Subject: Re: Sportsmanship and rules enforcement at GP Birmingham Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:50:03 +1000 From: Darryl Greensill To: "'fkusumot@ix.netcom.com'" Frank, this is for the debate: Gary Wise wrote: >I am a professional magic player. I can say this with certainty in the >fact that I've been to every PT event since Worlds 97, and as of >recently have performed at such a level that I've made more than I've >spent. This is not to say that PT magic is a full time job, but it's >been a good way to put myself through school instead of taking some >minimum wage job at a local greasy spoon. It is with this in mind that >I tell you that Manuel Bevand's actions at PT Birmingham were in no way >unusually harsh or wrong. Not harsh or wrong, but hypocritical. You missed Manuel's entire point. Fair enough if he wants to have a judge called for every trivial non-game-affecting error his opponent makes, but he *must* apply the same level of scrutiny to his own actions, or else he is a hypocrite. Congratulations to Manuel that he has realized this. Have you? >Grand Prix Birmingham was a major tournament for which I'm sure Manuel >payed more than a few dollars to play in (as a side note, while Manuel >and I know one another, we run in different crowds on the tour, so this >is not a personal defence), and in which he stood to make a decent >amount of money if he performed well. Being a pro tour player aside, >Manuel did what he had to do, within the rules, to win. He did not *have* to take unsportsmanlike advantage of an opponent in order to win. The *second* opponent is the one I refer to; the one who just let him go out of kindness. It's ethically irrelevant whether you take a rules-heavy or a rules-light approach on your opponent, but you *must* apply the exact same rules to yourself. If you do not, you are gaining an unfair advantage, and are therefore a cheat. I would vastly prefer that unintentional errors (especially irrelevant events that occur before a match and can be easily detected by a deck/sideboard count) were not punished, and sportsmanlike play were the order of the day. However, if the tone of play must be set to accommodate the selfish assholes who think that "professionalism" equates to a willingness to win at the cost of their personal integrity, then so be it. Sorry to have to point this out to you Gary, but the amount of the money is *irrelevant*. If you'll steal $100,000 from someone (and using unfair means to win a match *is* stealing, from that person) then frankly I hope people don't leave their wallets with you at the beach, or their deck full of rares with you while they go get a milkshake. If you wouldn't steal $10, which *doesn't matter*, then how can you morally justify stealing $100,000? If you are willing to harm another person to advance your own interests, it does not matter where you draw the line. >I was talking to SteveOMS, whom I consider to be amongst the top 5 >players in the world, about the matter of when to call over a judge at >PT Chicago. Steve employs a policy (a smart one) of calling over a >judge when ANYTHING outside the rules of the game happens, regardless of >whether its drawing extra cards or inadvertantly knocking a land on the >ground with an elbow. If he applies this same policy to himself, then this is good and he deserves our respect. If he doesn't, he's not one of the top players *anywhere*, because he's not playing the game. >Pro Tour magic is a completely different animal >than local $50 tourneys. While I agree that good sportsmanship and fun >should be the premium for lower k tourneys, when you get into the realm >of a Grand Prix, you're in a situation where the participants are not >only playing for cash and a PT spot, but you are playing for Pro Tour >Points. It doesn't matter if you are playing with the World Champion or your little sister. Don't cheat, and don't screw your opponents over by letting your own infractions go unpunished when you demand they face the penalty for theirs. Your personal integrity is *your* responsibility. >Manuel happens to be one of those players who is on the bubble >with regards to getting to the top 50 in this manner of evaluation (the >top 50 PT players for the last year with regards to points earned get >invited to the next pro tour, aka The Gravy Train) and in as much, was >not only playing for money and a spot, but concievably for a years worth >of pro Tour births, a much more important prize in many regards than the >$2000 the winner would be recieving. It is my opinion that once you get >to level C (PTQ) or higher tourneys, Magic ceases to be a game and >becomes more a competition, but the addition of the PTPoint factor to >the allready intense PTQ atmosphere means that the game should be played >properly. Stack on as many prizes as you want. Houses, cars, Moxes, chocolate. You don't have a "price", you're either for sale or you're not. [...snip Bruce Cowley's example of sportsmanship entirely appropriate in a *friendly match*...] >I have bad news for you Bruce, but both you and your opponent would be >absolutely crushed on the Pro Tour. Why are you assuming that because Bruce was a good sport, he and his opponent are bad players? If a judge had watched that entire match, and penalized Bruce's opponent with a match loss, what's to say that opponent mightn't have beaten Bruce anyway? "Absolutely crushed" implies a level of skill difference between Bruce and his opponent, and a Pro Tour player, that is not inferred in Bruce's article. Making one random error like forgetting to draw a card does not define a person as a bad player. >Not only that, but his failure to >inform you, or your failure to inform a judge, are violations of the >rules of magic, the game for which you were both trying to become a >professional. I've seen you play before, and you aren't a bad player, >but the fact is that once to get to an event where PT players are >allowed to play (another difference between, PTQs and Grand Prixs) you >have to expect a professional attitude, professional style rules >enforcement, and professional consequences The reason why errors are corrected on the fly in friendly play is *because it makes the game more interesting*. It also reduces the luck factor, as it is strictly a matter of luck, if not equally likely, who makes the first penalizable mistake; no-one does it on purpose. Your degree of skill will reduce how likely you are to make mistakes, but you will never be able to make *no* mistakes ever. In serious play, by correcting on the fly Bruce allowed his opponent to gain an unfair advantage. I'm not going to argue that this was the right thing to do; it could be argued that he collaborated in cheating. Still, it is unfair for you to criticize Bruce so harshly while defending Manuel's actions, which were no better. >Hoping I'm wrong, but knowing, in this case, I'm probably not, Why do you consider hypocrisy acceptable behavior? Darryl.