My question here is would a DQ for an individual change the outcome of the match? Couldn't we/shouldn't we leave the results as is and have the Top 8 continue? Finish our investigation and do appropriate paperwork while the event is continuing? In my many years of judging I can only recall one instance where to outcome of a match was later overturned by an investigation and I believe the I need attention/investigation flag had actually been raised before match results were recorded in that case.

Edited Jim Shuman (Jan. 29, 2014 03:52:13 PM)

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

In the overwhelming majority of routine non-DQ investigations, you have only player testimony. And often that testimony is hazy or doesn't match between players, even if neither one is actually lying to you. So you use your judgement and determine whose story (or which parts of each story) make the most sense. Then you make a decision based on that determination.

I guess it's the point here. As said by Caue Hattori (L2 from São Paulo) - on our local mailing list - we need to end the investigation with a boolean output: 0 or 1. We need to make a decision. We need to use the information to make a decision. We cannot just say ‘I can’t determine what in fact happened, so I won't do anything'. I think it's the worst decision (or lack of decision) here.

Joaquín Pérez
Most players are genuinely ignorant about the fact that rolling a die is strictly forbidden

We cannot use this to guide our judgement, as Marshall said already. It's very complicated. We can turn things and ask it differently: ‘if you don’t know the rules, why do you thought it was ok to do that? why don't you called a judge and asked about that?'. We need to encourage players to call a judge before doing something they don't know whether it is appropriate or correct.

Eric Levine
We are not inquisitors. Asking someone the same question over and over again, regardless of their innocence/guilt, will eventually get them to change their story. I have seen judges new to investigations try this tactic before. Please do not do that.

Some judges here said they would use ‘those tactics’ until ‘some player mess up and get DQed’. It sounds like a ‘school’ (line of thought) when talking about investigations.

Originally posted by Vinicius Quaiato:

‘if you don’t know the rules, why do you thought it was ok to do that? why don't you called a judge and asked about that?'. We need to encourage players to call a judge before doing something they don't know whether it is appropriate or correct.

THIS!

d:^D

We cannot just say ‘I can’t determine what in fact happened, so I won't do anything'. I think it's the worst decision (or lack of decision) here.
——-

I strongly disagree. There are MANY instances in which you are unable to determine what in fact happened, and when these occur, you should do nothing. (Well, you might still give stern talks, but you shouldn't DQ anyone).

Too many people seem to be making this thing “either 1 or 0”, or “black or white”, or “yes or no”, when the reality is that it can easily be somewhere in between. Don't exclude the middle ground possibility. And even it it were perfectly on one side, don't automatically assume that you will be able to find out which side it's on.

Doing nothing isn't necessarily a lack of decision; you can decide to do nothing because other decisions are not well-justified. I would argue that knowing how to decide NOT to DQ a player is at least as important as knowing how to decide to DQ him. As a matter of fact, I'd wish more judges would look as hard for evidence to destroy the DQ as they do for evidence to support the DQ. Think of the evidence you'd need to exonerate the player, then try to go find it as diligently as you do when you're looking for bad stuff. You might be surprised at how often you find the good stuff :) It's a 2-way street, and you have an obligation to look both ways…

Eric Shukan
Player Investigations Lead

Originally posted by Vinicius Quaiato:

We can turn things and ask it differently: ‘if you don’t know the rules, why do you thought it was ok to do that? why don't you called a judge and asked about that?'. We need to encourage players to call a judge before doing something they don't know whether it is appropriate or correct.

+1, Like, Upvote

This is good to include in the opening announcements at any level! “If you are unsure how something works, raise your hand, call for a judge, and keep your hand raised so we can find you. We are here to help you.”

1. They're either not listening to the opening announcements or disregarded them (neither of which are appreciated!)
2. They're not looking to use judges as a resource or to make sure things are ok. These are not people you really want in your event.

Sure, there are occasionally players that have never heard rolling a dice or offering packs for a win are bad. There's a hard lesson there for things we can't tolerate at all. But being on the receiving end of the offer should feel weird. When things are weird, players should call a judge, and we give them that out- it's how to not get DQ'd when your opponent offers to do something bad.

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

Doing nothing isn't necessarily a lack of decision; you can decide to do nothing because other decisions are not well-justified. I would argue that knowing how to decide NOT to DQ a player is at least as important as knowing how to decide to DQ him. As a matter of fact, I'd wish more judges would look as hard for evidence to destroy the DQ as they do for evidence to support the DQ. Think of the evidence you'd need to exonerate the player, then try to go find it as diligently as you do when you're looking for bad stuff. You might be surprised at how often you find the good stuff :) It's a 2-way street, and you have an obligation to look both ways…

That sounds like a good idea for an article… already written! Included for reference:

How to NOT DQ a player

Eric brings up a good point that is something to think about: You could DQ an innocent player because things appear bad and you don't have the facts. You could not DQ a guilty player based on not having enough facts to justify it. I'm not going to conjecture philosophically which is worse. When you're in the HJ seat, do what you think is best for the tournament's integrity.

Greetings…

There are many instances where a ruling judge may not have “concrete evidence” in a situation - we do not expect the ruling judge to act in the manner of “I don't have enough information, just carry on”. In fact, the entire reasons for investigations (DQ and non-DQ) is to give us enough information to make a judgement.

Consider - you approach a table at a Competitive REL event and notice that there is a life total discrepancy. You hold play and begin to investigate what the life-totals should be at. Both players have differing accounts of the actions taken in the past few turns. You cannot, in this case, simply decide “I can't determine what happened, so I won't do anything”; you, in fact, have to make some decision as to the correct state of the game.

In these cases, even with your limited knowledge, you have to determine what scenario seems to be the most likely proper, adjust the game state accordingly, and move on.

In my opinion, this is no different.

Regardless of the amount of information, or lack thereof, it is the position of the Head Judge to make an assessment. What seems to be the most likely set of occurrences to have happened.

In this case, we have definite information that Adam performed an infraction. He either did not report an attempt to IDaW, or he is lying. Regardless of the outcome of the infraction is, the Head Judge has to make a determination as to which he feels is the most proper determination.

In this case, with the information presented, I could not tell you what I would do. I did not perform the investigation. I didn't get to see the body language, hear the inflections, or even recall what I know about the player(s) actions in the tournament in the prior round. There is more information gained than just statements made.

The end result in this case is one of two things, in my opinion:
1. Adam is properly educated that Lying to a Judge is never an appropriate action. He is issued a DQ. When informing him of his right to make a statement, I would be happy to advise him to add any information that feels is necessary to explain why he thinks I am making the incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.

2. Both players are properly educated that Improperly Determining a Winner includes any attempt to do so. Both are issued a DQ. When informing them of their right to make a statement, I am happy to advise both of the them to add any information that they feel is necessary to explain why they think I am making an incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.

At most events that I Head Judge, I am not table-locked. I walk around, interact with players, judges, and spectators. I make it evident that I am (and the rest of the judge staff) is there to be called on whenever there is any type of confusion or issue. This permits me (and the rest of the judge staff) the opportunity to get some personal insights on the players at the tournament. This assists in making assessments of player actions.

Personally, I don't look for reasons to DQ a player. In fact, I try very hard to look for reasons why that player should not be Disqualified. In all DQ investigations that I have made to this point, the player has (advertently, or inadvertently) given me all the information I need in order to make (what I feel is) a proper determination.

Until that time…

Evan, you are the MAN!
—– Original Message —–
From: Evan Cherry
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: DQ or not DQ after the last swiss round of PTQ (Competitive REL)



Eric Shukan
Doing nothing isn't necessarily a lack of decision; you can decide to do nothing because other decisions are not well-justified. I would argue that knowing how to decide NOT to DQ a player is at least as important as knowing how to decide to DQ him. As a matter of fact, I'd wish more judges would look as hard for evidence to destroy the DQ as they do for evidence to support the DQ. Think of the evidence you'd need to exonerate the player, then try to go find it as diligently as you do when you're looking for bad stuff. You might be surprised at how often you find the good stuff :) It's a 2-way street, and you have an obligation to look both ways…

That sounds like a good idea for an article… already written! Included for reference:

How to NOT DQ a player

Eric brings up a good point that is something to think about: You could DQ an innocent player because things appear bad and you don't have the facts. You could not DQ a guilty player based on not having enough facts to justify it. I'm not going to conjecture philosophically which is worse. When you're in the HJ seat, do what you think is best for the tournament's integrity.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/551400/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8179/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8179/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

The end result in this case is one of two things, in my opinion:
1. Adam is properly educated that Lying to a Judge is never an appropriate action. He is issued a DQ. When informing him of his right to make a statement, I would be happy to advise him to add any information that feels is necessary to explain why he thinks I am making the incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.

2. Both players are properly educated that Improperly Determining a Winner includes any attempt to do so. Both are issued a DQ. When informing them of their right to make a statement, I am happy to advise both of the them to add any information that they feel is necessary to explain why they think I am making an incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.
———————————————
Except in real life sometimes you get this from the other guy:

“Yeah, after we signed the slip at 1-1-1 and we were walking away, I told him ‘Too bad this wasn’t YuGiOh where we could roll for the win.' But I sure as heck never suggested or offered that we should roll!”

Then you go back and talk to the first guy again and he says, “Well, he said something about rolling for the win, and it sounded like he wanted to roll for it; He did mention YuGiOh, but I think he asked me to roll. I don't remember if it was before or after we signed the slip, ‘cause I wasn’t listening that closely. But I heard you guys say just now that rolling was bad, so I figured I'd let you know, ‘cause I don’t want to get in trouble.”

Now what? Notice that all of this was summarized in the first guy's report of “That guy I just finished playing asked me to roll for the win.” Are you still sure that #1 or #2 above is correct? Are you sure that the first player should be DQ'ed for not notifying a judge right away? Because if his opponent didn't offer, then he doesn't get DQ'ed for that.

So, now you decide NOT to DQ anyone. Because the first guy was trying to do what he thought was right, but he misinterpreted what happened. So, he's not lying. And the other guy didn't offer. So you DON'T DQ anyone, right?

Seems like the end of it right? No DQ, good decision… BUUUUUT. What REALLY might have happened was that the second guy DID really offer to roll, and he used the YuGiOh to hide it - a premeditated attempt to offer to roll, very bad. And in the resulting investigation the first guy got confused and couldn't really remember, so his uncertainly led you to NOT DQ anyone. BUUUUT. Maybe the second guy really DIDN'T offer to roll, and the first guy just got confused.

You see: if the first guy is slightly confused, you have a real problem here as to what to do, and you have no way to solve it except one - do nothing (meaning no DQ's). The second guy might have offered or he might not, but in either case you are not going to be able to get enough info about it.

It's just not as simple as “yes” or “no” in many cases. You have two things going on here:
a) what REALLY happened
b) what you are able to determine about what really happened

Sometimes b) limits you to the point that you don't have enough information to justify a DQ, and so you decide to do nothing. Note that this can happen regardless of a)'s value.

Eric S.

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

We cannot just say ‘I can’t determine what in fact happened, so I won't do anything'. I think it's the worst decision (or lack of decision) here.
——-

I strongly disagree. There are MANY instances in which you are unable to determine what in fact happened, and when these occur, you should do nothing. (Well, you might still give stern talks, but you shouldn't DQ anyone).

I think I was misunderstood, perhaps due to my bad/poor English =/

What I meant to say is that you need to take an action, you need to decide something, even if that action is to not DQ anyone. But you cannot say ‘I don’t know what to do, so I will let it be…'. If something appears to be 0.5 you, as the HJ, need to make it 1 or 0. You are the HJ you cannot simply say ‘nevermind…’

Even that the final result appears to be the same (no one will get a DQ) the intent/purpose is very, very different in each case.

If my investigation is going to be 50/50 i would rather DQ neither of those player than DQ randomly…
There are 4 possibilities:
1) DQ the person and he deserves the DQ
2) Don't DQ the person and he deserves the DQ
3) DQ the person and he doesn't deserve the DQ
4) Don't DQ the person and he doesn't deserve the DQ

If im 50/50 on DQ or not DQ i cant be sure if its #1 or #3 / #2 or #4
#1 and #4 are possible, but would be random….
It is going to be interesting if we think about the other 2 situations
What are the possible actions after #2 and #3?

2) The person who deserve the DQ will likely try it again next tournament and will be catched there, if it isn't again a 50/50 dicision. (its very unlikely that it is 50/50 again)
3) The person who didn't deserve the DQ will probably lose his trust in judges in general, will never come back to any bigger magic tournament or will quit the game for ever.

I'm more happy with 2 than 3
Because of that i would not DQ anyone in such a situation

Originally posted by Patrick Morina:

3) The person who didn't deserve the DQ will probably lose his trust in judges in general, will never come back to any bigger magic tournament or will quit the game for ever.

He will also talk about how judges are an incompetent bunch of … (insert whatever suits you). At least he and his friends will start distrusting judges. People will talk about it. Eventually, they will forget, but I don't think we should want to get in such a position.
And please don't tell me this is unlikely. I've witnessed similar things for less than DQs too often.

Edited Julien de Graat (Jan. 30, 2014 10:18:48 AM)

Don't overlook the possibility that you don't DQ a guy because you can't get enough evidence and everyone is convinced they did it. They spread the word that we're “an in competent bunch of (insert whatever suits you).”

In either case, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't because of how the players choose to perceive us. Don't lose sleep over that!

I'm more concerned about this consequence (and I've seen it happen at local stores):

Guy cheats and judge doesn't do anything at all, or just lets him off with a weak warning. Players around the player are uncomfortable with the integrity of the events run and afraid no one's there to protect them from misdeeds. They stop coming to events.

3) The person who didn't deserve the DQ will probably lose his trust in judges in general, will never come back to any bigger magic tournament or will quit the game for ever.

That player took it harshly, and my guess is it's due to how the DQ was delivered. When you make your decision, stand by it firmly. You do not need to slam the hammer down. Explain why you think the player should be removed and remind them *EMPHASIZING* that their statement is their to plead their case. They do not get to play in the event anymore, but this should not be a deterrent to playing Magic in the future.

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

The end result in this case is one of two things, in my opinion:
1. Adam is properly educated that Lying to a Judge is never an appropriate action. He is issued a DQ. When informing him of his right to make a statement, I would be happy to advise him to add any information that feels is necessary to explain why he thinks I am making the incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.

2. Both players are properly educated that Improperly Determining a Winner includes any attempt to do so. Both are issued a DQ. When informing them of their right to make a statement, I am happy to advise both of the them to add any information that they feel is necessary to explain why they think I am making an incorrect assessment. My assessment, however, would stand.
———————————————
Except in real life sometimes you get this from the other guy:

“Yeah, after we signed the slip at 1-1-1 and we were walking away, I told him ‘Too bad this wasn’t YuGiOh where we could roll for the win.' But I sure as heck never suggested or offered that we should roll!”

Then you go back and talk to the first guy again and he says, “Well, he said something about rolling for the win, and it sounded like he wanted to roll for it; He did mention YuGiOh, but I think he asked me to roll. I don't remember if it was before or after we signed the slip, ‘cause I wasn’t listening that closely. But I heard you guys say just now that rolling was bad, so I figured I'd let you know, ‘cause I don’t want to get in trouble.”

Now what? Notice that all of this was summarized in the first guy's report of “That guy I just finished playing asked me to roll for the win.” Are you still sure that #1 or #2 above is correct? Are you sure that the first player should be DQ'ed for not notifying a judge right away? Because if his opponent didn't offer, then he doesn't get DQ'ed for that.

So, now you decide NOT to DQ anyone. Because the first guy was trying to do what he thought was right, but he misinterpreted what happened. So, he's not lying. And the other guy didn't offer. So you DON'T DQ anyone, right?

Seems like the end of it right? No DQ, good decision… BUUUUUT. What REALLY might have happened was that the second guy DID really offer to roll, and he used the YuGiOh to hide it - a premeditated attempt to offer to roll, very bad. And in the resulting investigation the first guy got confused and couldn't really remember, so his uncertainly led you to NOT DQ anyone. BUUUUT. Maybe the second guy really DIDN'T offer to roll, and the first guy just got confused.

You see: if the first guy is slightly confused, you have a real problem here as to what to do, and you have no way to solve it except one - do nothing (meaning no DQ's). The second guy might have offered or he might not, but in either case you are not going to be able to get enough info about it.

It's just not as simple as “yes” or “no” in many cases. You have two things going on here:
a) what REALLY happened
b) what you are able to determine about what really happened

Sometimes b) limits you to the point that you don't have enough information to justify a DQ, and so you decide to do nothing. Note that this can happen regardless of a)'s value.

Eric S.

Hence why there's a saying I remember any time I have to go into an investigation of this sort. (Fortunately, I have not.)

“There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth.” Because far too often each person's perceptions of what happened skew the actual facts of what happened.

Look for any type of commonalities, even if they're subtle. I find that it helps to bring together the facts to make the decision-making process easier for me.

I also wouldn't even ask about die-rolling at first, largely because it might alarm them, because they know its wrong. Even better yet, set up a decoy, like a friend of his/hers who could ask the questions in an environment where the player might be more comfortable, while you continue ascertaining information from the first. Not a perfect solution, but something to consider.

I learned many years ago that we shouldn't “reverse-engineer” penalties. Determine the infraction, then assess the penalty. Doing otherwise potentially compromises the event even further than the alleged action.

Originally posted by Mike Clark:

“There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth.” Because far too often each person's perceptions of what happened skew the actual facts of what happened.

I was just going to bring this up, too.