a Pro Tour for an identical offence.
P.S. I guess you don't want to add your name to a complaint to the DCI over
this, though, do you?
Paul van Gool
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz <dani...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc: 5-Mar-97 Re:
>PTLA - What Really Happ.. by Paul van Go...@iaehv.nl
>> 2. The judge (Tom, I suspect) decided to give David 2 warnings (and as
>> far as I understand after giving him 4 pre-warnings before). Now the
>> tournamentrules are very simple in this case. You get DQ (removed from
>> the tournament) if you get 2 warnings for the same thing. According to
>> this David should have been removed from the tournament.
>>
>I believe one of the biggest problems we (the people that were actually
>THERE) had with the final match and it's outcome was the fact that it
>seemed to have been judged by some judge none of us recognized. He was
>the one that intervened and dq'd David, from what we could tell.
I can't see that none of you knowing the judge has anything to do with
this. He was the judge, that's all we need to know.
>As for everyone who thinks it would have been the just thing to not give
>David Mills his $ and PT slots...have you ever heard the story about the
>people in glass houses?
I didn't say it was fair to DQ David. Giving him warnings for not
tapping land before he puts a card on the table was not necessary
imho. But now when he did get 2 warnings for the same 'error' they
shouldn't have bent the rules and not DQ him, how stupid the reasons
for the warnings might be. How can I as a judge defend if I have to DQ
a player in my tournaments.
>Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Frederick Scott
Michael...@dartmouth.edu (Michael Rand) writes:
>In article <5fkl75$i...@noc1.gwi.net>
>jhealy22 <jhea...@gwi.net> writes:
>
>> You disagree with a ton of things that Chris says but you don't
>> put forth any argument as to why you are right and Chris is wrong.
>> Maybe in your mad rush to post you forget that you need to have
>> a point, otherwise you make a total ass out of yourself. I'm
>> sure you do have some valid points, but maybe if you told them
>> to us we might agree with you. Just a thought, don't clog the
>> newsgroup with any more crap, we've got enough as it is. :-)
>> And don't take this to personally.
>>
>>
>Um, if you'd have read the newsgroup thorougly, you'd realize that
>Mario has been writing his point all over this newsgroup, and his point
>has been one of the most refreshing arguments out there.
Perhaps. But if so, I wish he'd refrain from quoting an entire article
of Chris's just to add three or four in-line comments which basically
said, "You don't know what you're talking about." If he wants to disagree
with a previously posted article, either he should give us his specific
reasons in the response or he should pass on posting a direct response and
just let us go look for his other posts. I know it's an overused term but
_that_ particular post of Mario's (the one jhealy22 responsed to) truly was
a waste of bandwidth.
>Well done, Chris and Mario, for providing a thoughtful look to this mess.
Well, Chris yes. Mario, I guess, must have done so in articles I didn't
catch (not that they don't exist).
Fred
Matt Franklin
> Ok, try this. What if one day they decide to make it illegal to tap lands
> to the left, but you must tap them to the right, but the didn't tell
> anyone and no one ever enforced the rule. Then one day in the Pro Tour
Uh-oh. This one breaks down in the third sentence!
Didn't tell anyone? Not a very good analogy for the current problem.
Have you looked at the rules any time in the past couple years?
Matt Franklin
And the moral of this whole thread?
Rules aren't necessarily smarter than people!
Go figure.
Matt Franklin
> The only circumstances that my comment took into account was the "2 Warnings =
> Goodbye" rule, which was broken. Whether the warnings should have been given
> isn't something that I can say conclusively (although I do have opinions on
> it).
Okay, so they broke/bent the rules. The rules were found lacking. The
other choices were to let a player get away with something that could
possibly give him an important advantage in the finals, or DQ him
entirely. Instead of either of those, they chose to use judgement-- how
is it these rules have gained sacred status with many of you?
> Yep. Does the fact that the judges made an illegal decision occur to you at
> all? I don't think for a minute that David Mills _should_ have been
> disqualified based on his actions, but they had no choice under the rules
> other than disqualify him, after giving him two official warnings. They broke
> the rules.
Uh-oh. Ever gone over the speed limit? Under this "rules sacredness,"
you couldn't justify that no matter what. Gotta speed to get to the
hospital, or someone could die? Screw them, you're not breaking the
law.
> Reasons like "We don't want to look bad" from the DCI? Reasons like "We like
> David Mills and we don't like Nate Clark" from the DCI? I'd like to see these
> real reasons, but I'm never going to be told them officially, so I have to try
> to work out what they are myself. I doubt that I'll get them right.
Or reasons like, "we don't want to DQ someone when we're not sure they
were cheating?"
> The reason that I now don't feel able to justify DQing someone for recieving
> two warnings is that they will have a good case for saying "but you're just
> victimising me", as the PT judges didn't DQ someone in a PT final, they just
> gave him a match loss.
They'll get over it. :)
> >And the problem here? Well, the rules don't say "for offense X, a
> >player must be disqualified."
> Er, in three words: "Yes, they do". The rules say _exactly_ this. There is
> _no_ room for argument. You get two official warnings for the same offence,
> you are _out_. You get no prizes or anything.
Being warned is an offense?
"I'm gonna have to warn you."
"For what?"
"Being warned-- it's an offense."
"Um... but I wasn't warned!"
"Yes you were, exactly when I warned you for it. Can you ask for faster
enforcement that that?"
> > They contain a high amount of "judge's
> >discretion." You can read much of this on the DCI page.
>
> The "judge's discretion" stuff is all about _whether_ to give warnings in the
> first place, not what the penalties are for those warnings.
>
> I hope I've cleared this up for you sufficiently.
Yes, I noticed that recently. That's fine-- then I think they should've
broken the rules. Should you break rules on any little whim? No. But
given this compelling a reason? Certainly.
Michael Falkner
In article <332366...@leland.stanford.edu>, Matt says...
>Okay, so they broke/bent the rules. The rules were found lacking. The
>other choices were to let a player get away with something that could
>possibly give him an important advantage in the finals, or DQ him
>entirely. Instead of either of those, they chose to use judgement-- how
>is it these rules have gained sacred status with many of you?
Because they are the only things that separate tournament Magic from the chaos
that many people would like it to become.
>Uh-oh. Ever gone over the speed limit? Under this "rules sacredness,"
>you couldn't justify that no matter what. Gotta speed to get to the
>hospital, or someone could die? Screw them, you're not breaking the
>law.
Not if the police officer doesn't believe you -- and if he does, you get an
escort to the hospital. Thing is, the judge chose to penalize, and he should
have been allowed to do so to the full extent of the Floor Rules. This means
Mills gets nothing [and probably a suspension until he actually learns how to
play the game right to the satisfaction of the DCI...] and there's no second
prize at this PT.
>Or reasons like, "we don't want to DQ someone when we're not sure they
>were cheating?"
Under the Floor Rules, HE WAS CHEATING. He was cautioned three times [maybe
four] and then warned. Damned straight he was cheating. If he can't play
by the rules, and he knows that if he does it again and is caught, that it's
over, and he still can't stop, then the only thing to do -- even in his
position of up 2-1 -- is to concede the match and take the prize.
>> The "judge's discretion" stuff is all about _whether_ to give warnings in the
>> first place, not what the penalties are for those warnings.
>>
>> I hope I've cleared this up for you sufficiently.
>
>Yes, I noticed that recently. That's fine-- then I think they should've
>broken the rules. Should you break rules on any little whim? No. But
>given this compelling a reason? Certainly.
Then, as my friend Dominick Riesland put it -- the DCI has then surrendered all
rights to making such penalties in a tournament.
He believes, as do I, that it is time for an independent law book of the sport
of tournament Magic.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
David J. Low
>and they all boil down to the same thing, "follow the rules to the
>letter as they are written today, fix them tomorrow".
I'd agree with that :-)
The problem is, if we no longer have to follow the rules, what possible
defense can I mount in justifying my actions *when they are against the
rules*? That is: I make a judgement, which happens to be against the
rules. The player objects to the DC, who have a review. My only defense
is, "Because I think it was the right thing to do". The DC either backs
me up (further making us wonder why the rules are there in the first
place), or they discipline me (making me wonder where I'm allowed to use
my discretion).
We *need* lines, to let us know where to stand. Otherwise, we throw
ourselves on the mercy of a review panel, with only "To me, it was
right!" as justification. We *hope* that the review panel feels the same
way. Maybe they will, maybe they won't....
And since the DC refuses to give details of previous decisions, we have
no idea what they think about most issues. How much judgement (often
another word for "personal feeling") are we allowed to exercise? And at
what point does what's good to me (DQing people who intentional draw, or
who ask their opponent to desleeve, when *to me* these are cheating or
intimidation :-) ) become unacceptable?
If it were just up to the individual, there wouldn't be a problem. The
spectre of review hangs like the Sword of Damocles over our heads,
though. We hope our actions are always justifiable to ourselves. That
doesn't mean that they'll be justifiable to others.
Can you imagine a situation where a judge was disciplined for following
the rules *rather* than using better judgement (where "better" is
relative, and open to debate)?
Regards,
David.
--
{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "The words of the Prophets are }
{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | written on the subway walls...." }
David J. Low
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz <dani...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> Naturally, there was outcry. Upon checking the rules, it was determined
>> that the scorers recording of the game was the *only* admissable record -
>> not the TV, not the thousands of spectators, just the scorers. Bad luck,
>> you lose.
>
>Don't you think that is simply DUMB!?
I think it was unfortunate and somewhat funny :-) It is, however, life.
The organisers realised that going against the rules would invalidate the
basis of the rules, so it just had to ride. And people, being mature,
accepted that (and made sure the rules got changed).
I guess it depends how much respect people have for the rules....and the
story of the USA losing to Russia in basketball on a similar story was
*really* funny :-)