I think I reiterate myself with the statement that I don't care whether or not he cheated. It honestly doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not Ed Fear is guiltly of cheating. What _does_ matter is that the process used to decide whether he was cheating was an unfair one. Gizmo brings up a good point in that the DCI is an unusually accurate ruling body - Maybe we should cut them some slack.
But even after cutting some slack, this issue stands. This isn't the equivalent of a Ref making a bad call during a game, or of the fuling body over football rules deciding to change the requirements for a play to be considered a touchdown (say, if the ball now needed to get all the way over the line). This would be better compared as follows:
A football team has 12 players on the field (only 11 are allowed). From what can be gathered, the coach put that extra player out. No one knows whether he did it purposefully or not.
Said coach is penalized on the spot with a 10 yard penalty (not very severe). After the game, the ruling body over football rules looks into the matter a little deeper. The coach in question goes into correspondance with the ruling body, and offers himself and other witnesses to make statements. None of the offered peopel ever make statements. After several weeks, the coach is banned from football.
Confused yet? How weird would that be?
I know the analogy is not perfect, but my point is clear enough. Obviously, the 11 man rule is not as serious as I'm saying it is, so consider if it were something more severe. The point remains clear. The DCI didn't follow due course in deciding what they would do.
Re: Under CPA Jurisdiction?
First, what jurisdiction?
We aren't exactly offical.
Despite that, I think this does fall at least partially under what we should pay attention to. Remember, the CPA was formed when Waylay was errated, something that, if we stick purely to the definition of casual players, had no impact WHATSOEVER on us directly. Heck, we didn't even play in big tourneys, so it wouldn't even affect us indirectly either way it went.
Still, it led to the formation of this group. Why was Waylay errataed? Because the DCI considered it broken. R&D did the errata (which was piss-poor, btw, should have been "at the beginning of any player's turn" instead of only during combat), not the DCI, but the DCI was why it happened.
So we've reacted in the extreme to DCI activities before. That's not in question.
This kind of activity from the DCI leads me to believe that the system is flawed, and the system affects all of us. Thus, I think we should investigate further. I'm not asking for an action, not yet - But maybe later. For now, I'm just gonna dig as far as I can.
Here's a thought for the end result of this: Public knowledge. I doubt we can help Mr. Fear, the DCI has made it's choice, and they are notoriously stubborn.
Usually right, but notoriously stubborn nonetheless.
Regardless of if you think Mr. Fear was cheating, you know there are people who believe the opposite. If you think he cheated, you have me. If you think he didn't, you have Mr. Donias. So, we know there is contraversy. At this point, that contraversy is aimed like a gun with a shaky trigger, straight at the DCI. It's just a popgun, since it won't hurt them, but it's there.
Now, the next question is, do you have any doubts about your position? Are you SURE he was cheating? I'm not SURE he wasn't - He might have been! It's entirely possible. Do YOU have doubts regarding your position?
What would you think if the ALL the knowledge used by the DCI to make their choice was made public (at least in regards to bannings)? All the statements, transcripts of discussions, etc... Would you still have doubts? Of course. Would you have as many? Probably not. Isn't that a good thing?
Would the gun still be pointed at the DCI? Sure. Would it be ready to go off? Probably not. Their choice, right or wrong, would be noticed by the public. We would be at least slightly less doubtful, and slightly less aggressive. The DCI loses nothing in the proposition - They get a chance to put their spin on things if they really wanted to, to get all the evidence out in the open and clear any contraversy on the facts of events. The players lose nothing, and gain more data, which, honestly, is all we really want. If, after reading all the information, the majority of players STILL think the DCI's choice was wrong, then there is a problem! But chances are, that won't happen - If the DCI can't convince themselves, they won't make the wrong choice, not under a public spotlight.
Thoughts?
