Mike Long = Cheating Bastard
CptKaso
I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
Caught Blatantly cheating. He registered his deck at 61 cards but only played
with 60. The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
This is WRONG. Long was BLATANLY cheating. They should have thrown his ass
out of the tournament.
Mark
MesaCraft
Long should not be on Team USA. I don't want a cheater representing th
greatest country in the world. I hope Long gets caught cheating again and gets
thrown out of Magic.
Lenny
David Sanders
MesaCraft wrote in message
<199807131802...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>I hope Long gets caught cheating again and gets
>thrown out of Magic.
Why should he have to be caught cheating AGAIN?!?!
David Linder
>I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
>Caught Blatantly cheating. He registered his deck at 61 cards but only played
>with 60.
That is incorrect. His deck was 60 cards, so was his decklist.
>The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
Yeah, well, it isn't really *that* hard to figure out when it got
there:
Long: "Natural Balance."
Opponent: Searches through his deck, looking down.
Long. Slips the Bloom into his lap, to pick it up later.
>When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
>However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
And that's the only reason he got a that hard punsihment. Otherwise, a
single warning would surely have been apropriate, accoring to the
coward-judges at the DCI.
>This is WRONG. Long was BLATANLY cheating. They should have thrown his ass
>out of the tournament.
Especially since he has cheated so many times before... when will they
react?
/David Linder
Idiosynch
problem with people getting upset and spreading *false information*.
>I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
>Caught Blatantly cheating.
No, no he wasn't. He dropped a card, which happened to be a bloom, which
happened to be the card he needed to complete the combo, which was discovered
in round 12, after he was already 11-0 and guaranteed a spot, immediately
following the resolution of a Natural Balance.
That is what happened.. *why* it happened is a seperate discussion.
>He registered his deck at 61 cards but only played
>with 60.
Now's the part where you go look up his deck on the 'net, and issue a public
apology for being a moron. Sixty Card Deck.. it says right on the WotC site.
> The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
It fell on the floor from his chair.. maybe.
Being a spectator at the time, and noting that noone who was watching had a
matching description of the events, we just know that the card fell on the
floor from his deck/hand/chair/leg/bow tie/whatever... Anyone who says with
authority that it did indeed fall from location X is speculating.
>When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
>However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
The '11-0' argument was one that a lot of people were using at Origins to argue
that he wasn't cheating, and it was an accident. I mean, why would he cheat at
11-0? He was really in danger of ejection.. why would he take that risk?
>This is WRONG. Long was BLATANLY cheating. They should have thrown his ass
>out of the tournament.
So, they should have punished him on the basis of his reputation, and not on
the basis of his 'transgression'?
I don't know if I'd like to make that DCI policy.
>
>Mark
>
Chris,
Virginia Magic Player,
Devil's Advocate
"Whoever told you that you were funny lied."
--Eric Turnquist
Chris Yates,
Czar of the Bizzare,
King of the Wicker People,
John Shuler's Annoying Little Friend,
Threat Magnet
idio...@aol.com
ICQ: 68668846
Tom McIntire
>
> I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
> with 60. The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
> When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
> However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
>
> out of the tournament.
>
The really sad thing is I have a book called Pro Magic: The Art Of
Professional Deck Construction written by George Baxter and Charles
Wolfe. Inside, Michael Long is interviewed and one of the topics is, "Do
you think there is to much cheating on the Pro Tour?" Michael Long had
TWO WHOLE PAGES worth of comments for that question about how everyone
is accusing him wrongfully of being a cheater, and how people don't have
proof that others are cheaters and on and on and on. In one sentance I
particularly enjoyed Long says, "I think some people are cheaters and
are trying to cover up the fact that they are cheaters. I liar's always
last to believe that someone else is telling the truth." This man is a
disgrace to the game of Magic.
-Tom
Nj...@my-dejanews.com
"David Sanders" <dsan...@netxchange.com> wrote:
>
> MesaCraft wrote in message
> <199807131802...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >I hope Long gets caught cheating again and gets
> >thrown out of Magic.
The higher profile you are, the more scrutinized you become. I wasn't there
so I dare not say how valid these accusations are, but if I were 11-0 I think
cheating would be the last thing I needed to do.
Consider this: just how far can cheating carry you? At what magnitude do
you have to successfully cheat to obtain gains = risks?
Cheating in Magic: An overrated activity.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Elliot Fertik
:
: I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
: Caught Blatantly cheating. He registered his deck at 61 cards but only played
: with 60. The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
: When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
: However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
:
: This is WRONG. Long was BLATANLY cheating. They should have thrown his ass
: out of the tournament.
The absolute, exquisite irony here is that, beleive it or not, Long
probably wasn't cheating at this point. Why? Because he had already gone
something like 11-0 at that point, and was assured of mkaing the final 8
at Nationals. Why would he risk cheating in a game which made absolutely
no difference to him, but if he was caught cheating, he could be thrown
out of the tournament?
Not that I really defending Mike Long. You are talking about a guy who
even JEFF DONAIS, the HEAD DCI JUDGE, thinks is a cheater. And I've seen
Mike play personally - he is truly one of the most obnoxious bastards I've
ever met.
Personally, I wish Bachman would play him, and then proceed to kick Long's
ass. I'm actually amazed that Long hasn't been beaten to pulp before now.
Sadly, I'm not suprised that Long hasn't been banned from DCI before.
It's almost a shame he didn't win Nationals - then the DCI would have the
accute embarassment of having Magic's biggest cheater as the US National
champion.
-Elliot Fertik
drco...@sirius.com
<Snip>
> Consider this: just how far can cheating carry you? At what magnitude do
> you have to successfully cheat to obtain gains = risks?
Let's see . . .
If I cheat and get caught, what is the penalty? A
lost game? Maybe a match (if I am a complete
ass, with a long history of cheating and abusive
behavior.) Maybe, just maybe, if I cheat so
blatantly that even _I_ am disgusted, maybe I
get disqualified from the tournament. Probably
not. But maybe. And then I am out my $20-$50
registration fee.
What can possibly justify taking such a "risk" --
how about thousands of dollars? Hmm. If I cheat
in twenty different $50 tournaments and manage
to not get caught in only _one_ of them, and only
cheat well enough in that one to get $1000, I
break even. Anything else is gravy.
How far can cheating carry me? All the way to the
bank!
Suspected cheaters should be monitored carefully
in tournaments. (And, yes, unsportsmanlike conduct
is cheating, according to DCI Standard Floor Rule 1.3.4).
Convicted/known cheaters should not be allowed to
play in sanctioned tournaments.
I am still ticked off at all this.
Rene Polman
Er> I don't know how it would get under his leg and he wouldn't notice.
Er> WOTC and the DCI need people watching every match with shady player at
Er> every major tournament. Even at little tournaments they need somebody
Er> randomly walking around just in case they catch something.
I agree much on that idea. After all how can you say you're opponent
cheated when you see him draw a card to much. The only one who sees
such a thing is you. To notice that people just don't draw two cards
or twice is something that in normal gameplay is not even evident.
So when you notice it accidently or purposedly done in a tourney
you'd be surprised. I was.
Judges that would supervise and notice the behaviour of players on the
long run. Thus training of those judges for it and also the patience to
await significantly large amounts of reactions of a diversity of people,
judges. They could say hire croupiers.
>We don't need a witch hunt.
On the other hand is cheating off the "better" players quitte disturbing.
>What we need is a hard codified set of rules
>for the actual game mechanics.
I do not think we need 4000 specialised effects of punishment please.
I suggest some monitoring.
Onyx
Er> And a enforcing body with the balls to use them.
Eric Taylor
: The absolute, exquisite irony here is that, beleive it or not, Long
: probably wasn't cheating at this point. Why? Because he had already gone
: something like 11-0 at that point, and was assured of mkaing the final 8
: at Nationals. Why would he risk cheating in a game which made absolutely
: no difference to him, but if he was caught cheating, he could be thrown
: out of the tournament?
That's not good logic. If you are 11-0 why play? If Long only wants
to make final 8, then he can draw in. Therefore obviously he needed to
win. Who knows why? dci points? simple desire or boredom? If he
doesn't draw to make final 8, obviously he has a motive. A better
reason to believe he wasn't cheating is what the eyewitnesses have
said.
--- edt
Eric Taylor
* * *
Why is cheating such a problem with the dci and wotc, and what should be
done about it? In my opinion, the problem is simple. There is no
coherent set of rules in magic that cover game mechanics.
We do have an immense body of rules. If I play an impulse and we both
read the card, you can see it says shuffle afterwards. But everyone knows
that the errata says you don't. What if it's something incredibly more
complicated? Nearly every single card and effect has been codified. From
the simplest little rule to the most complicated, we have thousands and
thousands of rules and errata that cover nearly every single topic of card
play.
It's wonderful that a game with such insanely complicated interactions can
be described so completely.
Yet. . . What happens if you catch someone mana weaving their lands?
Some judges just pick it up and give it a shotgun shuffle. Some judges
give a warning. Some judges give a game loss.
The system of punishing the cheaters right now is set up 1) in a way that
you have to prove someone tried to cheat on purpose, 2) without any
appreciable guidelines to punish in gradations the various levels of
cheating. Right now if someone deliberately cheats you punish him, but if
someone accidentally cheats then you don't punish him.
Imagine if you could argue your way out of a traffic ticket by just
saying, "I'm sorry officer, I didn't go through the red light on purpose.
It was an accident."
It's just too hard to prove intent to cheat.
This leads to the situation we have today. We have to find find out: Did
Mike Long deliberately drop a card or was it an accident? Go ahead. You
find that out. I'll give you a hint. The only way you're going to ever
know is if Mike Long tells you. Even then you might wonder if he's just
joking.
When Mark Justice was found getting jiggy with the muscle slivers in
Atlanta, it was impossible to determine if he was in fact deliberately
adding extra slivers to his deck or if he was just replacing one which he
may have thrown in the trash can.
I think the whole idea of intent has to go out the window.
We need a codified system of rules and punishments. And forget these
nearly meaningless cautions and warnings. We need a set of rules that
gives out penalties for every single infraction.
Of course, you always have the discretion of the judge, so if a raw
beginner makes a silly mistake, the judge can still tell him how to play
the cards correctly and not give a penalty.
Some examples of what I mean by a codified system:
For mana weaving your deck an appropriate penalty would be an immediate dq
from the tournament. For drawing an extra card, accidentally or on
purpose it doesn't matter, a game or match loss for a single instance, and
then a dq for a subsequent one.
Now, misrepresenting a card. . . such as casting a wrath of god with no
white mana or having a thalakos lowlands that never seems to get sleepy,
these have usually been cautions or warnings.
I think most cautions and warnings should go out the window.
You need immediate penalties for nearly all infractions, and even
penalties for misrepresenting cards. There are a number of ways to give
out a penalty for something less than a game loss. For instance, you can
give out loss of a turn, or loss of a card the next time you begin your
game. These penalties are less than a game loss and means that people
won't laugh anymore at offenses that normally would have drawn a caution.
What is the penalty for playing a game with a card in your lap? Its seems
to me that an appropriate penalty would be an immediate dq. However, if
the normal penalty is decided at a simple match loss for a single incident
and then dq for any additional ones, that would be ok too, as long as all
the players can know ahead of time what the appropriate penalty is.
I think what bothers people is not so much the accusation of Mike Long
cheating. What bothers people is that there seems to no penalty at all
for cheating. In fact, if you are a name player, you seem to get extra
special treatment.
Whatever the rules are for dropping a card in your lap, we need to see it,
so we can see that name players aren't getting off easy. I think that a
complete set of rules for various infractions would help immensely.
If wotc and the dci can maintain the erratas for thousands and thousands
of rules and erratas why can't they maintain a list for the mere hundreds
of possible infractions and penalties for each one?
When you tap your mana and then untap it, what happens? What if you tap
your mana, let go of it, and then later untap it again? I have heard that
the rule is as soon as you let go of your mana you can't untap it again
but as long as you have your hands on it, you can go tappity untappity all
day long. What is the rule? Players don't know for sure, and judges seem
to make their judgements based on things they have heard about other
judges.
So, did Mike Long do it on purpose? Do he do it by accident?
These are silly questions.
We don't need a witch hunt. What we need is a hard codified set of rules
for the actual game mechanics.
--- edt
Wyvern5
>The higher profile you are, the more scrutinized you become. I wasn't there
>so I dare not say how valid these accusations are, but if I were 11-0 I think
>cheating would be the last thing I needed to do.
How do you think long got to 11-0?
>
>Consider this:just how far can cheating carry >you?
Apparently, 11-0
> At what magnitude do
>you have to successfully cheat to obtain gains = risks?
Well, Long got caught once. How much did he gain from all the tournaments he
has been in?
>
>Cheating in Magic: An overrated activity.
>
Long's cheating in Magic: An underrated activity.
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
(rant mode off)
Evan B.
Lord of the Fries
Evan969
thedojo.com
He drafted 4 muscle slivers (or at least that was what the deck list people had
to say about it) and then he bought a 5th one off of someone or some
shit...then they asked him why he had 5, and he claimed that he drafted a 5th
one and it was a "factory defect card" so he threw it away. Conveniently, he
forgot which garbage can it was thrown in, and "coincidentally" there were only
2 garbage cans on the premisis...
"It was an accident"
Erboyle
I think that the problem with cheating in magic is that it is really hard to
know if someone is cheating. The day the dojo was updated after nationals
there was like four articles on the Mike Long thing. Three of them said he was
a cheater and one of them said he wasn't. I don't even know if the people that
posted the articles were eyewitnesses. You need to be a eyewitness of a
accused cheat in magic to know if the guy is cheating. Playing devils advocate
Mike Long could have just dropped the cad bloom when he was shuffling.
Although I don't know how it would get under his leg and he wouldn't notice.
WOTC and the DCI need people watching every match with shady player at every
major tournament. Even at little tournaments they need somebody randomly
walking around just in case they catch something.
>We don't need a witch hunt.
Maybe we do. Seriously I don't want to Q for the tour, and actually be able to
go, and have to play Mike Long or someone of his ilk. I would be so worried
about counting his cards and stuff to see if he was cheating that I wouldn't be
able to concentrate on my game. If a witch hunt is what it takes to make the
game legitimate at the higher levels than I think it is neccesary.
>What we need is a hard codified set of rules
>for the actual game mechanics.
And a enforcing body with the balls to use them.
Nick Bonokoski
team TUBBY
Redraven
Long cheating in the Finals of PT Paris, against Justice, by playing
an extra land? I'm positive there was even commentary by one of the
commentators on the live feed about it. Yet the video tape isn't shown
by WOTC to dispprove this.
Also, wasn't there controversy about Mike Long cheating at GP Altanta
by claiming he was at a different life than he supposely was at, when
the table got bumped and his dice roll?
It seems like every couple of months the words Mike Long and Cheating
appear in the Subject of a thousand posts on the net? There are really
only two possible about why this happens? Either everybody is part of
a conspiracy,( or jealous of Long's consistant high profile win
record), or maybe there is something to the continual accusations?
Even taking jealousy into account it seems very hard to believe the
former.
Furthermore to address the arguements against Mr. Long's cheating ,
the argument about not wanting to cheat when he was already 11-0 is
certainly creditable, but the "Why risk it when so many people are
watching arguement" just doesn't seem to hold water in Mr. Long's
case. If your willing to try and cheat in the FINALS OF A PRO TOUR
(assuming they are correct), with video cameras, commentators and a
live closed circuit feed, then you have the balls to cheat anywhere.
Kevin Grumball
> Yet. . . What happens if you catch someone mana weaving their lands?
Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean arranging your lands so that
they aren't bunched together after a game? I routinely split up all the
cards I have just played, since I've artificially grouped them during
play. I'm just re-randomising them. That includes splitting up the two
black nights (or whatever).
I always shuffle several times (full riffle + hand over hand shuffle)
after doing so. I find that protectors cause the cards to stick
together so grouping can be a problem.
Is this an issue?
Regards,
Kevin
Nj...@my-dejanews.com
wyv...@aol.com (Wyvern5) wrote:
> >
> >Consider this:just how far can cheating carry >you?
> Apparently, 11-0
Apparently???? Was this an attempt to convince someone? People should voice
their opinions on penalties that they feel are comensurate for cheating to
the DCI directly. Stop this "He said, she said" and "Jeff Donais' opinions
are.." and "Aparrently...".
RaeMowse
>> Yet. . . What happens if you catch someone mana weaving their lands?
>
>Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean arranging your lands so that
>they aren't bunched together after a game?
Well far as I have picked up, mana-weaving mean to have your spells going in
one direction [ example: ? ] and your land going the other way [
example: ż ] in your library, allowing you to know if you will draw a spell
or land (very, VERY useful if you rather have a "business "card instead of
another land, plus it lets you know ahead of time if your topdecking skills
will save your butt this time around ^_^).
Rainman
Wise men are only enlightened fools.
Michael Wang
Eric Taylor <e...@umich.edu> wrote:
>We need a codified system of rules and punishments. And forget these
>nearly meaningless cautions and warnings. We need a set of rules that
>gives out penalties for every single infraction.
>
>Of course, you always have the discretion of the judge, so if a raw
>beginner makes a silly mistake, the judge can still tell him how to play
>the cards correctly and not give a penalty.
>
>
>Some examples of what I mean by a codified system:
>
>For mana weaving your deck an appropriate penalty would be an immediate dq
>from the tournament. For drawing an extra card, accidentally or on
>purpose it doesn't matter, a game or match loss for a single instance, and
>then a dq for a subsequent one.
[..stuff deleted...]
Setting explicit penalities for certain actions would be helpful IF
the judges enforced the rules to begin with. For example, from the DCI
tournament rules:
Triple Warning:
Judge has a strong belief that a player is cheating; or a
tournament participant is engaging in severe, unsportsmanlike
conduct. Issuance of this type of warning will result in an
investigation of the recipient by the DCI. The findings of this
investigation may lead to further penalties.
(The default penalty for a triple warning is ejection.)
Now mana weaving is outright cheating. There is no way you could make
up a plausible excuse for this sort of thing. So under the current
rules, that's an automatic ejection right there. You don't even need
to have a specific rule for it (unless you wanted the penalty to be
more severe).
Finding a card in somebody's lap is a bit more complicated. Under the
current rules, if I was a judge, this is how I would handle it. If a
player saw that a card was in his/her lap and brought it to my
attention I would issue a single warning and have the card reshuffled
into the library. If anybody else notices the card first (judge,
bystander, etc.), that's an automatic triple warning and ejection.
The problem right now, as many other people have pointed out, is that
judges are afraid to enforce the EXISTING rules. Adding more specific
situations and penalities may help somewhat, but until judges are
willing to penalize players for cheating in general, cheating will
always be a big problem.
Karl Allen
>I think that the problem with cheating in magic is that it is really hard to
>know if someone is cheating. The day the dojo was updated after nationals
>there was like four articles on the Mike Long thing. Three of them said he was
>a cheater and one of them said he wasn't. I don't even know if the people that
>posted the articles were eyewitnesses. You need to be a eyewitness of a
>accused cheat in magic to know if the guy is cheating. Playing devils advocate
>Mike Long could have just dropped the cad bloom when he was shuffling.
>Although I don't know how it would get under his leg and he wouldn't notice.
In my opinion if someone notices something that looks like cheating it should
be treated as such. You're right, we'll never be able to prove what was in
Mike Long's head (did he mean to cheat, or did he accidently drop the card?)
The burden of proof can not be on the DCI to show he meant to cheat, or
they'll almost never be able to do so. If you're caught in something that
looks like cheating, then you should suffer the penalty as if you were.
(It'd also be nice if these penalties were well defined). I think that's what
they do for things like only having 59 cards in your deck, right? There's
no judgement call or anything, you just automatically forfeit the game or
match.
>WOTC and the DCI need people watching every match with shady player at every
>major tournament. Even at little tournaments they need somebody randomly
>walking around just in case they catch something.
Judges should be walking around anyway in case they're needed, and while
they're doing so should be looking for cheating. As should players, of
course.
> >We don't need a witch hunt.
>Maybe we do. Seriously I don't want to Q for the tour, and actually be able to
>go, and have to play Mike Long or someone of his ilk. I would be so worried
>about counting his cards and stuff to see if he was cheating that I wouldn't be
>able to concentrate on my game. If a witch hunt is what it takes to make the
>game legitimate at the higher levels than I think it is neccesary.
I think "witch hunt" might be a bit strong. I'd settle for "vigorous
enforcement of well defined rules" which would include getting disqualified
from a tourney for being caught with a card under your leg, in your sleeve, or
otherwise tucked away. The fact that the DCI is having trouble with cheaters
should surprise no one - if you start throwing tens of thousands of dollars
in prizes around you'll attract all manner of card sharks, bullies,
and cheats.
I remain,
K
Eric Taylor
: Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean arranging your lands so that
: they aren't bunched together after a game? I routinely split up all the
: cards I have just played, since I've artificially grouped them during
: play. I'm just re-randomising them. That includes splitting up the two
: black nights (or whatever).
: I always shuffle several times (full riffle + hand over hand shuffle)
: after doing so. I find that protectors cause the cards to stick
: together so grouping can be a problem.
Let's think about this mana weaving thing a little shall we?
First of all you have described what mana weaving is. You split spells
and lands and then do a 2-1, 2-1 to get a perfect mix. There are
several methods to get this perfect mix that cheaters use. For
instance, there is the "random pile" method.
Discretely put the lands on the bottom of your deck and the spells on
top while picking up your deck. Now make 5 or 10 random piles of
cards. So you can put card 1 in pile 2 then card 2 in pile 1, card 3
in pile 3 card 4 in pile 5 card 5 in pile 4, and then you do it again
for the next layer of cards again choosing random piles for each layer
of cards. If you do a pile shuffle twice this gives you a perfect mana
weave. The whole thing about "random piles" is to throw off your
opponent. Then you pick up your deck do a riffle shuffle and "break
the bridge". To do this, you riffle your cards together. Then you
bridge them back but instead of tapping the deck together you quickly
pull the two halves apart. You can also do a shotgun shuffle where you
pick up half the deck and slide it in to the rest of the deck.
Another technique is the "top half" method.
Once again start by discretely putting your lands on the bottom and the
spells on the top. Now you riffle like mad, but when you cut to riffle
you only take the top 15 or 20 cards (which are spells) and riffle them
into the other top half of your deck. This entire operation of
riffling like mad is to deceive your opponent that you are randomizing
your deck. Now after you have done this you once again do 2 pile
shuffles for a perfect mana weave. To finish it you want to do either
a shotgun shuffle or break the bridge.
Now even if you do a single riffle shuffle of your opponent's deck the
mana weaver still has a great advantage because a single riffle doesn't
disturb the mana weave very much.
That's a lot of trouble to get a mana woven deck isn't it? I wonder
why anyone would go to so much trouble?
Now a lot of people don't even try to pretend. They will mana weave
right in front of you. Then like you have said you will riffle a few
times afterwards.
Why do you mana weave before you shuffle?
Because you get a better distribution of cards and lands.
That is the only reason to mana weave.
Now the explanation that most people give as to why their mana weaving
is ok is because they say that they do lots of shuffling afterwards.
But look at what is happening.
1) you shuffle a lot but don't mana weave what happens?
your cards are not in as good of an order, they are either random if
you shuffle like mad or they are clumped
2) you mana weave first and then you shuffle what happens?
now your cards are in better spell-spell-land order
Notice also that "clumps" of lands and spells in magic are something
you should expect. Just because you see "clumps" doesn't mean you are
shuffling badly. If someone plays an 8 round swiss and never comes
close to mulliganning, he is either the luckiest magic player alive or
he is mana weaving.
Let's think about it. If you claim that you shuffle enough to
randomize your cards and that it would be the same if you mana wove or
didn't then why the hell are you wasting 5 minutes of time of mana
weaving.
All mana weavers expect to get better draws by mana weaving their decks
before shuffling. If you got the exact same results from not mana
weaving as you with mana weaving then there would be no point to it.
You wouldn't bother.
Decks which are mana-woven are not random.
It's cheating plain and simple to mana weave.
For a while it seemed that WOTC was in favor of mana weaving, who knows
why. Even on appr the shuffler mana weaves for you because apparently
that's how a lot of players like it.
But mana weaving is cheating no matter how you slice it.
p.s. thanks to Nate Clark for showing me these methods of mana weaving
and his efforts to stop it on the pro tour.
--- edt
Gary Cappallo
>Not to beat a dead horse, But wasn't there some controversy regarding
>Long cheating in the Finals of PT Paris, against Justice, by playing
>an extra land? I'm positive there was even commentary by one of the
>commentators on the live feed about it. Yet the video tape isn't shown
>by WOTC to dispprove this.
>Also, wasn't there controversy about Mike Long cheating at GP Altanta
>by claiming he was at a different life than he supposely was at, when
>the table got bumped and his dice roll?
>It seems like every couple of months the words Mike Long and Cheating
>appear in the Subject of a thousand posts on the net? There are really
>only two possible about why this happens? Either everybody is part of
>a conspiracy,( or jealous of Long's consistant high profile win
>record), or maybe there is something to the continual accusations?
>Even taking jealousy into account it seems very hard to believe the
>former.
I personally take a road that's a little bit in between. Mike Long
probably has cheated, he's probably also been "caught" (read noticed
and ignored) and now anytime anything questionable happens everybody
cries "wolf" and assumes he cheated. I'm not taking a side about
Origins because I wasn't there (I wish I was though it was awesome
last year), but I'm sure that he's been falsely accused at some time
because of his reputation.
Elliot Fertik
Obviously, Eric, I don't know the answer, but what I suspect is that Long
had such a good record at that point, he was playing people who had much
worse records than him, and so his opponent probably wouldn't agree to
draw, so he had to play a game that made absolutely no difference to him
at all.
-Elliot Fertik
Robert Blackman
Just for clarity's sake, I thought I'd define a fairly well-known
cheat--fairly well known to pro players, that is. It's called "Natural
Tutor" and involves casting Natural Balance in your bloom deck and
accidentally dropping the combo card you need into your lap so you can be
certain to go off. It's a minor bit of sleigh of hand and anyone can learn
it. It's also a variant of a previous cheat, known as the "fetch tutor"
which involved using a fetch land the same way, or the "thawing tutor."
Finding a combo card in someone's lap should be grounds for
ejection. Especially in a deck that lends itself to cheating so well.
Sligh is hard to cheat with--bloom is easy to cheat with. I suggest that
WotC and the DCI take a much harder line on cheating--just start ejecting
people when cheating seems plausible. Yes, in the US we have a
constitutional right to the assumption of innocence in a court of law.
But, if an umpire found a piece of sandpaper and a razor sitting on a
pitching mound, I don't think he'd hesitate to eject the last pitcher...
A sport my ass. As a judge, I'm disgusted.
Bob Blackman (level 2--and ask me about the time I cheated for fun :)
rhbl...@uci.edu
drco...@sirius.com
Robert Blackman <rhbl...@grad-ea-2.oac.uci.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.96.98071...@grad-ea-2.oac.uci.edu>...
<snip>
> Finding a combo card in someone's lap should be grounds for
> ejection.
I agree. And if it happens in other tournaments, they
should be _banned_ from sanctioned tournaments.
Why give them another chance to cheat when they
are known to do so? If I catch you trying to steal from
me (and cheating when money is on the line is trying
to steal), why should I just stop you _this time_. Why
not stop you from trying again?
<snip>
> I suggest that WotC and the DCI take a much harder line
> on cheating--just start ejecting people when cheating
> seems plausible.
Once again, I concur. The onus should not be on the judges
alone. You do not go to a poker game with an Ace of Spades
in your pocket and claim you weren't trying to cheat -- even if
you honestly weren't. It would look too suspicious. Players
should be watching their own behavior, to _look_ innocent as
well as _be_ innocent.
> Yes, in the US we have a
> constitutional right to the assumption of innocence in a court of law.
> But, if an umpire found a piece of sandpaper and a razor sitting on a
> pitching mound, I don't think he'd hesitate to eject the last pitcher...
Agreed. _Maybe_ the sandpaper and razor are innocently there --
but if you penalize the pitcher who put them there, next time they
won't bring them. If you penalize people for performing actions which
_may_ be indicative of cheating, they won't do them anymore.
Rant, rant, rant.
-Max Hufnagel
docc...@geocities.com
Pitt Crandlemire
tournaments for two so I suppose I'm not particularly qualified to comment on
this issue. On the other hand, my "newness" perhaps allows me to see it with
fresh eyes; that is, without benefit of prior experience that might cause me to
unintentionally take certain things for granted.
For example, in his post on cheating, Eric Taylor refers to "someone mana
weaving their lands". At first glance, I thought that this meant distributing
lands more or less equally throughout your deck before shuffling prior to play.
If this is illegal, I was not aware of it. Nor, for that matter, am I aware
that it is illegal to distribute any and all cards throughout the deck, so long
as a thorough shuffle and cut is conducted prior to play. (Please note that
I'm not talking about specific placement of cards in a given order but, rather,
randomly distributing lands, creatures, and other spells in such a way to
ensure that they are not clumped prior to shuffling.)
Yet, in a response to this question, another writer suggested that mana weaving
is the act of placing lands in the deck with the card backs rotated 180 degress
so as to allow the player to tell when he is going to draw a land vs. a spell.
This example illustrates, I hope, my points, which I believe are in congruence
with those that Eric was making. Namely, the DCI's tournament rules do not
adequately describe or define all the required aspects of tournament play nor
all the potential violations a player might (wittingly or not) commit.
Moreover, the penalties for such violations are not at all clear or consistent
(at least not to me as a player - I can't speak for what direction the judges
are given). I well realize that it is a virtual impossibility to ask someone
to define and describe *all* the ways that one might break the rules but, even
so, that doesn't mean that the best effort to do so shouldn't continue to be
made.
In my experience, this sort of problem doesn't matter all that much with most
games because the rewards associated with success aren't as remunerative as
with Magic. At the same time, the penalties associated with cheating in other
games are more severe, if less formal. For example, I have competed at the
highest levels in Diplomacy for some years and I was fortunate enough to win
the World Championship in 1996. However, the financial reward associated with
my title was limited to free room and board at the next World Championships -
nothing to sneeze at to be sure but nothing compared to the cash prizes
available to winners of major Magic tournaments.
Clearly, there is much more temptation to cheat in Magic tournaments. Yet,
though I have no personal experience of this cheating (at least, not that I'm
awareof...), the reports I've read of cheating by well-known players at major
tournaments suggest that the penalties are both relatively minor and not
rigorously enforced. In the Diplomacy hobby, on the other hand, once a player
has been shown to be a cheater, he is generally barred from further play -
period. And, on that much later occasion when he is allowed to return, he is
subject to intense and obvious scrutiny to ensure no repeat occurrence.
As a new Magic tournament player, I have been surprised at the relatively
relaxed manner in which players are supervised. For example, it seems
trivially easy even to a tyro like me for a player to cheat during the deck
construction phase of a Booster Draft tournament. I played in a Pro Tour
Qualifier last weekend and, though I wasn't even close to the final 8, I stayed
around to watch. It struck me that any of those players could easily have
slipped a key card into their decks during deck construction in place of a
crappy one and no one would have been the wiser. (I'm not advocating strip
seaches, mind you, but at the least, prohibiting players from bringing other
cards and decks to the construction table and a constant oversight presence by
one or more judges while decks are being made.)
Even the Sealed Deck portion of the tournament could have been subverted.
Several players seated next to me during deck construction (after deck
registration and turn-in had been completed) had to call over a judge to
indicate an error on their deck registration list. All the judges did was find
out who registered the deck, ask them if the remembered the card that wasn't
checked (most weren't sure one way or the other), caution them to be more
careful, and sign off on the error. The thing is, any one of these errors
could, in fact, have been a player adding a good card of the same color and
edition in place of another non-useful card. Which would you rather have in
your sealed deck, a Killer Whale or a Mana Breach? They're right next to each
other on the Deck Registration sheet and it would be easy for the offending
player to suggest that it was a mis-mark by the registering player.
I'm not finding fault with the way this tournamnet was run, mind you, nor with
the actions of the judges. Rather, it seems to me that the problem is systemic
and due to a lack of clear and thorough guidelines. Now, as I mentioned
earlier, these guidelines may exist and simply not be known to me as a player
or newbie. However, even if that is true, I submit that this is simply another
manifestation of the same problem. I have made every reasonable effort I know
how to become aware of all rules pertinent to the tournament milieu. I've read
everything on WOTC's and the DCI's web sites, read tournament reports and
commentary on r.g.t-c.m.s., the Dojo, and mtgnews, and picked the brains of
local players and judges. If there are rules I've missed, it's not for lack of
trying (and, I strongly suspect that most players don't make quite as much
effort as I did, either).
Nonethless, rules of this nature (what's required of players in order to play
legally, what's forbidden, and what the penalties are for violations) should
not be hard to find nor should they be vouchsafed only to judges. They should
be posted at every tournament and part of the initial packet (packet? what
packet?...see my point?) every new DCI member should receive. Specific
examples of incorrect or illegal play, such as mana weaving - whatever it
really is - should be given along with penalties for doing it.
I believe that most players prefer to play legally and the worst thing that
could happen to them is to be punished for an inadvertent violation of a rule
they didn't know. However, because I'm also a cynic at heart, I recognize that
there are some players who dont mind cheating if they can get away with it.
However, I also believe that publishing examples of rules violations and the
(preferably) severe penalties for committing them is likely to have a deterrent
effect on most of these cheaters. If they know that the judges and other
players are aware of their cheating methods, on the lookout for them, and what
will happen if they get caught, I suspect that they'll be less likely to try to
cheat.
I applaud WOTC and the DCI for the game of Magic and the tournament environment
that allows it to be more than just another casual game. However, because they
have so successfully done that, the tournament game is at risk to unscrupulous
and dishonest players. More effort needs to be made to protect the trust and
respect that most players wish to have in the tournament system. For example,
as weak a player as I am right now, my goal is to practice and learn until I
get as good as I can; hopefully good enough to be a contender at the Pro level.
I wouldn't be willing to make the financial or time committments to do that if
I thought that the tournament system wasn't designed both to reward only good
play and penalize cheaters.
-Pitt Crandlemire
pi...@syncon.com
RaeMowse
>Let's think about this mana weaving thing a little shall we?
>
>First of all you have described what mana weaving is. You split spells
>and lands and then do a 2-1, 2-1 to get a perfect mix. There are
>several methods to get this perfect mix that cheaters use. For
>instance, there is the "random pile" method.
[mana-weaving lessons snipped]
>Now a lot of people don't even try to pretend. They will mana weave
>right in front of you. Then like you have said you will riffle a few
>times afterwards.
>
>
>Why do you mana weave before you shuffle?
>
>Because you get a better distribution of cards and lands.
>
>That is the only reason to mana weave.
Well, you explained mana-weaving a whole lot better (and more accurate) than I
could ever have.
So, what do you call the 180° land-spells decking?
Frederick Scott
efe...@netaxs.com (Elliot Fertik) writes:
Er, in Swiss, you're suppose to play people with _like_ records, meaning
Mike Long should have been playing opponents with similarly excellent records,
not "people who had much worse records than him" - previous matches with the
same player not withstanding, of course. Perhaps you're thinking of
single-elimination seeded tournaments, as when the NBA seeds the top team in
a conference in the first round against the worst team in that conference
which made the playoffs.
Fred
Kevin Grumball
> Notice also that "clumps" of lands and spells in magic are something
> you should expect.
I agree. But look at what happens in a game: we pile all the land
together and all the spells in a different part of the table. Generally
only spells end up in the graveyard. Unless you shuffle a lot, these
groupings will persist when you play the next game.
> Just because you see "clumps" doesn't mean you are
> shuffling badly.
Shuffling does not give a very random mix. I played Bridge at national
level and in the top tournaments we always used computer generated
hands which were much weirder than in regular play. Why? Because you
group cards together into tricks of 4 cards, typically of the same
suit. When you deal the cards out to the 4 players, each gets one card
of that suit. The result is that you get _fewer_ clumps. It actually
changed the probabilities of the game.
To me, it's reasonable to mix up the cards in a just played hand to
break up the game-induced clumps. It's probably less defensible to go
search your deck for the land that you never managed to draw. :-)
Is it permissible to shuffle the just-played hand before mixing it back
in with the rest of your deck?
Failing that, I think I'll start laying out my cards as land-spell-land
etc. on the playing surface. :-)
> didn't then why the hell are you wasting 5 minutes of time of mana
> weaving.
It doesn't take 5 minutes to mix up my just-played hand.
> Decks which are mana-woven are not random.
Nor are those where the just-played hand is simply scooped together and
plonked on the rest of the deck.
Regards,
Kevin
Eric Taylor
: suit. When you deal the cards out to the 4 players, each gets one card
: of that suit. The result is that you get _fewer_ clumps. It actually
: changed the probabilities of the game.
Most bridge players (I admit I do it too when I play bridge) don't pile
shuffle, riffle, pile shuffle, riffle 7 more times, pile shuffle,
riffle 3 times, cut, and riffle again. They just do a few casual
riffles. Of course you see more "no trump" distribution than is
statistically expected with shuffling like this.
On the other hand, if I carefully randomize my deck while you mana
weave you will win. Your cards will be in better order.
I don't see how you think this is fair. To me its cheating if you mana
weave first and then riffle while I actually randomize my deck.
The only option left for someone who is honest and doesn't mana weave
is to shuffle his opponent's deck for several minutes because
apparently his opponent is not very committed to randomizing his deck.
Maybe you're right about it being easier to mana weave than shuffle
well. Maybe that's why people like to mana weave.
If it really is true that it is impossible for a human to suffiently
randomize a 60 card deck by riffling and piling then I cry uncle. If
human beings really are unable to shuffle cards this well, ok you win.
You do prove my point that many people think there is nothing wrong
with mana weaving and "unclumping."
I often watch my opponent while he sideboards. Many of my opponents
pretend to sideboad cards. But they don't actually sideboard. They
are just going through by hand fixing mana clumps or moving spells
around a little. They are fixing the problems that shuffling too much
causes. The deck gets "too" random. Some opponents like to put blue
spells next to islands and color stack their deck while others are
content to merely make sure the entire deck is unclumped, with a nearly
perfect 2-1, 2-1 mix. To me it is all the same. The guy who puts his
rituals next to his hypnotic spectors or the "unclumper", they are both
stacking their decks.
Another thing. Many people have this idea that "If you shuffle your
deck too much you'll get mana clumps." I wonder if these people mana
weave their decks. I wonder.
--- edt
Pete
>accused cheat in magic to know if the guy is cheating. Playing devils advocate
>Mike Long could have just dropped the cad bloom when he was shuffling.
>Although I don't know how it would get under his leg and he wouldn't notice.
Applying this to a similar case in a poker game in a Las Vegas casino,
and this will never fly. It WOULD NOT MATTER whether it was
accidental or not. A player found with an ace of spades on his
chair/floor/leg/whatever would be ejected right then and there,
if not shot by the mafia-owners :)
Put the burden of proof on the players _not_ the DCI. If they
can't prove their innocence, tough. They shoulda been more
careful when playing for a mega-bucks prize.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>For example, in his post on cheating, Eric Taylor refers to "someone mana
>weaving their lands". At first glance, I thought that this meant distributing
>lands more or less equally throughout your deck before shuffling prior to play.
>If this is illegal, I was not aware of it. Nor, for that matter, am I aware
>that it is illegal to distribute any and all cards throughout the deck, so long
>as a thorough shuffle and cut is conducted prior to play. (Please note that
>I'm not talking about specific placement of cards in a given order but, rather,
>randomly distributing lands, creatures, and other spells in such a way to
>ensure that they are not clumped prior to shuffling.)
Ensuring that they are "not clumped" is not *random*. It may be uniform, but
random doesn't say clumps or "runs" don't happen. Random means *random* -
your chance of clumping vs. not is small due to statistics, but it can still
happen. If your shuffling makes it "random" again, then what were you doing
in the first place?
Anyway, your opponent has a right to shuffle any way they want to make it
random again (short of lookign at the cards), so as an opponent you should
always shuffled considerably, thoroughly, and completely. Also, you can
call a judge over to make sure the deck is "randomized".
Bruce
Kevin Grumball
> I don't see how you think this is fair. To me its cheating if
> you mana weave first and then riffle while I actually randomize
> my deck.
It would be unfair if you didn't know, I agree. Likewise, it's
cheating if you pretend to shuffle but don't actually.
However, if we both have the opportunity, then it simply becomes part
of the game. I don't want a stacked deck, but I'm happy as long as we
both get the same chance to unclump. It's only an issue when it's
hidden or asymmetrical.
Deck protectors stick together more than raw cards, that's just a fact
of the materials. If they get damp, it's even worse (yes, I have heard
of people deliberately dampening sleeves to achieve this). Pile
shuffling does help eliminate this but it can't totally prevent it.
> is to shuffle his opponent's deck for several minutes
I wouldn't have any problem with an opponent shuffling my deck. In
fact, I think it ought to be mandatory in tournaments. This would get
rid of the false shuffling issue.
Regards,
Kevin
Jake Glazier
cards after he's mana woven them the break this up? Short of riffle
shuffling his deck 20 times that is...
Eric Taylor wrote:
>
> Let's think about this mana weaving thing a little shall we?
<big snip>
Pitt Crandlemire
>In article <35bba2b7...@news.tiac.net>,
> pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>
>>as a thorough shuffle and cut is conducted prior to play. (Please note that
>>I'm not talking about specific placement of cards in a given order but, rather,
>>randomly distributing lands, creatures, and other spells in such a way to
>>ensure that they are not clumped prior to shuffling.)
>
>Ensuring that they are "not clumped" is not *random*. It may be uniform, but
>random doesn't say clumps or "runs" don't happen. Random means *random* -
>your chance of clumping vs. not is small due to statistics, but it can still
>happen. If your shuffling makes it "random" again, then what were you doing
>in the first place?
I acknowledge your point and I apologize for my imprecise use of language.
Clearly, any action that I take which does not put a card in the deck on a
purely chance basis is not random. However, I do believe there is a clear
distinction between returning played cards at the end of a game to the deck in
a non-random but non-stacked manner and stacking the deck (i.e. placing
specific cards in specific order relative to each other). As others have
subsequently pointed out, the simple act of gathering up one's played cards,
placing them on top of your deck, and then shuffling is no less random. The
difference is, that non-random method leads to a much greater likelihood of
clumps in subsequent games.
More importantly, however, this continued discussion of just exactly what
mana-weaving is and what is and is not legal for random methods of deck
reconstitution illustrates the larger point that I believe Eric Taylor was
making and that I was echoing. Namely, the DCI's tournament rules are either
incomplete, unclear, poorly communicated, or all of the above.
For example, I have just reviewed the DCI Official Tournament Rules again. The
only sections I can find which are applicable to the curent discussion are:
>1.3.3 Cheating
>
> Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews all
>cheating allegations, and if he or she determines that a player cheated,
>the head judge will issue the appropriate penalty based on the DCI
>penalty guide. All tournament disqualifications are subject to DCI review,
>and further penalties may be assessed.
>
> Cheating includes, but is not limited to:
>
> Manipulating which cards are drawn from your *deck* or
> your opponent's deck
[other non-pertinent examples deleted]
As there is no definition or example of what "manipulating which cards are
drawn" means, I have always interpreted this as "drawing from the bottom" or
"not drawing the top card" or something similar. It certainly could be
broadened to include non-random card distribution in the deck but, even if it
does include that, in no way does it define or describe what that means and
that's a problem.
>1.3.9 Shuffle
>
> Regardless of the method used to shuffle the *deck*, both
>players' decks must be sufficiently randomized. If at any time a player
>is not satisfied that his or her opponent's deck is sufficiently randomized,
>the player must notify the head judge. The head judge has final authority
>regarding whether or not a deck has been sufficiently randomized.
Again, by not defining acceptable methods of shuffle and what is or is not
sufficient randomization, this rule is too vague to prevent a player from
inadvertently violating it, as it would appear I have according to Eric's
definition of what is acceptable randomization. That bothers me because a) I
am an honest player and I do not wish to violate the rules and b) I have a
great deal of respect for Eric by virtue of the articles and postings of his
I've read in the past. His knowledge and experience would suggest that his
interpretation of what is legal is likely to be accurate, which means, without
intending to, I have violated this rule in every tournament I've played in.
Any rule which is unclear enough that it allows honest players to unwittingly
violate it is worse than no rule at all because it punishes those players while
leaving holes of ambiguity wide enough for the dishonest players to drive a
truck through.
Again, I'm not beating up on the DCI or WOTC here. I wouldn't have anything to
complain about if they hadn't already done a great job in developing the game
and the tournament format I'm simply hoping that they will continue to work to
improve the tournament system and rules to make it harder for cheaters to
profit and easier for honest players to know what legal play is.
-Pitt Crandlemire
pi...@syncon.com
Eric Taylor
: The cards become unrandomized through play. At the end of a
: game, you might end up with 10 lands and 20 spells in play and in the
: graveyard. That leaves you with two large, very unrandom clumps.
When you shuffle correctly you it doesn't matter. You could presort my
deck (i.e. from a deck check) put all the lands at the bottom and all
the spells in alphabetical order. I don't care. I shuffle the shit
out my cards each time (just in tournament play of course, in casual
play I don't care if we both mana weave). If you don't shuffle very
well, of course mana weaving is very tempting method for arranging your
deck.
: Is this just a pet peeve of yours, or is there an official DCI
: policy against mana-weaving?
The official DCI policy is not clear. One of the reason I try to argue
my point so strongly is in the hope of the DCI coming out with a more
explicit policy.
By the way, the method of laying out your cards in order before you
scoop them up to shuffle is well known in poker.
This method of cheating is called "culling from discards."
What you do is while playing your cards out you note which cards you
want and in which order. For example if you are playing sligh, during
the course of a game, you are able to play 2 fireblasts and 6 mountains
out of 20 cards. When the game is over, you move your hand to grab
first a fireblast, then a jackal pup, then a mountain, next you pick
the 2nd fireblast, then an incinerate and then a mountain, giving
yourself a perfect draw, and then scoop the rest of the cards under
your hand, and then place it on top of your deck. Shuffle but don't
disturb the top 7 cards, crimp the bottom or bottom, offer the cut and
then use the crimp to recut your stacked cards.
This method can also be used to unclump your lands.
In my opinion, only thing that separates unclumping from deliberate
stacking is a matter of degree.
I believe the official policy on mana weaving from the DCI and WOTC is
that you can stack your deck however you like as long as you do a
trifle of shuffling afterwards, but who can tell for sure? Maybe the
DCI and WOTC winks at mana weaving because they like to do it
themselves.
It's hard to expect WOTC and the DCI to make reasonable rulings as to
the penalty in the Mike Long case at nationals, when the players can't
even tell for sure what a legal shuffle is.
--- edt
Gary Cappallo
>The only option left for someone who is honest and doesn't mana weave
>is to shuffle his opponent's deck for several minutes because
>apparently his opponent is not very committed to randomizing his deck.
>Maybe you're right about it being easier to mana weave than shuffle
>well. Maybe that's why people like to mana weave.
If you suspect your opponent of mana-weaving then there's a simple
remedy. When asked to cut/shuffle his deck begin sorting deck into
three piles. If it's mana-weaved then one pile will be all land and
the other two piles will be all spells. Put them one on top of the
other and watch him mulligan, or continue shuffling right away.
>If it really is true that it is impossible for a human to suffiently
>randomize a 60 card deck by riffling and piling then I cry uncle. If
>human beings really are unable to shuffle cards this well, ok you win.
Actually, I don't play with deck protectors. This really is important
to shuffling and I'll explain why. All of my land cards have been
used a million times more than my other cards. Also, the cards from
different sets (revised, 5th, Mirage, Tempest) have different
consistencies due to minor changes in printing methods. Because of
this if I use normal methods of shuffilng (riffle or hand over hand)
then physics causes certain types of cards to stick together, most of
the time the lands. So, to alleviate this I shuffle with the pile
method. I deal out five piles as if I'm dealing the cards to five
players and then stack them one on top of the other. After a few of
these my deck is extremely shuffled and I rarely have troubles with
too little/much mana.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <35bba2b7...@news.tiac.net>,
>> pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>>
>>>as a thorough shuffle and cut is conducted prior to play. (Please note that
>>>I'm not talking about specific placement of cards in a given order but, rather,
>>>randomly distributing lands, creatures, and other spells in such a way to
>>>ensure that they are not clumped prior to shuffling.)
>>
>>Ensuring that they are "not clumped" is not *random*. It may be uniform, but
>>random doesn't say clumps or "runs" don't happen. Random means *random* -
>>your chance of clumping vs. not is small due to statistics, but it can still
>>happen. If your shuffling makes it "random" again, then what were you doing
>>in the first place?
>
>I acknowledge your point and I apologize for my imprecise use of language.
>Clearly, any action that I take which does not put a card in the deck on a
>purely chance basis is not random. However, I do believe there is a clear
>distinction between returning played cards at the end of a game to the deck in
>a non-random but non-stacked manner and stacking the deck (i.e. placing
>specific cards in specific order relative to each other). As others have
>subsequently pointed out, the simple act of gathering up one's played cards,
>placing them on top of your deck, and then shuffling is no less random. The
>difference is, that non-random method leads to a much greater likelihood of
>clumps in subsequent games.
This last sentence makes no logical sense. If a method leads to a different
likelihood of clumps than a random method, it's not random and it's not right
and it's cheating. (If intentional... if unintentional, then the Judge just
has to reshuffled it thoroughly).
>More importantly, however, this continued discussion of just exactly what
>mana-weaving is and what is and is not legal for random methods of deck
>reconstitution illustrates the larger point that I believe Eric Taylor was
>making and that I was echoing. Namely, the DCI's tournament rules are either
>incomplete, unclear, poorly communicated, or all of the above.
The rules you quoted all seem pretty clear to me. The exact method of the
weaving is not important. If it results in non-random distribution, it is
wrong. If it's intentional, it's cheating; if unintentional, the deck should
be reshuffled anyway. Yes, "sufficiently random" is not well defined. I
don't think it could be well-defined. It's a judgement call. If everything
in the deck is clumped nicely, the chances of that being random are very slim.
So you reshuffle it. If there is some clumping, it's a judgement call. At
the very least, reshuffling again won't hurt you, right? Since you didn't know
what to expect anyway. (Assuming the judge shuffles in a mostly random manner
and does not do it in a way that causes stacking again.)
Bruce
Kevin Grumball
> other and watch him mulligan, or continue shuffling right away.
He's not allowed to shuffle his deck after you've shuffled it.
Regards,
Kevin
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>I think most cautions and warnings should go out the window.
>
>You need immediate penalties for nearly all infractions, and even
>penalties for misrepresenting cards. There are a number of ways to give
>out a penalty for something less than a game loss. For instance, you can
>give out loss of a turn, or loss of a card the next time you begin your
>game. These penalties are less than a game loss and means that people
>won't laugh anymore at offenses that normally would have drawn a caution.
Here's one reason to keep warnings: stick them on top of those
immediate penalties you just discussed, as a 'tracking method.' Don't
give them out in lieu of those penalties, but as additions so other
judges can see who's doing what.
>What is the penalty for playing a game with a card in your lap? Its seems
>to me that an appropriate penalty would be an immediate dq. However, if
>the normal penalty is decided at a simple match loss for a single incident
>and then dq for any additional ones, that would be ok too, as long as all
>the players can know ahead of time what the appropriate penalty is.
Again, though, you'd almost need a tracking system for large
(multiple-judge) events.
>I think what bothers people is not so much the accusation of Mike Long
>cheating. What bothers people is that there seems to no penalty at all
>for cheating. In fact, if you are a name player, you seem to get extra
>special treatment.
Remove the 'warning as entire penalty' and you take away the easiest
method for them to do that. You put the judge into a situation where
he either has to treat the guy like everyone else, or show blatant
favoritism.
Blatant favoritism will be noticed. And will be a black mark on both
the player and the judge.
>So, did Mike Long do it on purpose? Do he do it by accident?
>
>These are silly questions.
>
>We don't need a witch hunt. What we need is a hard codified set of rules
>for the actual game mechanics.
Agreed.
--
10 Days till I'm out of hell...
(heh... missed day 11...)
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>For a while it seemed that WOTC was in favor of mana weaving, who knows
>why.
It cuts down on the ever-popular excuse of 'mana-screw.'
This *can* be a good thing - no one likes losing to that, and some
people even dislike winning because of it happening to an opponent.
However, as you say:
>But mana weaving is cheating no matter how you slice it.
--
Stephane
> be treated as such. You're right, we'll never be able to prove what was in
> Mike Long's head (did he mean to cheat, or did he accidently drop the card?)
> The burden of proof can not be on the DCI to show he meant to cheat, or
> they'll almost never be able to do so. If you're caught in something that
> looks like cheating, then you should suffer the penalty as if you were.
OK, some other exemple for you... You walk down the street, and find a gun, in a
place where child go often... Say near a school. So, you take it to carry it to the
police, because it would be dangerous to leave it lying around. You turn the corner
and, tough luck, there is a dead body, and a policeman sees you with the gun in hand
coming right to the crime scene...
Now, if you follow your own discourse about proof, you'll have to be the one who
proves he's innocent... Seems stupid no? That's what the "innocent until proved
otherwise" is all about. If someone says about another that he did something wrong,
he'll have to prove it (well in most civilized country that is...)
I've been caught cheating and dq'ed for it. As things goes, my opponent was the one
who kept one of my card, and called for card count...
Try to be on the wrong side of such an assumption of guilt while being innocent...
Try it once and we"ll then see how you then think about DCI not needing proof to
throw you out.
I don't like cheater, but until the time a judge says "I saw him take a card from
his deck and slip it under his leg", I'll consider him innocent.
Stéphane Roselier
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Stephane
Gosh! I've seen that not long ago... And I didn't see nothing! Damn it, and
he was one of France's top 50 player! The darn son of a gun!
Thanks for letting us know how to see it... Next time someone does that to me
I'm going to shuffle his cards like I've never done before!
BTW, does anyone know of other unsavory things one can see when one knows
what to look for?
Stéphane Roselier.
Nitesbane
piles and two riffle shuffles? That's how he cheated?
-Nitesbane
--
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/windows/138/index.htm
Member of the G.A.B. Silver Team
Stephane wrote in message <35ADFCDC...@mmm.com>...
Clint
Nitesbane wrote:
Hey anyone consider that maybe the card fell out or something I mean has Long
admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the pro
tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should stop
admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he could have
dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
Karl Allen
>OK, some other exemple for you... You walk down the street, and find a gun, in a
>place where child go often... Say near a school. So, you take it to carry it
to the police, because it would be dangerous to leave it lying around. You turn
>the corner and, tough luck, there is a dead body, and a policeman sees you
>with the gun in hand coming right to the crime scene...
This analogy doesn't work on a lot of different levels. For one thing, we're
talking about a game, which is by definition governed by a set of arbitrary
rules, some of which are going to define what is and is not cheating. Legal
matters are something else again.
>Now, if you follow your own discourse about proof, you'll have to be the one who
>proves he's innocent... Seems stupid no? That's what the "innocent until proved
>otherwise" is all about. If someone says about another that he did something
>wrong, he'll have to prove it (well in most civilized country that is...)
I think the original poster's use of the phrase "guilty until proven innocent"
was unfortunate and not accurate. If something is found that indicates a
person might be cheating the presumption has to be that the person did it
on purpose. Otherwise DCI judges will be forced to "prove" things about
intention, which is almost never possible. Players should know that if a
card is found tucked up their sleeve, in their lap, or taped under the table
the assumption will be made that they were trying to cheat - therefore they
should take steps to make sure this doesn't happen.
>I've been caught cheating and dq'ed for it. As things goes, my opponent was
>the one who kept one of my card, and called for card count...
So he kept one of your cards (some kind of creature enchantment, perhaps?) then
called for a count of your cards and got you DQ'ed? That's slimy if he did it
on purpose, but again, you knew the rules - you should have made sure to
get back all of your cards. In that case I'd think the punishment should
be forfeit of a game, rather than a match loss or DQ.
>Try to be on the wrong side of such an assumption of guilt while being
>innocent... Try it once and we"ll then see how you then think about DCI
>not needing proof to throw you out.
I wouldd think the DCI judges can't possibly know what was in my heart. If I got
caught with a card in my lap I'd say "Honestly, I really didn't do it on
purpose" then complain not a whit about having to take a match forfeit, or
even a tourney DQ. To pretend that somehow I'm just such an obviously great
guy that I couldn't *possibly* be cheating is incredibly arrogant.
>I don't like cheater, but until the time a judge says "I saw him take a card
>from his deck and slip it under his leg", I'll consider him innocent.
You do realize that really good slight of hand artists are nigh impossible
to catch palming a card, even with hundreds of people watching and trying to
catch him? Ignoring obvious physical evidence, like the fact that somebody's
got a Fireball tucked in their sleeve in favor of the hearsay evidence of
people reporting that they saw someone cheat is pure foolishness.
I remain,
K
drco...@sirius.com
Clint <sams...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<35AE42D2...@geocities.com>...
<snip>
> Hey anyone consider that maybe the card fell out or something I mean has
Long
> admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the
pro
> tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should
stop
> admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he
could have
> dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
>
According to Hammer, Long has admitted to cheating in the past,
but claims he stopped after Nationals. Which Nationals, no one
knows. Regardless, "Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater." Why
would you believe otherwise? He not to be admired, he is to be
despised and avoided. Do you admire someone who steals from
other people? That's what cheaters do, you realize -- they are
stealing money from anyone who makes less money in a
tournament because of them.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that
could have been an accident. As you stated, certain decks require
frequent shuffling. I have played decks like this before, as have
many others I know. And once in a while, a card _is_ dropped
accidently. But you know what? Every time a card was dropped,
the shuffler noticed it. _Every_ time. It isn't that hard, if you pay
attention to what you're doing. And if you are attempting to be a
professional at the game, you probably should be paying lots of
attention to what you are doing and _not_ make stupid mistakes.
A professional poker player would be thrown out for such
carelessness (if it wasn't cheating) -- why should this be any
different?
Sorry for ranting. It's all I seem to do lately.
-Max Hufnagel
drco...@sirius.com
Chen
<sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <35adbbad...@news.tiac.net>,
> pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>>I acknowledge your point and I apologize for my imprecise use of language.
>>Clearly, any action that I take which does not put a card in the deck on a
>>purely chance basis is not random. However, I do believe there is a clear
>>distinction between returning played cards at the end of a game to the deck in
>>a non-random but non-stacked manner and stacking the deck (i.e. placing
>>specific cards in specific order relative to each other). As others have
>>subsequently pointed out, the simple act of gathering up one's played cards,
>>placing them on top of your deck, and then shuffling is no less random. The
>>difference is, that non-random method leads to a much greater likelihood of
>>clumps in subsequent games.
>
>This last sentence makes no logical sense. If a method leads to a different
>likelihood of clumps than a random method, it's not random and it's not right
>and it's cheating. (If intentional... if unintentional, then the Judge just
>has to reshuffled it thoroughly).
then, logically, gathering your cards up together after the game and
putting them back in your library is not random and is cheating,
because it leads to a different likelihood of clumps (namely, it makes
them more likely). if you are in favor of this method to ensure
randomness, then you need to change your argument. if you are in favor
of any method that guarantees absolute randomness, then you should be
pushing for a
throw-all-your-cards-in-the-air-and-then-pick-them-up-closest-to-farthest-before-you-shuffle
rule.
>>More importantly, however, this continued discussion of just exactly what
>>mana-weaving is and what is and is not legal for random methods of deck
>>reconstitution illustrates the larger point that I believe Eric Taylor was
>>making and that I was echoing. Namely, the DCI's tournament rules are either
>>incomplete, unclear, poorly communicated, or all of the above.
>
>The rules you quoted all seem pretty clear to me. The exact method of the
>weaving is not important. If it results in non-random distribution, it is
>wrong. If it's intentional, it's cheating; if unintentional, the deck should
>be reshuffled anyway. Yes, "sufficiently random" is not well defined. I
>don't think it could be well-defined. It's a judgement call. If everything
>in the deck is clumped nicely, the chances of that being random are very slim.
>So you reshuffle it. If there is some clumping, it's a judgement call. At
>the very least, reshuffling again won't hurt you, right? Since you didn't know
>what to expect anyway. (Assuming the judge shuffles in a mostly random manner
>and does not do it in a way that causes stacking again.)
>
>Bruce
>
the way i see it, there is no way to ensure randomness short of
stamping each card with a number and having a computer generate
numbers. if you mana weave, you're reducing the chance of clumps. if
you scoop-and-go, you're increasing the chance of clumps. neither
method is entirely random. given that, i think players can stack any
cards that were not used, then shuffle them together with the
remaining library. i personally have great faith in shuffling (my
opponent's cards) so none of these stacking issues carries much weight
with me. the key, for me, is to a)riffle twice, b)pile, c)riffle
twice, d)pile, e)riffle once, and f)cut. what this does, essentially,
is a)sticks cards in between stacked cards, b)relocate some of the
stacked cards into entirely different sections of the deck, c)insert
more cards between stacked ones, increasing the chances of
d)relocating even more stacked cards into a different section of the
deck, e)it just doesnt feel right to end a shuffle without riffling
and f)besides being a rule, nobody knows what the hell is on top or on
the bottom.
-----
To email me, change "com" to "net"
The Scrub Pages
http://www.pcmagic.net/kchen/
Glenn Olson
(Snip)
>On the other hand, if I carefully randomize my deck while you mana
>weave you will win. Your cards will be in better order.
>
>I don't see how you think this is fair. To me its cheating if you mana
>weave first and then riffle while I actually randomize my deck.
It would be fair - if you could mana-weave as well.
Cheating only gives an advantage when one guy does it and the other
guy doesn't. This leaves two options, to keep games fair: either
actually *enforce* the rules, or remove them entirely.
Removing them entirely isn't an option; it radically warps the
environment in some cases. Allowing players to draw an extra card,
for example, would have a direct impact on how a deck plays.
(Besides, that would be a direct change to how the game is played.)
Allowing players to mana-weave would make low-land decks much better
than they "should" be, because manaweaving (theoretically, and if done
right) offsets the risk of mana-screw. (OTOH, it might also reduce
the risk of mana-clump - which would reward high-land decks as well.)
There's nothing actually written down in the rulebook about how you're
supposed to shuffle; any rules about it are DCI conventions.
So, why is mana-weaving not legal? My only guess, is that it
introduces an outside element to the game: on top of in-game skills,
like deckbuilding and playing skills, you suddenly have to know
advanced shuffling techniques. (BTW, if this has been discussed
before, my apologies.)
>You do prove my point that many people think there is nothing wrong
>with mana weaving and "unclumping."
I can see how it would be controversial subject: allowing manaweaving
and 'unclumping' *could* reduce games lost to the 'poor luck' of
mana-screw. That's a constant whine I hear: that it's better to be
lucky than good, that luck plays too much of a factor in the game as
it is - especially on the pro-tour where you're going for the 'big
money.'
But at what cost?
That's an honest question, actually... I'm not overly familiar with
the arguments here, so if anyone has any insight (aside from the 'it's
against the established rules' one - I'm looking for reasons why it's
the established rule.)
>I often watch my opponent while he sideboards. Many of my opponents
>pretend to sideboad cards. But they don't actually sideboard.
That reminds me of the old subject of mind-games again: if I'm
pretending to sideboard - not to clump, but to make you think I've got
a dozen new solutions to your deck for the next game - am I cheating
(as regards poor sportsmanship.)
This could be why there's no codified system yet - paranoid twits like
me coming up with stupidly ambiguous situations like that. But this
is slightly off-topic (at least, for this reply.) And a bit overdone,
perhaps (though, if anyone thinks it's time again, feel free to start
a new thread...)
(Snip)
>Another thing. Many people have this idea that "If you shuffle your
>deck too much you'll get mana clumps."
Statistically, you shouldn't (most of the time...) That reduces the
argument to one of poor luck vs. good luck.
>I wonder if these people mana
>weave their decks. I wonder.
Glenn. (Not advocating anything; just bringing up issues I'm curious
about.)
Micheal Keane
Jake Glazier <glaz...@cc.tacom.army.mil> wrote:
>Given all these fun little games, what can you do to your oppenents
>cards after he's mana woven them the break this up? Short of riffle
>shuffling his deck 20 times that is...
You reverse mana-weave their deck. =-)
ie: if they do a 2 non-land to 1 land weave and then shuffle, what you do
is deal the deck into three piles and put them to gether and do a riffle
shuffle so that cards don't change positions too much.
Of course, it probably doesn't have the effect intended because of their
shuffling, but it totally psyches your opponent out when you do it... =-)
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
RaeMowse
>admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the pro
>tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should stop
>admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he could
>have
>dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
Well, many people say he was cheating mainly from his past, and coincidences
like that do not happen often (the one card you need to win the game just
happened to have fell out of your deck while you were shuffling it). However,
I can't say if Long was blatantly cheating, because I have read three takes on
the whole story. 1) The card was in his chair, which may indicate a possible
cheating attempt, but not definite enough. 2) The card was in his lap, which
would lean more towards the "accidental drop" theory, but then again, ever
watched a magician show you how they get all of those ping pong balls into one
cup, and an egg under the first cup? 3) The card was under his leg, which is
almost enough proof to make a solid accusation of cheating, seeing as it would
be extremely hard to drop a card where it lands under your leg. Now had it
been under his foot, that would be a different story in a way.
Of course, as one person stated in an earlier post, the only person who could
tell you without a doubt that Long intended to cheat would be Long himself,
and even then, you'd still wouldn't know if he was just messing with your head.
Stephane
> talking about a game, which is by definition governed by a set of arbitrary
> rules, some of which are going to define what is and is not cheating. Legal
> matters are something else again.
Law are also an arbitrary set of rules. I took this exemple because numerous people
claim that the main trouble with cheaters is that they steal from you by taking what
should not be rightfully theirs. They are thieves? This is legal penal matter. You
need proof for them to be convicted.
> I think the original poster's use of the phrase "guilty until proven innocent"
> was unfortunate and not accurate.
Unfortunate? You're kinder than I would be...
> If something is found that indicates a
> person might be cheating the presumption has to be that the person did it
> on purpose. Otherwise DCI judges will be forced to "prove" things about
> intention, which is almost never possible.
I agree with you here. But the problem is then to have rules saying what is cheating
and what is not. If someone shoots another person, even by mistake, he will be
convicted for murder. It's not the intent that is punished but the act in itself. If
a rule says: Having a card in your lap means you're DQ'ed, then it's OK with me.
Until there is a clear cut set of rules about what is tolerable and what is not, I
won't stand for arbitrary punishement.
> Players should know that if a
> card is found tucked up their sleeve, in their lap, or taped under the table
> the assumption will be made that they were trying to cheat - therefore they
> should take steps to make sure this doesn't happen.
There should not be assumption. There should be a few rules (and there are more than
enough in magic to make place for a few more :-)) that say what is fair play and what
is not. Some player think mind games are fair. I think it's bullying because they
don't think they can win playing fair and square... It will go on depending on
people's point of vue until there is an official ruling other than " cheating is not
allowed".
> >I've been caught cheating and dq'ed for it. As things goes, my opponent was
> >the one who kept one of my card, and called for card count...
>
> So he kept one of your cards (some kind of creature enchantment, perhaps?)
Actually it was a land. While I was shuffling his cards he "dropped" one in his bag,
which was accidentaly lying open near him. (I didn't saw it because I was very intent
on shuffling since I never was any good at shuffling properly...)
> then
> called for a count of your cards and got you DQ'ed? That's slimy if he did it
> on purpose, but again, you knew the rules - you should have made sure to
> get back all of your cards.
It was not a mistake, he did it on purpose, and the only reason I ever learned about
it was because a friend who stayed to the end saw him throw the card out at the end
of the day...
> In that case I'd think the punishment should
> be forfeit of a game, rather than a match loss or DQ.
>
> >Try to be on the wrong side of such an assumption of guilt while being
> >innocent... Try it once and we"ll then see how you then think about DCI
> >not needing proof to throw you out.
>
> I wouldd think the DCI judges can't possibly know what was in my heart. If I got
> caught with a card in my lap I'd say "Honestly, I really didn't do it on
> purpose" then complain not a whit about having to take a match forfeit, or
> even a tourney DQ. To pretend that somehow I'm just such an obviously great
> guy that I couldn't *possibly* be cheating is incredibly arrogant.
But still could be true. In the accident that happened to me, the judge counted my
cards, 59 out of 60, looked at my sideboard to see if it was an accident, then since
there were only 15 there, could only rule that I had tried to play with fewer than
minimum cards.
> >I don't like cheater, but until the time a judge says "I saw him take a card
> >from his deck and slip it under his leg", I'll consider him innocent.
>
> You do realize that really good slight of hand artists are nigh impossible
> to catch palming a card, even with hundreds of people watching and trying to
> catch him? Ignoring obvious physical evidence, like the fact that somebody's
> got a Fireball tucked in their sleeve in favor of the hearsay evidence of
> people reporting that they saw someone cheat is pure foolishness.
As I already said before, I agree but until it is clearly said somewhere that what
they do _is_ cheating, I can't and I won't stand for any decision involving someone's
judgement not backed by rules, be it right or not.
> I remain,
>
> K
Stéphane Roselier
Pete Thompson
>Hey anyone consider that maybe the card fell out or something I mean has Long
>admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the pro
>tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should stop
>admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he could have
>dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
I'd really love to see you try to play in Vegas and try to pull off
that excuse at a poker table. You'd be lucky if all they do is
toss you out of the building!
When you're playing for a high stakes game in a "professional"
tournament, you had better play carefully. There are no excuses,
especially if you're a "professional" player. Bottom line is:
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS ACCIDENTAL OR NOT!
Karl Allen
>> For one thing, we're
>> talking about a game, which is by definition governed by a set of arbitrary
>> rules, some of which are going to define what is and is not cheating. Legal
>> matters are something else again.
>Law are also an arbitrary set of rules.
Not really. Laws are established in the pursuit of Justice, which is a whole
lot different than games, the rules of which are to dictate what you can
and can not do during play. Some laws are like game rules, but they have very
different goals.
>I took this exemple because numerous
>people claim that the main trouble with cheaters is that they steal from you
>by taking what should not be rightfully theirs. They are thieves? This is
>legal penal matter. You need proof for them to be convicted.
Forget worrying about motives - maybe they cheat for the thrill of getting
away with it. Since this is a game, however, we do not need to have nearly
the level of proofs regarding motive as we do in legal matters. In games, as
in sports, certain events are considered to always be illegal with
prescribed punishments for those occurances. The motive behind the event
is not considered - if you touch a soccer ball with your hand in the penalty
area it's a penalty kick; if you don't have a card in your deck that should
be there you forfeit the game.
>> I think the original poster's use of the phrase "guilty until proven innocent"
>> was unfortunate and not accurate.
>Unfortunate? You're kinder than I would be...
It's unfortunate because it opens the doors for counter-argument from people
who see this as some kind of matter involving liberty and truth. It isn't.
It's a matter of certain events that might take place during a game of
Magic being considered illegal, with penalties involved. There's no need to
"prove" someone is cheating, as opposed to just clumsy - if there's a card
in your lap you should be penalized, and that's all there is to it. The
physical presence of the card in your lap is all the evidence required.
>But the problem is then to have rules saying what is
>cheating and what is not.
Out of interest, do the DCI rules say that secreting a card is cheating?
>If someone shoots another person, even by mistake,
>he will be convicted for murder. It's not the intent that is punished but the
>act in itself.
Respectfully, you're very wrong. If you shoot someone there are several things
you might or might not be convicted of, including:
-first degree murder
-manslaughter
-assault
-aquittal due to insanity
-no charges filed due to self defense
-awarded a medal for valor in combat
Again, though, this isn't a matter of justice.
>If a rule says: Having a card in your lap means you're DQ'ed,
>then it's OK with me. Until there is a clear cut set of rules about what is
>tolerable and what is not, I won't stand for arbitrary punishement.
Is there such a rule in this case? While I agree that arbitrary punishments
are bad, the DCI can't possibly detail every possible thing someone might
do to cheat. So there will always have to be be some leeway for judges to
determine if an action is cheating. And while we're on the subject, exactly
how will you not stand for it? Are you going to file an injunction with the
Supreme Court on Mike Long's behalf? :-)
Mostly I think we agree on one important subject - the rules on cheating
should be detailed, clear, and routinely enforced.
I remain despising cheaters,
K
gar...@fake.com
>
>
>Clint <sams...@geocities.com> wrote in article
><35AE42D2...@geocities.com>...
><snip>
>
>> Hey anyone consider that maybe the card fell out or something I mean has
>Long
>> admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the
>pro
>> tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should
>stop
>> admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he
>could have
>> dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
>>
>
>According to Hammer, Long has admitted to cheating in the past,
>but claims he stopped after Nationals. Which Nationals, no one
>knows. Regardless, "Once a Cheater, Always a Cheater." Why
>would you believe otherwise? He not to be admired, he is to be
>despised and avoided. Do you admire someone who steals from
>other people? That's what cheaters do, you realize -- they are
>stealing money from anyone who makes less money in a
>tournament because of them.
>
>Now, for the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that
>could have been an accident. As you stated, certain decks require
>frequent shuffling. I have played decks like this before, as have
>many others I know. And once in a while, a card _is_ dropped
>accidently. But you know what? Every time a card was dropped,
>the shuffler noticed it. _Every_ time. It isn't that hard, if you pay
>attention to what you're doing. And if you are attempting to be a
>professional at the game, you probably should be paying lots of
>attention to what you are doing and _not_ make stupid mistakes.
>A professional poker player would be thrown out for such
>carelessness (if it wasn't cheating) -- why should this be any
>different?
>
>Sorry for ranting. It's all I seem to do lately.
>
>-Max Hufnagel
>drco...@sirius.com
>
Good Point!
Now that you mention it, whenever me or any of the other people I play
with drop a card, for what ever reason, we pick it up, not let it sit.
To respond, send email to gar...@iname.com
Gary Cappallo
>Clint <sams...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Hey anyone consider that maybe the card fell out or something I mean has Long
>>admited to cheating? I am a huge fan of the game and aspire to be on the pro
>>tour and if he has admitted to it then my post is unfounded and I should stop
>>admiring the man but bloom decks do require alot of shuffling and he could have
>>dropped it so get the facts absoloutley straight before you accuse
>I'd really love to see you try to play in Vegas and try to pull off
>that excuse at a poker table. You'd be lucky if all they do is
>toss you out of the building!
>When you're playing for a high stakes game in a "professional"
>tournament, you had better play carefully. There are no excuses,
>especially if you're a "professional" player. Bottom line is:
>IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS ACCIDENTAL OR NOT!
But this is not a Vegas game. The difference is thousands of people
play poker in Vegas every day, and they have their own money on the
line, so the possibility of cheating is monsterous. Likewise they
make the penalty simple for all cases. You cash in your chips and you
leave.
In the nationals there are only a few hundred people playing for one
tournament. There are a million things that each player must know and
remember or else they will lose and there's very little riding on the
line for the player (maybe $20 for the tournament, not $2000 on the
hand like n Vegas). Likewise, it's way too easy to make a mistake,
especially with all of the card handling and swapping and tapping,
etc., etc. So in Magic it is a lot easier to mess up and less likely
that someone is trying to cheat, whereas in Vegas there is more reason
to cheat and very little opportunity to screw up. The dealer handles
the cards and all you do is handle your hand, ten cards max. I'm
probably not making my point across very much, but you can't compare
Magic to Poker in Vegas, because they are vastly different.
Keith Christopher
> play poker in Vegas every day, and they have their own money on the
> line, so the possibility of cheating is monsterous. Likewise they
> make the penalty simple for all cases. You cash in your chips and you
> leave.
>
I think he/she was arguing principals not making a 1 to 1 comparison.
I've heard more about semantics _vs_ reality. Trying to determine if he
was trying to cheat so the penalty was weighed out. At regionals I was
given a warning for failing to take an extra turn when my opponet
meditated, did I think it was too much, sure. I got a warning and lost
an extra turn. But I did miss it. I wasn't cheating but I did not follow
the rules laid out. I couldn't show my face at another tournament unless
it was my sole avenue for $$$ if I was the center of this attention.
--
** Be sure and remove the NOSPAM from my
** email address before replying !
Keith Christopher
---
PHH Corp.
UNIX SYSTEMS ADMIN
---
The future masters of technology will have to be
lighthearted and intelligent. The machine easily
masters the grim and the dumb.
--- Marshall McLuhan
David Linder
wrote:
>> For one thing, we're
>> talking about a game, which is by definition governed by a set of arbitrary
>> rules, some of which are going to define what is and is not cheating. Legal
>> matters are something else again.
>
>claim that the main trouble with cheaters is that they steal from you by taking what
>should not be rightfully theirs. They are thieves? This is legal penal matter. You
>need proof for them to be convicted.
Hmm... ever watched a soccer-game? When the players get a red card,
they don't shout "hey I'm innocent until proven guilty" and comes
draging with lawyers and the like. Because it's a *game*, and by
playing the game you accept the rules in it.
That's the difference, and that's why Long should be punished
regardless of if it was accidental (which it of course wasn't, since
he would have noticed).
David Linder
Steve Griffin
> >But the problem is then to have rules saying what is
> >cheating and what is not.
>
> Out of interest, do the DCI rules say that secreting a card is cheating?
Do the DCI rules say that hitting an opponent over the head with a
cricket bat is cheating? OK, would probably need to say baseball bat
where most of you people come from ;-)
Rules are general cases that a referee/judge interprets in specific
circumstances. In this case it sounds as though the problem was not
with the rules, but with their interpretation.
So what are the possibilities here?
* That the judges made a good but unpopular call
* That the judges made a bad call
* That the judges are corrupt and deliberately misinterpreted the
rules to achive some purpose in interests (personal or
organisational) of those involved.
In this case, the only real problem would be the third possibility.
The second only becomes a problem if it happens too often.
As a bit of an outsider, what do people think we're talking about
here?
BTW - What was the card under his leg?
Steve Griffin at home - st...@polgooth.demon.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------
The Great Way is not difficult for those who have
no preferences - Hsing Hsing Ming
--------------------------------------------------
Kim Robert Blix
>p.s. thanks to Nate Clark for showing me these methods of mana weaving
>and his efforts to stop it on the pro tour.
And thank you for this excellent post :) Although I dont agree with
you in all things (when me and my friends play friendly, we ALL mana
weave, if everyone does it - whats the difference?) it's nice to see a
REAL usenet post every now and then.
>--- edt
--
Kim Robert Blix ( kb...@c2i.net )
"How do you shoot the devil in the back?"
"What if you miss?" -Verbal Kint
Kim Robert Blix
>When you're playing for a high stakes game in a "professional"
>tournament, you had better play carefully. There are no excuses,
>especially if you're a "professional" player. Bottom line is:
>IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS ACCIDENTAL OR NOT!
Even though it's all caps, I agree. Who gives a **** , if a card from
your opponents deck is missing, he lose. Leave the rest to the judges.
Kim Robert Blix
>Ensuring that they are "not clumped" is not *random*. It may be uniform, but
>random doesn't say clumps or "runs" don't happen. Random means *random* -
>your chance of clumping vs. not is small due to statistics, but it can still
>happen. If your shuffling makes it "random" again, then what were you doing
>in the first place?
De-clumping(tm) shortens your shuffling time. I would say things like
this should be banned in tournaments, but when friends gather around
the table, its usually to play magic and not shuffle for hours on end.
manaweave + (riffle + stack shuffle)^2 + cut = enough randomness for
me in a friendly game :)
>Bruce
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
see_si...@for.email.address.com (Kim Robert Blix) wrote:
>Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
>>Ensuring that they are "not clumped" is not *random*. It may be uniform, but
>>random doesn't say clumps or "runs" don't happen. Random means *random* -
>>your chance of clumping vs. not is small due to statistics, but it can still
>>happen. If your shuffling makes it "random" again, then what were you doing
>>in the first place?
>
>De-clumping(tm) shortens your shuffling time. I would say things like
>this should be banned in tournaments, but when friends gather around
>the table, its usually to play magic and not shuffle for hours on end.
Well, we're not talking about friendly games, but rather about tournaments.
Anyway, I generally let the computer do my shuffling, so it's almost
always truly random. (Sometimes it seems like it's broken, but we have
no proof of that. I refer to the MicroProse game here.)
Bruce
Kim Robert Blix
>>De-clumping(tm) shortens your shuffling time. I would say things like
>>this should be banned in tournaments, but when friends gather around
>>the table, its usually to play magic and not shuffle for hours on end.
>
>Well, we're not talking about friendly games, but rather about tournaments.
>
>Anyway, I generally let the computer do my shuffling, so it's almost
>always truly random. (Sometimes it seems like it's broken, but we have
>no proof of that. I refer to the MicroProse game here.)
I've never tried the computer game, but how exactly do you manage to
use the computer for shuffling without knowing the order the cards are
in? Are you talking about games over the net ? :)
>Bruce
take care,
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
kc...@pcmagic.com (Chen) wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 07:33:06 GMT, Bruce Sterling Woodcock
><sirb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <35adbbad...@news.tiac.net>,
>> pi...@syncon.com (Pitt Crandlemire) wrote:
>>>I acknowledge your point and I apologize for my imprecise use of language.
>>>Clearly, any action that I take which does not put a card in the deck on a
>>>purely chance basis is not random. However, I do believe there is a clear
>>>distinction between returning played cards at the end of a game to the deck in
>>>a non-random but non-stacked manner and stacking the deck (i.e. placing
>>>specific cards in specific order relative to each other). As others have
>>>subsequently pointed out, the simple act of gathering up one's played cards,
>>>placing them on top of your deck, and then shuffling is no less random. The
>>>difference is, that non-random method leads to a much greater likelihood of
>>>clumps in subsequent games.
>>
>>This last sentence makes no logical sense. If a method leads to a different
>>likelihood of clumps than a random method, it's not random and it's not right
>>and it's cheating. (If intentional... if unintentional, then the Judge just
>>has to reshuffled it thoroughly).
>
>then, logically, gathering your cards up together after the game and
>putting them back in your library is not random and is cheating,
>because it leads to a different likelihood of clumps (namely, it makes
>them more likely).
If you do not shuffle them sufficiently afterwards, yes.
>if you are in favor of this method to ensure
>randomness, then you need to change your argument.
But I just said I wasn't in favor of this method. So I have no argument
to change.
>if you are in favor
>of any method that guarantees absolute randomness, then you should be
>pushing for a
>throw-all-your-cards-in-the-air-and-then-pick-them-up-closest-to-farthest-before-you-shuffle
>rule.
Fallacy of the false choice. I am in favor of people owning cars as well,
but this does not mean I'm in favor of the 1MPG gas guzzler as much as the
60MPG gas saver. So, in general, I'm in favor of any method that guarantees
a close approximation of randomness, but I think there are better and more
practical methods than the one you mention.
>the way i see it, there is no way to ensure randomness short of
>stamping each card with a number and having a computer generate
>numbers. if you mana weave, you're reducing the chance of clumps. if
>you scoop-and-go, you're increasing the chance of clumps. neither
>method is entirely random.
But if you shuffle enough, in various ways, for a long enough period
of time, after either of the above, you can ensure enough randomness.
>given that, i think players can stack any
>cards that were not used, then shuffle them together with the
>remaining library. i personally have great faith in shuffling (my
>opponent's cards) so none of these stacking issues carries much weight
>with me. the key, for me, is to a)riffle twice, b)pile, c)riffle
>twice, d)pile, e)riffle once, and f)cut. what this does, essentially,
>is a)sticks cards in between stacked cards, b)relocate some of the
>stacked cards into entirely different sections of the deck, c)insert
>more cards between stacked ones, increasing the chances of
>d)relocating even more stacked cards into a different section of the
>deck, e)it just doesnt feel right to end a shuffle without riffling
>and f)besides being a rule, nobody knows what the hell is on top or on
>the bottom.
Your method is certainly fine, and is exactly the sort of thing we are
discussing. However, this is what your opponent *should* do after his
mana-weave shuffles, and then you should then on your turn shuffle even
more. See, we should not *rely* on the opponent to know exactly how to
shuffle, based on his opponent's shuffle, to cancel out what might have
been done. Rather, we should rely on both being responsible for making
a good random shuffle to begin with, and specifically *not* using any
method that they think will specifically change this randomness in any
way.
Bruce
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
see_si...@for.email.address.com (Kim Robert Blix) wrote:
>Bruce Sterling Woodcock <sirb...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
>>Anyway, I generally let the computer do my shuffling, so it's almost
>>always truly random. (Sometimes it seems like it's broken, but we have
>>no proof of that. I refer to the MicroProse game here.)
>
>I've never tried the computer game, but how exactly do you manage to
>use the computer for shuffling without knowing the order the cards are
>in?
The computer knows. Assuming it even shuffles in that "sense"
of the word. More likely it just does random draws.
>Are you talking about games over the net ? :)
Yes.
Bruce
Kevin Mendel
> I suggest that WotC and the DCI take a much harder line on
> cheating--just start ejecting people when cheating seems
> plausible.
This is as bad, or worse. This opens up
possibilities for evil players to get innocent
players accused of cheating.
Unfortunately, the only real answer is to
have matches closely supervised. One ref per
match, who watches what cards are drawn,
what cards are played, listens to who says
what when, etc.
What we have now is like a football game
where the refs are in the locker-room until
their called out to rule on a play, then
they listen to both teams explain what
"happened".
This is not a matter of being "not evolved".
That excuse is too old now to be valid.
Its a matter of expenses. Tournaments cannot
afford that many referrees. (There aren't
enough qualified referees for that matter.)
It runs them over their tight budgets.
So matches will continue to run unsupervised.
Players will cheat at cards.
They can only try to cover it up later.
Kevin
Stephane
> they don't shout "hey I'm innocent until proven guilty" and comes
> draging with lawyers and the like. Because it's a *game*, and by
> playing the game you accept the rules in it.
With the world cup less than 15 kms from where I live I would have been hard pressed not
to see one:-/So, yes they do not disagree... but it's because they know that punching or
kicking an opponent is red card. Because they know that tackling (?) from behind is a red
card. The rules say "You do this, you get out".
> That's the difference, and that's why Long should be punished
> regardless of if it was accidental (which it of course wasn't, since
> he would have noticed).
No, and the problem is there. Where have you read that dropping a card on one's lap is
cheating. I do not think he was innocent, but hey, there is absolutely no provision in
the DCI rules against this. Football has rules, saying what is punishable and what is
not. M:tG has not. Here's the crux of it.
Stephane
>
> lot different than games, the rules of which are to dictate what you can
> and can not do during play. Some laws are like game rules, but they have very
> different goals.
As a matter of fact, law _are_ a very arbitrary thing. They seem to come from common
sense because they are mostly derivated from our cultural/ religious belief, but like
most things ( such as 2+2=4) they are only admited things.Whatever... This discussion
should really not take place here :-)
> prescribed punishments
YES! That's what we need.
> for those occurances. The motive behind the event
> is not considered - if you touch a soccer ball with your hand in the penalty
> area it's a penalty kick; if you don't have a card in your deck that should
> be there you forfeit the game.
200% OK. IF it's in the rules. For the time being, tell me where it is written that
having a card falling on your lap is cheating? It's not said anywhere: if you do
this, you get thrown out...
> It's unfortunate because it opens the doors for counter-argument from people
> who see this as some kind of matter involving liberty and truth.
I don't take this stance because I like trolling or playing devil's advocate, but
because I was on the wrong side of a mistake, and I really felt very wronged on that
blasted day.<snip>
> Out of interest, do the DCI rules say that secreting a card is cheating?
As far as I remember it does not... If my memory serves me it is said something like
"Underpaying mana, drawing more cards, not tapping lands, untapping at the wrong
time"... or something like that.
> Respectfully, you're very wrong. If you shoot someone there are several things
> you might or might not be convicted of, including:
> -first degree murder
> -manslaughter
> -assault
> -aquittal due to insanity
> -no charges filed due to self defense
> -awarded a medal for valor in combat
>
I'm not familiar with the US law system... In France there are only 2 kinds of
murders: Voluntary (homicide, mass murder, even self defense...) and accidental
(running someone over with your car because he fell infront of you...), not taking
into account the legally accepted murder of war...
> Is there such a rule in this case? While I agree that arbitrary punishments
> are bad, the DCI can't possibly detail every possible thing someone might
> do to cheat.
Yes, and it would be wrong because then cheater would lok at the rules and say:" it's
not in the rules, you can't punish me for (whatever).
> So there will always have to be be some leeway for judges to
> determine if an action is cheating.
And it's good that there is... But I think we also need some sort of penal code in
M:tG... to give an exemple of what penalty is applicable to what act...
> And while we're on the subject, exactly
> how will you not stand for it? Are you going to file an injunction with the
> Supreme Court on Mike Long's behalf? :-)
Being native of France I was rather thinking of making directly an appeal to the
president :-)
> Mostly I think we agree on one important subject - the rules on cheating
> should be detailed, clear, and routinely enforced.
I get you 5 by 5 :-)
> I remain despising cheaters,
>
> K
As should be...
emmanuel....@gmail.com
> I have just found out that at the Nationals held at Origins, Mike Long was
> Caught Blatantly cheating. He registered his deck at 61 cards but only played
> with 60. The extra card was a cadaverous Bloom that he hid UNDER HIS LEG.
> When he finally got caught he was given a double warning and a match-loss.
> However, he was 11-0 at that point so it didn't make any difference.
>
> This is WRONG. Long was BLATANLY cheating. They should have thrown his ass
> out of the tournament.
>
> Mark
Mike Long cheat again to 2016?
David DeLaney
> Le lundi 13 juillet 1998 09:00:00 UTC+2, CptKaso a écrit :
> Mike Long cheat again to 2016?
know.
Dave, it is the future, and these groups have been killed by webfora long
since. A daring plan to send a lone man back in time was hatched...
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
nde...@gmail.com
Greetz Nico
David DeLaney
Dave, it could be a goat skeleton
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
Pork Horker
you ... Erg Raider against me. H'd routinely under pay for spells and
not return Thawing Glaciers. He's a cheating shill. There was just no
way to formalize his savagery back then. He also taught a whole cabal
of cheaers like Pete Leiher, Justin Schneider ... maybe even Jay
Gordon. I hope they all burn in the pits of Shiv.