Honor, Dignity, and a DQ

[Chaos Turtle]

I thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. At the APAC Championships this weekend, three players were disqualified for "involvement in bribery." (Read about it here.)

Now, what I want to draw attention to is not the incident itself. I don't want to debate whether there was or wasn't wrongdoing, misunderstanding, or overly harsh punishment. Instead, I want you to read Satoshi Nakamura's statement (which I have taken the liberty of reprinting below) and see how a person handles a situation like this, with honor, dignity, and some self-respect (and yes, I mean in contrast to some of the whining and carrying-on that normally accompanies such high-profile "cheating" incidents).

Ladies and gentlemen, if ever there is to be hope for Magic as a true Mind Sport, it is from gentlemen like Satoshi Nakamura.

"Peter [Chao] approached Tomoharu [Saito] the night before the finals, saying 'I have to return for work on Monday, so I am leaving on Sunday. Since I can't finish the tournament, I'm thinking about dropping. If I do, that means you'll win, so what do you think about sharing some of your prize with me?' Peter was speaking in English, and since Tomoharu doesn't understand any English, I offered to interpret what he was saying.

"Based on what Peter said, I was under the impression that regardless of whether an arrangement was made, Peter intended to leave, and that Tomoharu was guaranteed a win no matter what. When I explained this to Tomoharu, he was receptive. We did not believe that a bribe was being made, nor did we believe we were doing anything wrong. We felt that we were making a gentleman's agreement, that it was only fair that Peter receive a 'consolation prize,' as he was unable to continue playing due to circumstances beyond his control.

"Unfortunately for us, my and Tomoharu's understanding of the Penalty Guidelines was woefully insufficient. When Peter told us that he would 'tell the judges' about the situation, we thought everything was all right and told ourselves that everything must be on the level if Peter was going to talk to the tournament staff. That was a mistake. As soon as we began discussing money changing hands over a match, we were in violation of the Penalty Guidelines. Just as a murderer would still be punished even if he claimed that he didn't know killing someone was against the law, we could not defend ourselves by saying we we unfamiliar with the Penalty Guidelines.

"Tomoharu and Peter were determined to be guilty of attempted collusion. I was also found guilty, as it was my responsibility to stop them, or at least inform tournament staff of what was transpiring, as soon as I was aware of the situation. Instead, I actively promoted the infraction by acting as an interpreter. As a result, both Peter and Tomoharu have lost their hard-earned invitations to the World Championship, and all three of us have traded in our title of 'APAC Top 8 competitor' for an unscrupulous reputation.

"It is only natural that I take responsibility for my actions. I have been told that further penalties may be announced at a later time. If the DCI Penalty Committee determines that further penalties are appropriate, it is my intent to accept them without complaint. If any good comes of this situation, I hope it is that those reading this statement do not make the same mistake I have.

"A sanctioned tournament is a place where people come to determine who is the better Magic player. The Penalty Guidelines exist to ensure that matches are played fairly and with integrity. I recommend anyone who is planning on playing in a sanctioned tournement to review them and be aware of his or her responsibility as a player. Believe me when I tell you that in this case, ignorance is not bliss."

 

[Zadok001]

*clapping*

I do deeply appreciated Nakamura's response to the situation. That's honor.

(However, I will ask, who had the nerve to go and punish Hat Guy? )

 

[Spiderman]

I think the guy shows tons of class for acknowledging his role and accepting that ignorance is NOT an excuse. You know, the only other sport where you hear this kind of stuff happening is in golf.

I have a question though; I remember reading tourney reports or stories all the time about how players conceded a finals match because of time or whatever and split the prize. Is that still happening? And if so, is it different because they're already playing their games (didn't agree beforehand)?

 

[Apollo]

In the cases like you mention, usually the prize is either split without the match being played, in which case it is like an intentional draw; money is not changing hands over a match, so it is allowed. The other scenario is that the prize is split regardless of the outcome of the match, in which case the prize is not changing hands over the outcome of a match. Either way, it is perfectly legal, I believe.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

So far as I know, if a player concedes a match in exchange for prize, the players involved are colluding.

They can agree to draw the match and split the prize(s), however. This is frowned-upon at Premier Events, as WotC/DCI prefers players actually play their matches, especially in the Top 8.

A little shakier is situations where one player, as a favor to a friend, concedes a match to ensure that friend's place in the top 8, or that he qualifies for the Pro Tour, or whatever. The apparently is not illegal (Shvartsman & Moshovitz got away with it at a high-level event last year...or was it early this year?).

It's common in my area to agree to a split or a "weighted" split (in cases where 2nd place gets significantly less than 1st) before beginning a final round, then play the match anyway to determine the actual winner.

Back to the topic, I hope that DCI considers mitigating factors (full cooperation, in this case) when determining whether there will be further punishment.

 

[Spiderman]

So in this above case, because when the first player dropped meant the second player would win a future match (and thus the tourney), it's different from my cases where it's the immediate match in question?

 

[Landkiller]

The only thing that makes this seem a bit unfair is the fact that the players involved approached the tourney staff to make sure it was ok, but were dq'ed for mentioning it. That's my understanding. They should have asked more subtly. (Get a friend to ask hypothetically)

 

[Apollo]

So in this above case, because when the first player dropped meant the second player would win a future match (and thus the tourney), it's different from my cases where it's the immediate match in question?

No, your cases are different because money is not being exchanged for a match outcome. In the above case, the player dropped, conceding his top 8 match. In exchange, the player he would have faced gave him a couple thousand dollars. In your cases, the prize is split regardless of the outcome of the match. Your mistake was saying that:

I remember reading tourney reports or stories all the time about how players conceded a finals match because of time or whatever and split the prize.

See, nobody concedes; they make it an intentional draw, so nobody goes down as the winner.

 

[Spiderman]

So drawing a match where there's no winner or loser is fine; giving up a match where there's a winner and loser is not fine (where there's money/prize involved). Gotcha.