Hi all,

In the Nickel Shuffle thread and again in Scott's comment, it was mentioned how the player under suspicion spotted judges potentially watching him and adjusted his shuffling. Suppose at a GP something similar happened - you were suspicious of a player's shuffling, but they seemed to notice judges watching. What if you had a judge change out of uniform, take a bag and maybe a deckbox in hand, and hang around near the player you were investigating.

Is this going over the top to catch a potential cheater? Or is it just another potential tool in a Head Judges belt? What do people think?

Personally, if I think I can spare a judge to investigate, and I have a strong enough suspicion that I might catch something, I feel I would be willing to do this.

I would say if you feel the need to go to the lengths of doing this then
your probably sure enough that the player is cheating to at least start an
investigation. Not that this is a bad idea, but probably unnecessary in
most situations.

On Fri Jul 12 12:43, Paul Cammarata wrote:
> I would say if you feel the need to go to the lengths of doing this then
> your probably sure enough that the player is cheating to at least start an
> investigation. Not that this is a bad idea, but probably unnecessary in
> most situations.

I think the idea is that this would form part of the investigation. Certainly
the shuffling-related DQ I've been involved in did need some close observation
to work out what was going on. I was able to do that unobtrusively in that
case, but it certainly might help to keep them off-guard.

I think it's reasonable. It also stops other random players from talking to you
and asking for rulings while you're trying to watch something intricate.

Matt

This may be next leveling a bit too much, but of possible I'd use a judge that wasn't on the event staff (one who possibly dropped or just came for side events). That way all people see is another spectator hanging out, and you don't lose any official floor presence or leave any team shorthanded.

Personally, I like to divide cheating into two broad sub-categories: “Opportunity Cheating” and “Planned Cheating”. In the latter case, a player goes into a tournament with the intent to cheat in a particular manner. Those kinds of cheating are often very hard to detect and often require more than just a chat with the players involved. You have and need a broad repertoire of techniques if you suspect such a case that go beyond the usual investigation techniques of interviewing the player. I can't see any problem - moral or otherwise - with an “undercover” tournament official just watching a match.

For comparison, what if a judge on break - and dressed in “civilian” clothes - observes a DQ-able offence, while watching a match in a non-official capacity. Would it be wrong if that observation is included in a DQ investigation?

I have used “undercover judges” as part of Investigations that resulted in a DQ. It's a valid - and sometimes valuable - technique.

It's definitely not going over the top; it's a perfectly reasonable investigation technique. David's suggestion of using a judge who's not actually working the event is also a good one, particularly for smaller events where the player might reasonably recognize all of the staff.

I used this method to catch a cheater who's top-decks were always way too good. He was one of those players you knew something was fishy because he was always shoulder checking to see where I was. I didn't want to start an investigation and end up stuck with only a decklist error, I wanted him red-handed.

I positioned a couple plain-clothes judges with line of sight, and then I made sure I was clearly visible with my back turned to him. Within a minute, I got called over and caught the player with cards hidden under his leg he was palming into his hand.

We actually used this at GP Auckland—one of the local judges was unable to be on staff on Saturday due to an exam, but came and said hello to the staff anyway. After a player's shuffling alarmed the staff, and he noticed us watching him and seemingly modified his technique the off-duty judge was asked to check him out, and in fact managed to get video of the shuffles.

It turned out that the player was just bad at shuffling, and not cheating, but it was a useful thing to do.

I have no qualms with such techniques in these kinds of situations, especially at high REL's, but there is one glaring concern that comes up.

When I was a little level-0 Judgeling, my mentor taught me that we do not want players to feel like we are the “Magic Police.” In context, he was teaching me not to interfere just because something illegal *might* occur in a match I was observing, but the effect on player's psyches is broader and worth remembering. As great as it is to set up a sting operation to nab a cheater like this, we need to make sure to reduce the impact on other, rules-abiding players – and our PR – as much as possible. After all, we're a resource to players, not an adversary.

A) The “undercover” judge probably shouldn't make his presence known, even after he witnesses shenanigans. This both allows him to perform the same role later if needed and doesn't tip off other players that any spectator could be a Magic Gestapo. Instead, the undercover judge makes a beeline for someone on floor staff (who should know about the sting operation) and lets official floor staff pull the trigger on the investigation.

B) The philosophy of “Watch MtG” should continue in order to make players more comfortable with judge presence; specifically, judges watching matches without trying to “get” someone makes them more relaxed when we're around, and that's better for everyone.

C) Undercover judges should be used sparingly and with precise targets. The vast majority of Magic players have enough on their minds without worries that “Big DCI Brother is Watching You.”

Of course, there's a significant chance I'm dead wrong on this, but I wanted to share my thoughts.

Edited Benjamin Topping (July 17, 2013 11:07:40 AM)

benjamin, rules-abiding players don't mind when judges watch their matches.
if anyone ever objects to that, they are probably trying to cheat.

Or they get nervous when people watch them. Especially judges because they
spend so much extra mental energy to avoid making an unintentional game
error that they accidentally throw the game away.

Kevin

What Kevin said is a good point to make. We don't ever want to default to
a cheating assumption for something that could just as easily be them being
unable to handle the extra stressor of a judge watching their match.

Indeed, that was my main concern in my first post. It certainly isn't true that only cheaters get nervous when judges watch their match. We want to avoid detracting from a match in progress as much as possible; like I said, we're resources, not adversaries.