Subject: Defence And Explanation Over GP:Birmingham Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:33:46 PST From: "Matthew Vienneau" To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com A not-so-quick reply to the criticisms on The Dojo over my Grand Prix Birmingham Report. I have received a bunch of responses from people, almost universally positive, which isn’t usual. I replied to everyone who emailed me but I’m having trouble with Hotmail, so if you haven’t received a response, let me know and I’ll try and send it again (probably won’t be able to, but I’ll try). I’ve used ** to indicate my text. The post was written by two people, so my replies are sort of to two people, but I have extensive quotes, so it shouldn’t be too hard. 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. ** I hope it was apparent through my article as well. One of the things I most wanted to emphasize was how nice various people were to me, without even knowing me. As my local friends can tell you, I keep going on and on about how generous and kind people were. 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. ** Who ARE the powers that be? I would guess that it is the tournament organizer, though I could easily be wrong. From what I’ve seen in every other tournament except the pro-tour, the number of rounds depends on how many people attend and can be changed right until the first round begins, and sometimes later. Maybe European tournaments are managed differently, but I think it could have been changed right up until the play started - especially if the organizers believed they had the room until 2 am. 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. ** It’s getting less and less typical, which is why I mentioned it. I don’t mind half an hour late or so, that’s expected and is often due to extra time registering people. When well over an hour is spent just sitting around, AFTER information is entered, then something is wrong. I’m unclear as to why the bye status of different players gets lost or changed. The list is on the internet days in advance and it is verified by the player when she registers. And yet still 20 odd people are entered incorrectly? There are ways around this. 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. 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? ** I guess the rhetorical nature of the question was missed. I said that right after describing the myriad of different reasons that explained why I missed it, and perhaps should have been dealt with. The inadequate speakers, the inordinately long wait until the lists were posted, the non-removal of the older lists, which indicates that a new list is up somewhere, the posting of the new lists in different locations, etc. I felt I did everything a reasonable person would do in that situation. The only other thing I could have done is personally gone up and checked with the judges to make sure everything was correct, but the judges seemed very against that sort of thing. ** As for the second-in-command thing. I don’t know this judge from any other judge at the tournament. I didn’t give a hoot whether Carl trusts the judge, that’s totally irrelevant, and I should not have to respect that choice. Carl is the head judge, he is the one who makes the rulings. That is how tournaments are run and the rules are written. If Carl wants to announce that there are two head judges of equal power, that is totally okay by me, and I’ll listen to either one as if they were the head judge. But until that’s done, there is only one person in the room who is going to take my byes away, and that’s the head judge. 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? ** Okay, this comment threw me. I had to go back and read what I said just to try and understand what you’re talking about. I don’t think I phrased it like I was hard done by at all. At one point I have a rules question on oath of druids. A judge gives me his answer, but I want to verify it with the head judge as I was pretty sure it worked like land tax (the judge was saying it did not - the judge was correct). Carl comes over and listens, and then says he has to check. So he goes and checks and comes back. 17 minutes are added to the match. ** I included this paragraph for two reasons - 1) when I bitch about a judge or a tournament, I like to relate all incidents where I had to deal with the judge, especially when they’re correct or did things properly, in attempt to include all the information. I guess I should have mentioned my appreciation for Carl double-checking the rule to ensure he didn’t make a mistake (always a good thing) and how the original judge seemed frustrated that I wanted to appeal his ruling, but I didn’t want to distract from the later ruling. I also like to point out when I’m wrong so I don’t come off looking like a know-it-all; 2) I thought I was going to reference the time added later on, but chose not to, and then didn’t remove the reference when proofreading. ** So I agree totally with you, that is exactly how things should have been done. And that’s why I never stated it was a "bad thing". The paragraph comes off like a news report, not like a criticism. 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. ** Yeah, there is. When I make a mistake, I’ll let my opponent notice it and point it out, when my opponent makes a mistake, I’ll point it out. Not everyone agrees with this, but that’s how I prefer to play. I also indicated that I did not see the card flipped over at all, as I was obviously turning away, and that both the judge and my opponent were watching, so if they wanted to complain, they easily could have and I would have accepted it. I do not go out of my way to get myself a duel loss. ** And, having just reread what I posted, I think, once again, you’re misreading what was said. If you look again, I clearly stated that I just wanted my opponent to shuffle the second card back into his deck, without any warning or anything. However, due to the language barrier and the speed of play, he misunderstood and got a little miffed. I did NOT want a warning. ** It was a separate issue that the judge thanked me for not pressing the issue. It did not specifically relate to that match at all. I said that I don’t feel judges should ever be thanking players for not pressing an issue as it is a judge’s responsibility to do so. ** Essentially, if that match was well judged, the judge would have interfered when I flipped the card, and would have interfered when my opponent looked at the second card when drawing. No question about it. That was my issue with the judge (who was still a nice guy). Players should not be allowed to not penalize their opponent as it instills a sense of "being cheap" when they do. 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. ** One would think, after all the rules problems I encountered, that I would be very familiar with how "harsh" those rules can be. Is it unreasonable to ask that harsh rules be applied evenly and to everyone instead of on the whim of judges? The judge couldn’t see the second card that my opponent looked at, heck, I’m not sure my opponent could, so that is not what was happening. ** In Austin, Finkel lost a match because a judge noticed he had forgotten to draw (I believe). The punishment was harsh and the judge noticed it without either player saying anything (I believe). That is how judging should be done. That the penalty may be too harsh is another issue. Complaint six: Matt's Double-warning + match-loss for forgetting to put his Tradewinds back in his deck. 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. **Once again, I’m not sure which report you were reading. I fully understand that the penalty was the correct one, and say that in my report. I feel that the penalty is too harsh for the infraction and hope that other players agree and maybe it can be changed. That is why I mentioned it, as well as to point out how horrible the tournament was for me (that’s what reports do). 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. ** I would argue, and should have in my report, that the first day of the Grand Prix should not have been a level 5 event. In Austin the first day was a level 4 event, and the second day was a level 5 event. I felt this was a much fairer way of doing things, especially for the new players (not me) who aren’t used to that sort of strict tournament. 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? ** Would it have mattered? I had already been knocked out of contention, an ejection would have let me sleep in the next day without thinking I should get my money’s worth by playing the sixth round. Three warnings is the guideline for getting ejected, based on the assumption that by getting that many warnings, the player has done enough to warrant removal. By downgrading the warning, the judge is saying that I really haven’t done enough to get ejected. But if I haven’t done enough, why do I have three warnings? The reason is that the lobotomy offense was too harsh. ** However, in any other tournament, I probably would prefer not getting ejected, especially if I still have a chance at something meaningful. I just pointed out that it was odd that with the total lack of leniency in anything else, that all of a sudden there’s a change of heart and they’re nice to me. It was odd. It also felt a little like, as I said, that they were willing to screw me a whole bunch, but when it came right down to it, they backed off. Perhaps my misunderstanding had something to do with the brick wall attitude of Carl? Complaint seven: The hall closing early < accidentally snipped - essentially stating that WotC and Carl did everything they could > ** Much as this might be true, it is still up to WotC/the organizer, to make it up to the players and then get their proper payment from the NEC after (however they wish to do that). Essentially, the players were told "we’ve been screwed, so we’re going to screw you". I’m used to that at local tournaments, where money is everything, but at major tournaments, I would like (though not expect, as money is often still the bottom line) to see the TOs somehow pay the players back for the incredible inconvenience. This was not something like "the printer crashed, it will take another hour", this was a delay until the next day! I’ve never had that happen before, but I would have liked to see them do more about it. But I don’t expect it. 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. ** The cock-up? I had one paragraph that indicated the lists were in error and people were unable to follow the instructions given to them exactly one minute earlier. We were told "read the list, remember your number, walk through the door". Once through the door, we found the number useless. That’s all I said. An example of poor organizing, nothing else. ** As for extending registration. Apparently it’s okay to make 300 players wait an hour or so for a some people on a train, but not to make them wait 5-10 minutes to do a repairing for one player (namely me). The idea presumably being that missing the byes was my fault. One could as much say that the train riders were at fault for not expecting a delay, or for leaving town the previous night. They did the reasonable thing, and things went wrong, and things were changed to help them out. I did the reasonable thing and still got screwed. Maybe everyone else checked their byes because they expected a screw-up, while I expected them to get it right? (that’s not really true, I expected them to screw it up, which is why I checked it a bunch of different ways, I just picked the wrong ways to check…) **There was also, to my recollection, no explanation given as to why the delay until the round was starting (or right before then). This makes it more frustrating, to add on to the frustration of having to get there at 8 for a 9:45 tournament (and not being allowed in at 7:45). 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? ** I was sitting with the other Americans (Price, Finkel, Buehler). Darwin was on the side of the room that could hear the speakers, I was not. And, as I was with Finkel, there was a large crowd around us, which may have contributed to extra noise levels? 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? ** I cannot honestly argue that Carl doesn’t care, or that Carl is incompetent in his job. I don’t agree with how he handled the various situations. I also feel that he doesn’t radiate empathy or concern to a troubled player, whether he feels it or not, and emails I’ve received have confirmed this impression from other players. Carl may be the nicest, most reasonable and flexible person in the world, but I felt like I was talking to a brick wall that felt I was just getting the way. I felt like an annoyance to the head judges whenever I talked to them. They were not open and receptive to players. I guess I should have said "Carl just doesn’t SEEM to care". I bitch at Andrew Finch all the time about the Pro-Tour, and he may think I’m the most annoying person on the planet, but at least, to me, it seems that he really cares about the pro-tour and actually is concerned with what I’m saying. I think that’s an important attribute in a judge/organizer, in fact, it’s important in any service industry. Re: Not having Tradewinds in his deck. 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. ** You seem to have misunderstood me as well. I fully understand the rule. I acknowledge it had to be enforced that way. I feel the rule is too harsh. I feel that if the penalty guidelines are just "guidelines" then the head judge should be allowed to adjust the penalty if it is obviously unintentional, and non-influencing (outside of that game, which I obviously will lose). Obviously if I had 4 islands missing, it’s a different story, or even if I’ve got 16 cards in my sideboard and 59 in the deck, which may or may not be intentional. 4 Tradewinds are not the cards people remove, and it was obviously a mistake. The penalty is valid, but I think it’s too harsh in certain situations. The snow-covered land ejection is also too harsh, and leniency should be applied. 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. ** Of course not - most of them only had other English tournaments to compare it to! I heard some horrible things about GP London as well…. ** But all sarcastic remarks aside - you’re absolutely correct. I was particularly unfortunate, though my mailbox suggests that many people also had a horrible time. I’m sure many people had a fine time, but I think everyone could have had a better one. Matthew Vienneau mattv99@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com