Subject: Stopping cheating [ISSUES] Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 18:21:35 -0400 From: Mark Waser To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com Let's get real. Stopping cheating requires only three things. First off, Nate's statement that he feels that his first three so-called "passive cheating" examples "should be considered mistakes made by your opponent" opens the door to far too much mischief. Therefore, 1) The DCI needs to immediately declare that BOTH players are responsible for the correctness of game play. Not ensuring correct play, not being able to ensure correct play, and not reporting inability to ensure correct play should all become a single warning offenses (this is the same as a Failure to Agree on Reality). Under this rule, if there is a rules violation made and the opponent misses it, then he is equally responsible for it and will receive the same single warning that the erring player gets. Note that you don't have to remind your opponent that he COULD do something else to hurt you or help himself, but you MUST tell them when they MUST do something. This will end the silly "active cheating" vs. "passive cheating" debate. Note also that, under this rule, if a life-count die is knocked on the floor and if your opponent has to ask if he is at six (Nate's first example), you MUST call the judge over and say that your opponent is currently not able to ensure correct game play. If he wants to argue over life totals, then it becomes a double-warning due to an additional failure to agree on reality (though if you are so foolish as to not be tracking his life, you'll get the same double warning). The judge WILL ask you what your opponent's life total is and not knowing will net you the same single warning while lying will net you a triple warning for severe unsportsmanlike conduct, if not cheating. 2) The DCI needs to start collecting and collating incident (not cheating) reports on all official warnings. Contrary to some postings that I have seen, this is legal and can easily be done without any liability problems. It is no different than penalties (i.e. rules violations) in any sport. You play incorrectly, you get written up for it and it is public knowledge. 3) The DCI needs to immediately clarify what happens when incorrect game play is discovered. I would make the following suggestions: a) Omissions and commissions which appear unintentional and are discovered immediately are corrected. The wyvern (Nate's second example) is unburied and the sliver (Nate's third example) is buried. No warnings or incident reports are filed unless the opponent desires and a judge agrees. Warnings for this case should be rare and a person requesting too many should be subjected to an unsportsmanlike conduct penalties; however, it is not out of line to give a Pro Tour player who regularly plays a sliver deck a single warning for the third (sliver) example. b) Omissions and commissions which appear unintentional and which are discovered belatedly result in a single warning for both players, a game draw AND an incident report. Yes, this does mean that you can make a mistake, "discover" it later, and get a draw instead of a loss. For this reason, incident reports should indicate a judge's assessment of whether or not it is clear that one player will win the game. This also handles all those cases where you incorrectly bury a creature to help your Lhurgoyf and your opponent lets you because he wants to re-animate it. c) Ommissions and commissions that are pretty clearly intentional according to the judge are cheating, should be the standard triple warning, a tournament DQ, should be reported, and should cause the individual's incident file to be reviewed for possible additional action. I believe that these three, fairly minor, actions will clarify most of the important issues that everyone has been debating (while ignoring the morality questions) and go a long way towards returning the integrity to Magic tournaments. Mark Waser MWaser@WorldBank.org