Ladies and Gentlemen - A Moment

Discussion in 'CPA/WOTC Magic Issues' started by Zadok001, Feb 12, 2001.

  1. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Seems to me the DCI wanted to show the Magic-playing community that -- after years of going easy on shady play -- they are now going to "be tough on crime."

    Fine with me.
    Too bad for Ed Fear, that he was among the first to suffer from the DCI's hardcore rules enforcement policy.

    There has been much made of Mr. Fear's being made a "pariah." If he is indeed a pariah, it is his own doing; I never heard a thing about this case before the Mindripper.com article.

    And there is no question that he's guilty as charged. Cheating is cheating, accidental or not. One would hope that this harsh punishment will at least be a deterrent to would-be cheaters henceforth.

    That said, I also think that a one-year suspension from all DCI-sanctioned play is certainly excessive for what happened. A suspension from pro-level (PTQ, Grand Prix, Pro Tour, Masters Series, etc) play would have been appropriate and more than sufficiently punitive.
    I would recommend commuting the sentence to a Pro Circuit banning, if my recommendation mattered.

    Nevertheless, with nothing to go on, other than what Mr. Fear himself gave us, I am in no position to judge.

    So there I stand.
  2. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    I`ve no idea if Ed is guilty or not. Whenever I`ve met him he`s seemed okay, but I did hear some nasty things from people who met him during GP:Manchester. But all that`s by-the-by.

    I just don`t see how The CPA can consider an event such as this, involving a professional magic player and the regulating body for competitive magic, to be within it`s normal remit for launching a jihad. The DCI is a fantastic organisation that gets 99.999999% of it`s decisions correct and they work really REALLY hard to do so, and to jump up and down and make a fuss when they get a single thing wrong is peevish. Referees get a hard time in any sport, I had no sympathy at all for them until I started playing football (soccer, to you) competitively and I realised then just how much the players get fed up with poor decisions. A little distance is a good thing and offers perspective. I think the DCI have the hardest job in Magic, and they do it very well. Cut them some slack. if there`s anything wrong with the decision then you can be sure that the other members of the Pro community will put pressure on the DCI to reconsider their decision, and that will certainly be far more likely to have an impact on the DCI than any number of angry emails from the sticks.
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I was actually wondering about that too; is this really under the CPA's "jurisdiction"? I mean, the only reason Zadok gives is that we are "representive of all players" but are we really? We have a couple Pro's and some aspiring Pros (and some just partaking in tournaments), but I thought we were mostly "play with any 'ol card you can".

    In other words, I remember the CPA pushing for more multiplayer-playable cards, not more tournament-playable cards. Is this out of our scope?
  4. Duster Protection from Idiots

    Am I wrong in saying that Mike Long has cheated more blatently than this, and gotten off easier than this in the past?

    If so, the DCI's lacking consistency in a bad way. Maybe it should be brought to their attention that there is a large group of very concerned players.

    S'all,
    Dustin
  5. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I'm not familiar with what exactly IS cheating and the corresponding punishments under the DCI, but it seems logical that different infractions merit different punishments. In which case, you'd have to find an example of Long having an extra card in his hand for this to be comparable. Weird shuffling seems to merit a month suspension...
  6. terzarima New Member

    What's this? A call to arms?

    Dude, we should contact our resident DCI member, what's his name again? Anyway, yes I agree with everyone that this punishment is excessive and unfair, What kind of tournament was this anyway? A ban I could see like this only on the pro tour, but if its a Qualifier for the tour, I would only slap down a punishment of not going into the tour, small local sanctioned tournaments would be fine.

    Mr. Fear (I know a guy with a last name of Necro...) shouldn't have been suspeneded for a year. IMHO
  7. Rando Freaky Bear

    OK, how many of us here are actually members in the DCI?

    I'm #425285**.

    (I decided to leave off the last two digits so no one would go and look up my worthless ranking)
  8. FrigginRizzo New Member

    DCI # 22519306

    Have a blast.

    Current ratings for next update:

    Limited: 1715 or so (Formerly 1588)
    Team Limited: 1579
    Constructed: 1562 (Formerly 1471. Wow.)
    Composite: 1633 or so (Formerly 1535)

    I'm not very good at Magic (although I have my moments: 2 T8 in 2 months in 2 different formats), but, hey, I try, just like all y'all.

    Tip: don't be ashamed of your ratings. Well, a little maybe.

    Also, I've never been given a game loss (that I can remember), but I did draw a card when I went first a couple of times. Does that mean the next time I do that I will be kicked for a year? Ed's punishment seems excessive, but I still can't find my way to believing him even after he posted another explanation. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

    -John Friggin' Rizzo

    Wear your rating with pride. Or at least a nice summer dress.
  9. Mundungu grumpier than ever

    DCI # 82757333
    limited 1618
    constructed 1624
    composite 1621

    (only played minor events)

    I thought that the original question from Zadok was if the CPA should consider this kind of matter or not, because DCI was involved.

    I personally think not, and have no comment on that particular event.
  10. Daggertooth The Rune Master

    DCI # 32721607

    Limited 1588
    Composite 1594

    Total Events: 3


    I'm not sure what that all means, but I hope its good.

    That referee comparison makes too much sence. I was a referee and took alot of crap. In fact once I got so fed up with the coaches yelling at me that I lost my cool, yelled at him, and nearly kicked him out of the game. Thats soccer for you. I still say that the punishment was a bit too severe. but thats for the juge to call.

    Daggertooth
  11. Mars New Member

    The next time you play Magic, or ANY time you play Magic, keep your 15 or 16 (that's for the cheating scumbags) sideboard cards on the OPPOSITE side of where you keep your graveyard/library/(allegedly) removed-from-game piles.

    Is that so hard?

    With six Pro Tours under his belt, Ed should have known that and done that. Heck, I've been doing that since day one. And if your opponent doesn't do that....ASK him to do so, AFTER you've counted his 15 sideboard cards to make sure they're only 15, of course, which I hope you're doing anyway. Or have him do it. Then do it yourself anyway.

    This is such a NON-issue to me, but a good lesson, nevertheless.

    Crikey, I'm having a hard enough time figuring out how to beat Recoil+Undermine+Y. Agenda in IBC, I need this whole damn controversy like a hole in the head. Peace, Magic Bros.

    Greg Smith
    Proud Member of Team Hacked (Vasco Da Gama is our Ayatollah)
    Proud Member as "Mars" at the CPA Alliance
  12. Rando Freaky Bear

  13. Ransac CPA Trash Man

    806361.


    I don't have a great record, but I am pleased with it.



    Ransac, cpa trash man
  14. Apollo Bird Boy

    I'm a member, but I've only attended two Magic events and some MLB Showdown events. I haven't the slightest clue what my rating would be.

    Anyway, to those who think cheating is cheating no matter what, who hasn't made a silly mistake? True, it's the Pro Tour, but that's why it's a match loss and not a "go ahead and take that back."
  15. Zadok001 CPA Founder, Greater Good

    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?
  16. Apollo Bird Boy

    But we don't know that the DCI's process was flawed. We don't know that your scenario is correct (by the way, it should have been a 5-yard penalty:)). For all we know, Mr. Weber did testify, said that Ed was cheating, and they aren't talking about it because Weber didn't want Ed to know he ratted. Who knows? Of course, if they did reveal all of their sources, everything would be cleared up in that regard. But maybe they have their reasons. Maybe they're actually trying not to publicly humiliate Mr. Fear.

    But please, do your investigation. If you did manage to clear everything up, that would be great. I wish you luck.
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    This thread went over two pages... now I'm gonna have to write down my thoughts to each person, like I did on the Dojo boards, 'cause I hate waiting to open up a new window ;)

    Anyway, I have no idea what my DCI number or my ranking is. It was so far back though, I'm probably at or below the minimum points they give you when you first join (they DO give you points, right? :))

    Off-topic to Daggertooth: I don't know about high school, but pre-high school sports seem to becoming more "dangerous" in that more confrontations are happening between coaches and parents. A lot of communities seem to be looking at passing laws to prevent any kind of noise from the sidelines, whether it be cheering or booing, to try to cut down on that. Crazy... parents need to chill out, IMHO.

    FrigginRizzo: I just gotta say that your replies and that interview that Chaos Turtle linked to on the front page are always a hoot :)

    Zadok: I don't know if it's an exact parallel, but Waylay was a card-type situation and this seems to be a player/tourney behavior situation. I understand that it seems the DCI was/is behaving unfairly (at least in this case). However, like FrigginRizzo and some others have mentioned, I don't think intent of cheating should even be an issue. Fear had an extra card in his hand, he gets penalized. Bam, period. Whether or not he accidently mixed his sideboard with his deck, whether or not he was losing and the card was not going to win him the game, shouldn't matter. I would say the only thing that seems out of whack is the penalty of a year's suspension, and like I said before, a history of preceeding punishments for similiar (and not so similiar) infractions would be useful.

    As a side note, seeing how Gizmo mentioned that the DCI usually is correct in most situations, a history of such situations might also be useful. Seems like you have your work cut out for you :) Good luck and I do think this is a good issue, whether we decide to tackle it or not.

    Apollo: Pretty much agree with what you said, just that some of what I was going to say got blended in to Zadok above. So right on, dude! :)
  18. Rando Freaky Bear

    Always willing to stir up some drama, I offer my services to this investigation in any capacity. Just say the word and assign me a job, Cap'n.

    As I said, I also do not care if he is guilty or not. It's the actions of the DCI that concern me.
  19. rkoelsch Angel Boy

    lets separte this into issues:
    #1 should the CPA be involved? While we are dedicated to casual play we are establishing ourselves as a site with some serious and relevant content. As our reputation grows I think it is unavoidable that we should involve ourselves in anything that would affect the future of the game. Therefore I think we should be involved.

    #2 was the investigation accurate? I have not done one nor would I have the time to adequately research this. I will leave this to those with more drive or time.

    #3 was the punishment harsh? lets compare it to boxing. When Mike Tyson bite that other boxer's ear did you feel his punishment was excessive. What had he done wrong. He had circumvented the rules to win. What was Ed accused of? He was circumventing the rules to win. I think those more competetive among us would agree that they would rather lose $10,000 to a player with a better deck than to a player whose sleight of hand tricks allowed them to overcome their decks deficiencies. So I do not think the punishment to harsh.
  20. Apollo Bird Boy

    Rkoelsch: interesting comparison. There's a slight difference between drawing an extra card and trying to eat the other person's ear, though.:)

Share This Page