Subject: Re: GP Ejections, Crime & Nudity! - Matt Vienneau Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:47:35 +0000 From: Scott Wills To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com CC: a.a.coggins@open.ac.uk -------------------------------- Dear Frank & Dojo readers. I feel someone, somewhere, should reply to Matt Vienneau's article on his experiences at GP Birmingham. An 'official' reply from Wizards whilst nice is obviously out of the question. It may be that other players/judges will reply, but in that case my point of view will only provide additional information. I am a Level Two judge, and I judged both days of the Grand Prix. I witnessed several of the events Matt described in his article, and I feel that another perspective is necessary to give readers a fuller picture of events at the Grand Prix. I'll start off with a brief comment on Matt's experiences of the UK in general: Whilst Matt's experiences were often negative, I was happy to see that for the most part his encounters with people in the Magic community (Julia who paid for his taxi and took him to his Hotel, Jim who put him up (For free Matt?) whilst at the Grand Prix) were positive. There are a lot of people in the UK who care a lot about this game and hopefully that was apparent through Matt's article. Alice has summed up pretty much everything I wanted to say about Matt's experiences of the UK in her article below. Anyway, onto the GP itself. Complaint One: Only six rounds first day. This was a decision made well in advance of Matt's arrival. I and several other judges would've liked it to have been seven rounds in day one, and thirteen (instaed of eleven) overall. The powers that be (whoever they are) decided otherwise. Matt wasn't the only person to express dissatisfaction at this and hopefully such comments will be taken on board for the future. Complaint Two: Delay in starting the event. This is typical of many of the bigger events I've been to. Registration often takes longer than expected, and we did have many people questioning their 'Bye' status. Wizards should've accounted for this, but they didn't. Complaint Three: Matt missing his byes. As much as I can understand that Matt was upset at not getting his byes as he expected I can only say that he was at fault here. Several announcements were made prior to the first round pairings, and the bye lists were posted in several obvious places around the hall. We had many (In excess of twenty I believe) players querying the number of byes they received. All of these players heard the announcements, and found the bye list successfully. All that is, except Matt. At least three times it was announced that is was the players responsibility to check that they had their byes recorded successfully on the lists posted around the hall, and that if they didn't do this before the pairings went up then any errors would have to stand. The Judge that Matt appealed to was indeed 'Second-in-command' for the GP, and if Carl trusted that judges decision, I only think it fair that Matt respect that choice. Carl most definitely *does* care about the players, but in that situation he had given repeated warnings to all the players about the exact situation Matt found himself in. To quote Matt himself: "I checked for lists, I was in the room with he announcements, how could all of this gotten by me?" I don't know Matt. How could it? Complaint four: Oath Of Druids rules question. Matt phrases this whole paragraph like he was hard done by. The facts: Matt had a rules question. He called a Judge. The Judge answered the rules question correctly. Matt appealed to the Head Judge. The Head Judge came, listened, double-checked the information before ruling and then, again, made the correct ruling. Matt was then given an extension to the match equal to the time it took to finalise the ruling. How exactly is this a 'bad' thing? Surely this is exactly how tournaments like this *should* be run? Complaint five: A Judge thanking Matt for not pressing a rules issue (Opponent seeing his next card). Here Matt chastises the Judge for not coming down on his opponent harshly over something that was a simple error. A paragraph or two before Matt himself was the one to let his own error (Flipping over a card whilst shuffling) go when his opponent says nothing. I am sure Matt is aware he would've gotten at least a warning, and probably a duel loss for this had it been brought to a Judges attention. If Matt is so keen on strict rulings, and judges intervening whenever a minor error is made, how come he fails to bring to the attention of a Judge a mistake that he not only witnessed, but made himself? I think there's a bit of a double standard here. In general the judges, myself included, would rule on something that they saw but obviously that wasn't always the case. Matt did not give details of the match in question but it's quite possible that the judge made the decision simply because the players error could not have affected the match. If Matt isn't happy with that decision, and would like judges to be a lot harsher and follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit, I suggest that perhaps he might examine his own actions first. Complaint six: Matt's Double-warning + match-loss for forgetting to put his Tradewinds back in his deck. Firstly I'd note that Matt himself was at first prepared to simply play that game out, and not call the error to the attention of a judge. Secondly, Matt, you are a pro-player. You must have read the Penalty Guidlines by now. The standard Penalty for the situation you describe at a Level 5 event is double-warning and match loss. You were not treated unfairly, or harshly. You received the penalty that any other player making that error that day would have received. If anything you were treated with some leniency as a previous warning was down-graded to allow you to continue playing in the tournament. Matt is right in saying that throughout the event the rules were enforced more or less to the letter. Very few players had a problem with this. By ruling 'to the letter' the judges ensured that all players received equal treatment through-out the GP, and that players would know what to expect from a Level 5 event. Previous warnings were often downgraded, when the Head Judge believed that the player was not deserving of an ejection. I don't have a problem with this. Ejection is now no longer 'enforced' when a player has 3+ warnings anyway, so this is no different in my opinion. Would Matt have preferred an ejection at this stage? Complaint seven: Delaying round six until day two. There's not much I can say on this one, as I would imagine that there is still action being taken by WotC. All I will say is that I know that *every* reasonable step was taken by Carl and WotC UK to try and ensure that the venue would stay open as advertised. No matter what was said or offered, the NEC staff did not seem open to compromise. Please do not blame Carl or WotC, as I truly believe that they were not at fault in this situation. Complaint eight: Registration on day two: The listings posted on the door were off by a couple of places due to some over-night withdrawals from the event. All the people at the registration booths were aware of this and took it into account. We registered ~200 players in around 20 minutes, bar a few latecomers. I would say this is perfectly acceptable and nothing like the cock-up Matt makes it out to be. Registration was extended for an additional hour due to train delays. This was at the request of several players who knew they had friends coming for the second day. Again I believe this was the right decision. I am truly sorry that Matt's experiences of the Grand Prix were so negative, but I am sure that they were not universal. Every effort was made by the judges and organisers to ensure things ran smoothly. Apart from the problems with the venue closing early I think for the most part they did. On a final note I'd like to thank Matt for his positive comments on the level of judging at the Grand Prix. I know that almost all of the judges were very experienced, and that all were very committed to maintaining the integrity of the event. The judge's/volunteer's work often goes unnoticed, and I for one appreciate Matt's thanks. Scott Wills. Level Two Judge & T.O. Team Spike UK. Scottboy on IRC. http://www.alman.co.uk/Scott/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- I am Scott's girlfriend, Alice Coggins, and I was also judging at the Grand Prix. I am a Level I judge and also a reporter for European Sideboard, covering the event. I was pleased to see that Matt thought the European Sideboard so impressive, but I also wish to address some of his comments. Re: Matt missing his byes. I spoke to a number of players in the queue waiting to discuss the status of their byes. Wizards had an internet connection onsite to check the actual status of player's byes. One of the players in line to check his bye status was Darwin Kastle, an American player. If Matt was hanging out with the Americans, as he says in his article, why did he not go and check his byes at the same time? Darwin heard the announcement. Matt didn't. Why is that? Re: Round six being delayed until day 2. I spoke to the management of the NEC about this personally. This was because I saw Carl and other Wizards employees trying to negotiate an extension and couldn't resist stepping in on behalf of the players. I explained to the management how much time and money people spend playing Magic. I explained how crucial it was for us to have the venue for an extra hour. I virtually begged them to let us have the extension and they refused. As I understand it, Wizards UK had booked the venue until 2am and the NEC went back on that agreement. I don't think you can really blame Wizards for that. They did EVERYTHING they could. I expect they will take the NEC to court, and personally I think the NEC deserve it. I am certain a major Magic event will not be taking place in the NEC again. Re: Carl just doesn't care. Carl *does* care. Carl is a huge asset to Wizards in this country. We're lucky to have someone who cares so much. I'm sorry that Matt had a bad experience, but judging the Grand Prix was incredibly busy and stressful - both Scott and I found it exhausting and neither of us was Head Judge! You can't please everybody all of the time and on the whole I really believe Carl does a good job. He might not be perfect but who of us are? Re: Not having Tradewinds in his deck. In Round 5, I, as a level I judge, had to give somebody a match loss for presenting their opponent with an illegal deck. I won't name names, because you know who you are. Anyway, basically after sideboarding, he counted his sideboard and found 16 cards because he'd mistakenly left one card in his box. His opponent had already begun shuffling his deck. The penalty for presenting an illegal deck is a match loss (the match was 1-1 at the time). His opponent appealed on his behalf, and explained it was simply an error. But what is the point of holding level 5 events if you *don't* use level 5 rules? So match loss it was, and the guy actually cried, and I felt terrible about it because effectively it was an ejection because he couldn't make 2nd day anymore. In retrospect, I still believe I made the right decision. If you want to play in Level 5 events, you HAVE to know the Penalty Guidelines. You *have* to realise that the rules will be strict. What if Matt had left 4 islands out of his deck so he could have less mana and a better chance of drawing "business" cards? Just because it happened to be his Tradewinds does not mean he should 'get away with it'. Penalties are penalties, and as a "pro" player you should know the rules. If you want to feel sorry for somebody, feel sorry for the beginners who got ejected in round 1 for having Snow-Covered Islands in their decks. (Incidentally, Carl personally went and arranged free side-events for those beginners, because he felt sorry for them because they made a mistake. Do you think that's the attitude of someone who doesn't care?) Re: The more I travel the more I realize that there is no better place in the world than where I am right now! I adore living in England. I have lived in Indonesia, Brussels, Manila and have visited around 30 other countries including America and Canada and Australia and much of South East Asia. There are many countries which I like and admire, and would enjoy staying for a while to get to know better. But when it comes down to it, England is my home and I absolutely LOVE it here. It's no different for Matt. I'm glad he's happy in Canada. But don't take it out on our home just because the food's expensive or the Magic's not what you expect. I mean, I could come up with a load of criticisms of the places I've been. Like have you noticed the obscene amount of food Americans eat? Have you realised how much bloody petrol ("gas") Americans and Australians use instead of the trains and buses and underground we have here? Have you noticed the poverty problem in Jakarta, or the cockroaches in Manila? Well I have, but I don't choose to slag them off in public because I can deal with different cultures. I just think it's a big shame Matt didn't enjoy himself here. One more thing. Aside from Julia, I was the only other female judge, and I am only a Level I. I don't claim to know everything, and often checked with higher judges to be sure of my rulings. I found Level 5 to be extremely harsh (after all, we almost never have Level 5 events here) and I doubt I'll want to judge at that level again. I don't like to give match losses and ejections. I feel sorry for the players. I want to make people happy and enjoy the game, and Level 5 rules is just too harsh for that. Despite the problems at GP Birmingham, I don't feel like it was a disaster. I think we all did the best we could under the circumstances. It wasn't ideal, I'll give you that, but it worked out okay. I'm sorry you had a bad time. I don't believe for a minute that everyone did. Best wishes, Alice Coggins Team Spike UK Level I Judge European Sideboard Reporter Collector of Lost Souls http://freespace.virgin.net/black.star/