Subject: Cheating the Fault of the Honest Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:41:28 -0400 From: "Walter R. Huber" To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com _____________________________________________ I would like to begin by thanking the Dojo for granting a forum to discuss this timely issue and for posting a previous unsolicited article. To the point: Cheating is the fault of those who are honest. Those of you who read my previous post are aware that cheating can be viewed as a collective action problem and the solutions are exclusion, repeated interaction and selective incentives. Repeated interaction was deemed unworkable in this case and exclusion and repeated interaction are all that remain. (If this makes no sense to you please read my previous post "Solutions to Cheating" or e-mail me for an explanation.) Many have responded to Nate's article and virtually all agree on two things. First, the consensus seems to be that cheating is wrong and anything that approaches the line of cheating but doesn't cross it may be mean but is a judgement call on each individual must make for themselves. What no one can seem to agree on is what constitutes cheating. Some assert that Nate's first three examples are mere "gamemanship" and others call them active cheating. Those who call it cheating tend to look to the rulebook and claim it is clear while those who defend the first three actions point out that it is only cheating if you know the rules. Both sides have a point. You have a moral obligation to follow the rules but in the first three examples you only get away with it if your opponent has failed to live up to their obligation to understand the rules/remember their life/know what creatures and spells your opponent is playing. HOWEVER: Both parties are wrong and have to differing degrees cheated. The player who knew better failed to point out the truth. The player who was wronged failed to learn the rules before playing. This imposed an additional obligation on the part of the player who did know the rules. It also made the player who chose not to learn the basic rules a freerider and hence morally in the wrong as well. In Nate's first three examples both players deserve to be sanctioned. The cheater for taking an advantage that was not his. The person who got shafted in the game for creating the problem in the first place. Even if you desire to cheat, you cannot if your opponent is knowledgeable about the rules and viligant in making sure those they play follow them as well. By not knowing the rules you place your opponent in moral hazzard. By imperfectly monitoring your opponent you place them in moral hazzard. It is in their interest to cheat (if they are so inclined). Shame on BOTH players! Solutions to this problem are straightfoward. First, it must be recognized by all that not knowing the rules is an unacceptable situation and should be punished. DCI already does this in some cases. If you show up to a Type II tournament with four Rust in your deck you are disqualified. If you do not follow the rules for deck construction (minimum 60 in constructed, 40 in sealed) you are disqualified. Many other examples abound including the rule of four, sideboards, play/draw rule, and the like. If we play each other in a Type II tournament and I sideboard the first game you have a legitimate gripe. I may not know any better but that does not excuse my behavior or eliminate sanctions against me. To those who would differentiate between not understanding play rules and deck construction I would remind you that in both cases you place your opponent at a disadvantage. If I play a 32 card deck in constructed I have a statistical advantage over you for drawing the card I want. If I do not know what protection from green means you cannot fully concentrate on your game and must instead devote time and energy to ensuring I get a fair shake. Second, clear rules with penalties that matter must be set and enforced. In my previous post it was determined (using game theory) that the only way to prevent cheating was to set penalties that exceed the benefit gained from cheating. For blatent cheating (taking extra cards) you MUST impose a penalty that matters. For example, fines in excess of the first prize. If for example you are playing a pro-tour for a first prize of $10,000 the fine would have to be greater than that or cheaters might still find it in their interest to take a chance. If fines are unacceptable bans of at least one year from all sanctioned events would probably suffice. (Again if this makes no sense please refer to my previous post.) The solution stares at us. Make cheating too expensive for anyone to engage in. However so long as those of us who are honest fail to take the responsibility to demand sanctions against cheaters matter we bear the brunt of the blame for the current situation. I would submit the following as a workable format for all sanctioned events: Warnings: Three warnings within two consecutive santioned tournaments will equal one Level One Penalty. Warnings will be given for the following: Swearing at an opponent Stalling (to be CLEARLY defined by DCI) (fill in a list of similar offenses) Level One Penalty: Lose of match. Three Level One Penalty's within two consecutive sanctioned tournaments will result in a Level Two Penalty being imposed in addition to the lose of match penalty. Level One Penalty's will be given for the following: Not knowing the play rules (see above for explanation) Looking at your next card before your draw phase Failure to pay upkeep costs or the like and not paying the penalty before the beginning of your opponents next turn (fill in a list of similar offenses) Level Two Penalty: Imediate Disqualification from the Tournament, 300 point reduction in DCI rating, and suspension from all tournaments of that level or lower for one month (That level or lower indicates that if found guilty of a Level Two Penalty at a Type C event you will be suspended from all Type C and D events for one month.) Level Two Penalties will be given for the following: Sideboarding the first game Illegal deck construction (e.g. 30 card constructed, 6 dark rituals, etc.) (fill in a list of similar offenses) Level Three Penalty: Imediate Disqualification from the Tournament, lose of ALL DCI ranking points, a minimum one year suspension from ALL sanctioned events, and the possibility of a fine not to exceed 150% of the retail cash value of the first prize of the tournament in question. If such a fine is imposed, it will be used to suplement the prizes already guarenteed by the tournament organizers. In no case can the fine be pocketed by judges, organizers, or WoTC. Level Three offenses MUST be fully verified by the head judge. If the head judge cannot assertain beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense did take place a Level Three Penalty cannot be imposed. Three Level Three Penalties result in a lifetime ban from sanctioned events. Offense include Purposefully drawing extra cards. Purposefully misrepresenting your life total to your opponent. Stealing cards from your opponent's deck (fill in a list of similar offenses) It should be noted that "purposefully" and "stealing" are intential. The judge must be able to verify that this was not accidential if a Level Three Penalty is to be imposed. For example, if your cards stick together and you accidently draw two and immediately point out what happened to your opponent the judge cannot imose a Level Three Penalty. Finally it should be noted that falsely accusing an opponent of cheating is wrong. As such, if you make more than three unproven claims within two consecutive tournaments you will be imposed a Level One or Level Two Penalty. This is not without flaws as a system and despretely needs the feedback of all players and interested parties. However some system must be devised. So long as the honest fail to impose severe penalties on those who would cheat we have only ourselves to blame when our opponents decide to cheat. Feedback encouraged. Walter R. Huber