Subject: A system of precedence for crime and punishment.
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:02:12 -0700
From: "Michael Medinger" <mmeding1@elp.rr.com>
To: "The Dojo" <fkusumot@ix.netcom.com>

To whom it may concern:

We have all heard the arguments about those who maliciously break the rules
of Magic for monetary gain.  We have seen Mike Long and his unsportsmanlike
antics over and over again.  I do not condone breaking the rules of Magic,
or of any sport, yet we have to realize that it will happen, and that there
should be a due process for those that choose to discard the rules of fair
play in favor of money.

In our nation's courts of law, judges decide punishments for people that
break the law.  These punishments can have a wide range, depending on the
circumstances and severity of the crime.  For example, lets say that Joe
killed a man last night.  He could spend a few months in jail, or he could
spend twenty years or more in prison.  Why?  It depends on the
circumstances.  If the man that Joe killed was a burglar robbing his house,
he could be charged with involuntary manslaughter, and it would be unlikely
that he would spend a long time in jail.  On the other hand, if Joe shot a
police officer in cold blood while fleeing from a robbery, he would likely
spend the rest of his life in jail after being convicted of murder in the
first degree.

Many of our laws and their ranges for punishment that accompany them are
mandated by law, while the remainder are based on precedence.  This means
that the punishments for crimes committed that have not been specifically
defined have been arbitrarily declared by impartial governmental powers.
The punishment, so deemed appropriate, remains until it is either upheld or
overruled on appeal to a higher power.

It should also be this way in Magic.  More specifically, I'm talking about
punishing people who break the rules.  I'm also talking about having
specific rules based on defined law and impartial precedence.  We should
all know what the rules are about conduct and proper play.  We should all
be expected to abide by these rules.  We should also expect to see those
who break these rules be punished according to the severity of the
infringement.

Let's take the Mike Long incident, for example, to see how this system
works currently in DCI.  As we all know, a key card fell in his lap while
casting Natural Balance and looking through his deck.  Is there any rules
that specifically condemn this?  If not, then there should be because this
is an obvious infraction of fair play.  There is a rule against it, but the
rule is unclear, as is the punishment for breaking this rule.  At this
juncture, it is up to the head judge to interpret the rule, and enforce
it.  As a result of Mike Long's action, he recieved a match loss, which did
not effect his standings in the tournament in any way.  I believe that this
sets a poor precedent for tournament play, because we all know that we can
drop Cadaverous Blooms all day long into our laps, and the worst punishment
that we will recieve (according to the precedent of a Level V judge) is a
match loss, assuming that we get caught.

I see the greatest problems in two places.  The first is in the Magic
Tournament Rules of Conduct outline.  (For those of you who don't know,
such a document does not exist.)  The next is in the existing system of
punishments for breaking rules of play.  This system should be flexible on
lower levels of play (Nobody likes to see a scrub thrown out of a Friday
night tourney because he doesn't know the errata on a card...) and
unwavering on higher levels.  There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to
have a key card sitting in his lap at the U.S. National Championship.  The
only recourse for such a blatant act is ejection from the competition.

You will notice that I did not use the word "cheat" at all in this letter.
Cheating is irrelevent, because it implies intent.  We cannot prove intent
of rules-breaking in Magic, because the accused need only vigorously deny
accusations brought against him.  All that we can do is look at the facts
of the matter, and decide any appropriate recourse.

The sheer volume of discussion on these topics indicates that something
must be changed.  The rabble clamor for better-defined rules on misconduct,
as well as better enforcement of these rules by judges.  Personally, I
would expect no less from DCI.

If you have any constructive commentary to add to this, feel free to e-mail
me.

Sincerely,
Michael Medinger