Ladies and Gentlemen - A Moment

[Zadok001]

"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."

I haven't been entirely clear... I'm not arguing in favor of or against Ed Fear. I don't care if he cheated or not. I know he had an extra card in his hand. Yes, he should be punished for that. Yes, the DCI has the right to punish him.

No, it does NOT appear that the DCI followed due course in their investigation - That's where I get involved. I don't care about the event itself, I care about the response to the event.

 

[Spiderman]

Zadok said this a couple of posts back:

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?

This whole section seems to ask whether the reader thinks he was cheating or not, which is why I mentioned the intent thing.

So from your previous post, if the intent doesn't matter and "we" seem to be agreed that he had an extra card in his hand, under the rules he was cheating. So no dispute there.

If the question is truly "Did the DCI not follow/circumvent the due process" (kinda like Clinton's pardon of Rich ), then MY question is: What the heck is "due process"? If this is the matter that needs investigating, then I say go for it. More information can't hurt...

 

[Duel]

Right my two cents, now.

When Zadok approached me IRL to look at Ed Fear's problem, I agreed with him in this respect:

Whether or not Ed Fear cheated is immaterial. There are, in fact, 2 relevant points

1: His punishment seems out of proportion to his crime. Especially considering that he does, in fact, have a good record. Look at mike long. Look at Pro Tour Paris.

2: The method the DCI handled this in is suspicious. Everyone says "not due process" what they mean is "it seems like they're picking on him" and it does. The fact that no punishment was issued until a good while after, and that the judge in charge seemed rather convinced he was guilty, not to mention the disproportionate punishment, compared to the punishment that took place at the game.

ON THE OTHER HAND:
Several points that the fear-supporters bring up are immaterial or worse, misleading.
For instance:

Whether he was winning or losing the game is not a matter for speculation. Magic is a game of comebacks. In fact, if he was losing, I think it's moe likely he'd cheat. What's he got to lose? They're only helping the DCI.

Whether it was accidental is, similarly, not a matter we can actually determine. You can point out suspicious circumnstances and clean records all you want, the only person who knows whether he meant to or not is Ed Fear. And I don't trust him to be unbaised. Nothing against him, I simply assume that with his ass on the line, he'll try and save it. I may be wrong, but I can't be sure.

Ribbon Snake goes along with the first point, though there's more on this later.

Matters for your consideration:
WHO SAW THE GAME?
They point out "asian observers". Who were they? What did they see? What did they tell the DCI? What is their relationship to Mr. Fear and his opponent, or to Donais?

WHO THE HELL WAS RECORDING IT?
SOMEONE has to know whether or not there was a Ribbon Snake in play. I don't think that it matters whether it was or not. But a discrepency on so concrete an issue is worrisome.

And finally.
The DCI is good. It is smart. It is well-run. It is NOT perfect. It IS composed of humans. The roman saying Fear used (Originally phrased "Who will watch thw watchman?") is appropriate. But is this really an issue. find all facts before voting. If you need convincing on this issue see florida....

 

[Spiderman]

1: His punishment seems out of proportion to his crime. Especially considering that he does, in fact, have a good record. Look at mike long. Look at Pro Tour Paris.

IMHO, Mike Long is irrelevant to this UNLESS it has been shown that he too was caught with an EXTRA card in hand and the punishment can be noted. Otherwise, it's comparing apples to oranges.

Don't know anything about PT Paris.

2: The method the DCI handled this in is suspicious. Everyone says "not due process" what they mean is "it seems like they're picking on him" and it does. The fact that no punishment was issued until a good while after, and that the judge in charge seemed rather convinced he was guilty, not to mention the disproportionate punishment, compared to the punishment that took place at the game

I'm inclined to disregard this as well until more info is forthcoming. I agree it looks like he was "picked on", but again, we only have his transcripts (and thus only ONE SIDE) to go on. Perhaps the opponent's version is much the same way, question-wise (obviously he is not the one in the hot seat, so he's not going to get questions like "What were you thinking, having an extra card in your hand/sideboard on table"). This might become relevant (or more info is needed) is it can be shown that in other DCI investigations such questions were NOT asked of alleged transgressors; only Fear got the "special treatment".

Bottom line: Need more info. Period.

 

[olwen]

Ed Fear has posted a retract on mindripper today.

 

[Duel]

Well, that's awfully, uh, confusing.

Apparently, he confesses that the evidence was substantial, and he can see how they came to thir conclusion, but protests that he did not cheat. Okay, I guess I can accept that.

 

[Spiderman]

I'd like to see what was considered "substantial evidence" but that's probably not possible.

Zadok: Does this change the investigation in any way? Fear now admits that the DCI did a "good job" or whatever... the only issue now might be if it was excessive punishment, but with still no real data of past offenses and punishments, it's hard to judge.

 

[Rando]

I think that he probably did not acctually change his mind, but is looking to his future.

He may have realized that he does not want to piss off the DCI too much in between now and when his ban is up in one year.

Notice how he now says that the DCI did a good job, but still professes his inocence? I think he is just snow-balling and covering himself for later.

You don't want the DCI to have a grudge against you...

 

[Zadok001]

I think this basically removes the need for the investigation - Without Mr. Fear himself, what's the point? I trust his judgement, and if he thinks the DCI had enough evidence, then I must conclude they did. I don't know what that evidence could have been, but I suppose if it convinced the one guy with a VERY good reason to argue, it would convince me as well.

 

[Duel]

Just a note, because I love sewing dissent, and besides, this should be said
Ed Fear had a good reason to argue, he also, as rando pointed out, has good reason to shut up about it. It doesn't change anything.

 

[Spiderman]

You guys certainly are paranoid/pessimistic...

While that is a possibility, then why bring up the whole mess to begin with? My inclination is that Fear felt he was being railroaded because he wasn't being given the full story/evidence on his case. He was then given that information in his meeting and realized that there WAS a strong case against him. Declaring he wasn't a cheater is fine; I don't know the guy and I still don't have an outside account, but I was inclined to believe him and view it as an honest mistake.

So until we are ever given the full account of the investigation, I think it DOES change everything. So far the DCI is acting "fairly" and not one-sided...

I still agree with one of the points that it should be a separate entity independent from WOTC though...

 

[Rando]

Absolutly.

I think it is akin to Wilson, (those that make the balls) and Pepsi, (a large chunk of the advertising money) suplying the Ref's at a NFL game.