Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

The point I was trying to make was what do we do if both players are being dishonest with the judge, but really only one of them gains advantage from this? I feel that if both players are lying to a tournament official then both players should be DQ'd, but now it requires that a player must gain an advantage when giving a cheating infraction. In the example I gave I would personally like to DQ both parties for lying, but would that actually be proper if only Alex gains an advantage?

To be honest, I asked the question with a two-fold purpose. Both go to the point of how to investigate a DQ. As noted…

(1) Written policy doesn't actually require the players to report the match results as played. As such, the players aren't violating any written policy by reporting 2-0 instead of 2-1. (I agree with Carter though; this should absolutely be written in policy and clear for both the players to understand and judges to consistently enforce.)

(2) Lying to a judge is always bad, and it is behavior we should absolutely discourage. There are probably advantages to be gained via lying, as well as detriments to be avoided, but lying to a judge is especially problematic behavior that needs to be addressed very seriously.

…but even underlying all that is still understanding why the players lied. Yes, they clearly lied in your original scenario. But the why is at least as important as the what here. And understanding why the players lied to you might help with proper education in this situation, or even down the road. So, even if you do have to DQ the players in this situation, you can also help them understand what they should do in the future.

If pressed in a courtroom to define the advantage gained by Bob as a result
of agreeing to the altered match result, I would state it as “the gaining
of a willing co-conspirator should the situation be reversed in the
future.” Such advantage can only be reversed with a disqualification of
both players.

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then
their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to
destroy.”
– Christopher Dawson

First, a HUGE caveat: it's not always lying, and sometimes judges leap to the wrong conclusions. Players will change their stories at times, as they remember different details, understand your questions better, etc. Also, two players can both be telling (their version of) the truth, yet not agree - making it seem that one must be lying.

So, the most important point to make on this? Be careful with this. Here's a video of a Kevin Desprez seminar:Investigations

However, if you are certain they are lying, DQ. It's not our burden to discover the advantage they seem to think they'll gain. In fact, in the rare case that the person has no reason to lie other than they're some sort of pathological liar - you're still better off without them in the event. Although I'd probably start by notifying security! :)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

However, if you are certain they are lying, DQ. It's not our burden to discover the advantage they seem to think they'll gain.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in cases of lying to officials (as opposed to breaking any other rules) the second prong of the test under the definition of the Unsporting Conduct–Cheating infraction is in fact void of substance (or at the very least is always presumed to be satisfied). If that is the case, I would suggest that, for clarity's sake, lying to an official be made into a separate infraction, as the test is now substantially different from the one for other types of cheating.

Just so we are clear, if A wins Game 3 of a match against B, and then asks B to report the match as 2-0, BOTH should be DQ'd for cheating?

Also, suppose A wins Game 3 of a match against B, and then B asks for, and miraculously gains the concession from A, should both be DQ'd for cheating for reporting it 2-1 in B's favor? If not, how is this situation all that much different? What if they report it as B winning 2-0?

Also, for what its worth, example A of USC-Cheating in the IPG states: “A player alters the results of a match after the match is over.” The obvious question: Is 2-0 a different result than 2-1? If it is a different result (and I don't know the answer to this question), then it seems that there is no real argument about it. If it isn't considered a different result, why isn't it?

It seems that we all agree on the policy that we don't want players lying to judges, and we want players reporting matches according to what actually happened. My only qualm is DQ'ing the losing player. I would bet that most opponents could really care less about winning 1 game or 0 games in a match since it has very little effect on their tournament. I would also contest that player B in these situations is really gaining any advantage. The reality is that, except in cut throat and hostile matches, most players are pretty nice, and would likely be willing to report the match any way their opponent wants. I know I have seen a not insignificant number of matches in which the loser signs a blank slip and then walks away. I would be very hesitant to DQ a player who really isn't gaining any tangible advantage.

TL;DR: I would be hesitant to DQ a player who isn't gaining some real advantage, and not some abstract hope for reciprocity.

Edit: Also, the MTR says that “A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out.” This makes me think that you aren't actually altering the results of a match until the slip is handed in since the match isn't over yet.

Edited David Kanaan (March 28, 2013 10:28:41 PM)

On Fri Mar 29 02:40, David Kanaan wrote:
> Just so we are clear, if A wins Game 3 of a match against B, and then asks B to report the match as 2-0, BOTH should be DQ'd for cheating?
>
> Also, suppose A wins Game 3 of a match against B, and then B asks for, and miraculously gains the concession from A, should both be DQ'd for cheating for reporting it 2-1 in B's favor? If not, how is this situation all that much different? What if they report it as B winning 2-0?

I can't see reporting something other than the table result as anything but a
concession. The MTR require a concession in a match in which the loser has won
a game to be reported 2-1. Therefore, your legal results once you have played
all 3 games are: the table results (2-1 or 1-2), either player conceding (2-1
or 1-2) or an intentional draw (0-0-3). This is how those are different.

The reason that 2-0 is a different result from 2-1 is because it affects the
tie-breakers of both players.

Matt

Originally posted by David Kanaan:

Edit: Also, the MTR says that “A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out.” This makes me think that you aren't actually altering the results of a match until the slip is handed in since the match isn't over yet.

That is correct. The example from the MIPG is really meant to cover a situation where one player would change the match slip after it has been signed by both players. So, if both players sign 2-1, and then the winning player walks away from the table and changes it to 2-0 before actually handing in the slip, that's problematic. (Or they agree to an ID, and the one player changes it to 2-0.)

While I agree with Matthew's points, that again is not what the MTR currently states or an interpretation that should be supported. A concession is not the same as playing out the match and simply changing the result that is reported. (Especially not be the normal English meaning of the word.) If that is also unclear, then I think it does point to clarification of the language in the MTR.

On Fri Mar 29 11:56, Brian Schenck wrote:
> While I agree with Matthew's points, that again is not what the MTR currently states or an interpretation that should be supported. A concession is not the same as playing out the match and simply changing the result that is reported. (Especially not be the normal English meaning of the word.) If that is also unclear, then I think it does point to clarification of the language in the MTR.

If they are not reporting the result actually achieved at the table, how can it be anything other than a concession?

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

If they are not reporting the result actually achieved at the table, how can it be anything other than a concession?

Because they aren't reporting any outcome for that third game. 2-1 is fundamentally different than 2-0. In order to concede any game you have to report someone as winning or someone as losing. In which case, an actual concession of that game would mean the match result is 3-0.

Otherwise, 2-0 means that a game result isn't being reported. Per the reported match score, it wasn't conceded, it wasn't lost, it wasn't won. It was as if it wasn't played at all.

Or, to be more specific to the original scenario, the match was 1-1 prior
to this; a concession *makes the match result 2-1*. So when the players
choose to lie about this and claim the match was 2-0 when we know better,
what are we to do about it?

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then
their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to
destroy.”
– Christopher Dawson

Originally posted by Dominick Riesland:

Or, to be more specific to the original scenario, the match was 1-1 prior to this; a concession *makes the match result 2-1*. So when the players choose to lie about this and claim the match was 2-0 when we know better, what are we to do about it?

I see no concession in the original scenario…

“Alex ends up beating Bob in 3 games. When reporting Alex was entering the result as 2-1 and then quickly changes it to 2-0 in an attempt to gain an advantage (albiet small) in tiebreakers.”

…the players are only misreporting the results of the match, and then lying to the judge about the actual results of the match versus the reported results.

On Sat Mar 30 12:45, Brian Schenck wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

If they are not reporting the result actually achieved at the table, how can it be anything other than a concession?

>
> Because they aren't reporting any outcome for that third game. 2-1 is fundamentally different than 2-0. In order to concede any game you have to report someone as winning or someone as losing. In which case, an actual concession of that game would mean the match result is 3-0.
>
> Otherwise, 2-0 means that a game result isn't being reported. Per the reported match score, it wasn't conceded, it wasn't lost, it wasn't won. It was as if it wasn't played at all.

It's a concession of _the match_, not a single game (which is clearly a concept, since you can concede the match 2-0 after playing 0 games. What you can't do is concece it 2-0 after both players have won a game. Which is what they are trying to do here

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

It's a concession of _the match_, not a single game (which is clearly a concept, since you can concede the match 2-0 after playing 0 games. What you can't do is concece it 2-0 after both players have won a game. Which is what they are trying to do here

Matt, I cannot agree with your characterization of Cris's original scenario. However, I feel that is beating a dead horse at this point, and that it is getting off track from any real discussion on the clarity of policy or even an approach to the situation.

I pretty much agree with everything Brian has said, including the “dead horse” part. Time to close the thread, I think.