I'm discussing a new judge article about Outside Assistance with my fellow judge and I'm thinking about the border line of TE-OA and UC-Cheating.

As defined:

IPG3.2: Tournament Error - Outside Assistance … A player … Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others once he or she has sat for his or her match.

IPG4.8: Unsporting Conduct - Cheating … the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:
• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

So consider the following situation. (All of these situations happen in PTQs and you are the head judge.)

1) Adam was playing a match and the thing didn't go well for him. He desperately asked a spectator: “Which creature should I block that I could get out of the situation?” His opponent called a judge. After a simple investigation, you found out that Adam had well knowledge of the IPG, and he knew that seeking play advice is illegal.

Is it OA or Cheating?

2) Arnold and Steven went to a PTQ together. Steven finished his match quickly and he went to Arnold's table to watch him playing. Soon, Steven saw a bad play of Arnold's and quickly informed Arnold of it. Before Arnold could make his next play, his opponent calls a judge. During the investigation afterwards, you found that Arnold and Steven were friends, and they were well aware that giving/seeking play advice is illegal, and Steven was giving play advice intentionally.

Is it OA or Cheating for Steven? Steven actually did not gain any advantage for telling Arnold of his bad play, so it sounds failing Cheating's first criteria, but it's still a blatant violation of the rule.
For Arnold, did he commit any infraction for knowing Steven is trying to help him and not calling a judge himself? What if they had an agreement that they will ‘help’ each other in case the other is in trouble?

Thank you.

Regards,
Du Hao

Originally posted by Hao Du:

I'm discussing a new judge article about Outside Assistance with my fellow judge and I'm thinking about the border line of TE-OA and UC-Cheating.

As defined:

IPG3.2: Tournament Error - Outside Assistance … A player … Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others once he or she has sat for his or her match.

IPG4.8: Unsporting Conduct - Cheating … the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:
• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

So consider the following situation. (All of these situations happen in PTQs and you are the head judge.)

1) Adam was playing a match and the thing didn't go well for him. He desperately asked a spectator: “Which creature should I block that I could get out of the situation?” His opponent called a judge. After a simple investigation, you found out that Adam had well knowledge of the IPG, and he knew that seeking play advice is illegal.

Is it OA or Cheating?

2) Arnold and Steven went to a PTQ together. Steven finished his match quickly and he went to Arnold's table to watch him playing. Soon, Steven saw a bad play of Arnold's and quickly informed Arnold of it. Before Arnold could make his next play, his opponent calls a judge. During the investigation afterwards, you found that Arnold and Steven were friends, and they were well aware that giving/seeking play advice is illegal, and Steven was giving play advice intentionally.

Is it OA or Cheating for Steven? Steven actually did not gain any advantage for telling Arnold of his bad play, so it sounds failing Cheating's first criteria, but it's still a blatant violation of the rule.
For Arnold, did he commit any infraction for knowing Steven is trying to help him and not calling a judge himself? What if they had an agreement that they will ‘help’ each other in case the other is in trouble?

Thank you.

Regards,
Du Hao

IMHO, the 2) one is a clear OA. Supposing Arnold didn't ask for information, as defined in OA, OA applies equally to give or ask for hidden information in the middle of a match. OA-Match Loss for Steven, and (probably) been asked to not watch this match anymore (usually some distance will do).

The 1)… I'm more into OA, since everything could be thought as Cheating, but there are different categories :) However, should check MIPGs :)

The first case seems pretty clearly like Cheating to me. By his own admission, Adam knew it was illegal to ask for advice, and clearly gains advantage by doing so.

The second case is probably OA. Arnold didn't ask for play advice, and Steven, while knowing it's illegal, doesn't really gain advantage by offering it. Whether or not Arnold is in trouble will probably depend on what is discovered during investigation. By default, however, I don't believe we have any ground to penalize him based on Steven's actions.

If we find out that Arnold and Steven have agreed to help each other out like this, then we might be looking at a Cheating situation for both of them, since that seems to highlight their intent and there is unquestionably advantage gained by doing so.

For the first case it is OA. OA is a form of cheating, but its specifically defined and so we treat it with a specific set of penalties. I tend to relate OA and cheating to DEC and GPE: Any time you commit DEC you are also committing some form of GPE, its just the there a specific set of parameters that define DEC and if it fits those parameters then its considered DEC and not GPE. I tend to think the same way here. As you stated OA is “A player … Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others once he or she has sat for his or her match.” that is exactly what Adam did so its OA.

For the second case I would rule OA as well for Steven, no penalty for Arnold. Clearly an investigation is needed as Nathaniel talks about.

Every in-game infraction other than Cheating assumes the player isn't aware the action is illegal. Being aware of the illegality and doing it anyway to gain advantage is always Cheating, regardless of whatever other infraction category it could fit into. Otherwise, what's to discourage a scummy player from just going for as many GRV-level infractions he can get away with before the accumulated Warnings put him in the danger zone?

Example 2 is just OA for Steven, since he isn't gaining any advantage for himself. If the investigation also reveals that Arnold and Steven had some kind of agreement to help each other then it's Cheating for Arnold since he solicited OA while knowing it was illegal. If there was no agreement/solicitation, then nothing for Arnold.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

Every in-game infraction other than Cheating assumes the player isn't aware the action is illegal. Being aware of the illegality and doing it anyway to gain advantage is always Cheating, regardless of whatever other infraction category it could fit into. Otherwise, what's to discourage a scummy player from just going for as many GRV-level infractions he can get away with before the accumulated Warnings put him in the danger zone?

Example 2 is just OA for Steven, since he isn't gaining any advantage for himself. If the investigation also reveals that Arnold and Steven had some kind of agreement to help each other then it's Cheating for Arnold since he solicited OA while knowing it was illegal. If there was no agreement/solicitation, then nothing for Arnold.

Yeah, I see your point and I'm quite convinced :) In first case, he has both awareness that his action is illegal, and clearly tried to get some advantage from it. Cheating.

The second one remains OA for Steven if it was the classic “oh cmon boy, you should have attacked last turn”, typical in casual players.

Edited Joaquín Pérez (Feb. 11, 2014 10:30:35 AM)

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

Yeah, that gets to another question derived from Example 2. Steven gets an OA and nothing for Arnold, that means Arnold's match is untouched. But a play advice had been given, and the match is compromised from the point Steven gave the advice, and Arnold won't be penalized regardless of he would take advantage from Steven's advice or not.
There is chance that it would get abused that a player get some buddy and tell him the most critical play once per tournament when he is really on the edge, helping him get to top8/final, and the player isn't penalized anyways. (I think it would be pretty easy to solve the judge's investigation if they had premeditated the manner and exchanged statements when investigated.)
So, if the player really takes the advised play to his advantage, and the two involved players are friends/know each other, I think there should be something fishy here. How to prevent the method being abused?

Some other things I'd like to mention..
Based on Chinese culture, players tend to not call judge when there are OA committed during tournaments, because they are afraid that they would offend others and make enemy if they do. This is contrary to the philosophy of IPG: IPG encourages player or spectator to call out the judge whenever there are something wrong. My take is that IPG philosophy is based on Western culture, in which the spirit of contract and law is traditional.
This scenario frequently takes place in Chinese GPTs:
In the last swiss round before top 8 cut off, the player A, whose standing is at 7th, matched up with player N who is ranked 8th. A proposed a cash/prize/card bribe to N for him to concede. N won't accept if he wants to get into top8 too, but he is most likely not going to call a judge, even if doing so would give him the free win and the ticket into top8. In Chinese culture, if you call out a judge at that time, you are betraying other people, and most likely will be despised and hated by many other players. In such an environment, judges have to wander around during the last swiss round and hear players' conversation to figure out if there is a bribery. Such scenario also happens when it comes to other infractions such as OA, IDaW, etc. It's pretty scarce to have a player report OA to a judge, but more often when a floor judge hear it.

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

OA is a form of cheating.

Generally speaking, this is not the case, as Michael has pointed out already.
Often, Outside Assistance will not match the definition of UC-Cheating as the player/spectator is not aware what he or she is doing is illegal.
(For instance, a spectator audibly talks about a card in a player's hand and that player's opponent can hear it, but the spectator does not notice he is revealing hidden information by doing so, because he thinks the opponent can't hear him)

Hao Du
1) Adam was playing a match and the thing didn't go well for him. He desperately asked a spectator: “Which creature should I block that I could get out of the situation?” His opponent called a judge. After a simple investigation, you found out that Adam had well knowledge of the IPG, and he knew that seeking play advice is illegal.

Is it OA or Cheating?

Usually, this will be UC-Cheating, as it fulfills the criteria for Outside Assistance, the player tries to gain an advantage and he is aware his action is illegal, so unless the situation he referred to was already over when asking the spectator or he somehow forgot Outside Assistance is illegal for a second, he will be disqualified from the event.

Hao Du
2) Arnold and Steven went to a PTQ together. Steven finished his match quickly and he went to Arnold's table to watch him playing. Soon, Steven saw a bad play of Arnold's and quickly informed Arnold of it. Before Arnold could make his next play, his opponent calls a judge. During the investigation afterwards, you found that Arnold and Steven were friends, and they were well aware that giving/seeking play advice is illegal, and Steven was giving play advice intentionally.

Is it OA or Cheating for Steven? Steven actually did not gain any advantage for telling Arnold of his bad play, so it sounds failing Cheating's first criteria, but it's still a blatant violation of the rule.
For Arnold, did he commit any infraction for knowing Steven is trying to help him and not calling a judge himself? What if they had an agreement that they will ‘help’ each other in case the other is in trouble?

Steven clearly commits at least Outside Assistance, and he is aware his action is illegal. Even though he does not attempt to gain an advantage for himself, he attempts to gain some kind of advantage for Arnold.
If Steven considers giving Arnold an edge beneficial to himself for whatever reason, I would consider this an advantage for the purpose of this infraction and issue a UC-Cheating infraction.
Generally, I would consider anything an advantage that the player considers beneficial, it does not necessarily have to be aimed at receiving a better prize, more planeswalker points or winning a game or match.

As far as Arnold is concerned, even though he has to point out errors committed in his match (such as Outside Assistance), the scenario sounds a lot like his opponent called a judge immediately, and he did not have the chance to fulfill his duty of calling attention to the error himself, so I wouldn't penalize him for being slower than his opponent when it comes to calling a judge, though I might ask him wether he intended to call a judge and base my actions on his response.

Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 11, 2014 12:39:09 PM)

Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:

In first case, he has both awareness that his action is illegal, and clearly tried to get some advantage from it. Cheating..

Remembering back on the “How not to DQ” article, I wonder if there's some room here for interpretation of what “awareness” is. It's one thing to know a rule, but if you forget it you weren't really aware of it at the time.

If he's normally a casual player, he may have just derp'd and asked for outside assistance. When asked about it in the relative calm of a reasonably well done investigation, he admits he knows he can't do that.

If we leave it at that, it looks like a clear DQ. Case closed.

But if we recognize that he might have stress-derp'd and asked for help without thinking about it, then he wasn't actually aware of the illegality of it at the time, so I'd be more comfortable with an OA. (I mean, I'd be skeptical of his claim that he just derp'd. But it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that it could happen. And the difference between a DQ and an ML seems to be worth taking a minute to sort out)

Originally posted by Sebastian Stückl:

Usually, this will be USC-Cheating, as it fulfills the criteria for Outside Assistance, the player tries to gain an advantage and he is aware his action is illegal, so unless the situation he referred to was already over when asking the spectator or he somehow forgot Outside Assistance is illegal for a second, he will be disqualified from the event.

Just wanted to point out that this does not stop the question from beeing OA. Even if the situation has already passed, gamestates are/might be recurring, and asking an outsider during a match ‘Say you have the following situation, how would you block?’ most certainly is OA - and is basically exactly what you are asking/saying when you tell a player on how he should've blocked last combat.
Sebastian probably didn't want to imply that the bolded part stops it beeing OA, I just want to prevent missunderstandings.

Besides that, I fully agree with Sebastian here.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Sebastian Stückl
Usually, this will be USC-Cheating, as it fulfills the criteria for Outside Assistance, the player tries to gain an advantage and he is aware his action is illegal, so unless the situation he referred to was already over when asking the spectator or he somehow forgot Outside Assistance is illegal for a second, he will be disqualified from the event.

Just wanted to point out that this does not stop the question from beeing OA. Even if the situation has already passed, gamestates are/might be recurring, and asking an outsider during a match ‘Say you have the following situation, how would you block?’ most certainly is OA - and is basically exactly what you are asking/saying when you tell a player on how he should've blocked last combat.
Sebastian probably didn't want to imply that the bolded part stops it beeing OA, I just want to prevent missunderstandings.

Besides that, I fully agree with Sebastian here.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was trying to say the bold part may cause it to be Outside Assistance rather than UC-Cheating, as the player does not attempt to gain an advantage if he believes the situation is no longer relevant for the match.

Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 11, 2014 12:37:09 PM)

OA is a kind of cheating that is easy to make by mistake:
you watch a game or start talking, and it slips out, as opposed to say deciding the throw a coin to decide who wins.
That's why it's penalized more lightly, with “just” a match loss and not a DQ.

I agree completely with Chris here. Players can derp, it does happen. Diagnosing it is tricky, though.

Eric


On 02/11/14, Chris Nowak
Remembering back on the
“How not to DQ” article, I wonder if there's some room
here for interpretation of what “awareness” is. It's one
thing to know a rule, but if you forget it you weren't really aware of
it at the time.

If he's normally a casual player, he may have
just derp'd and asked for outside assistance. When asked about it in
the relative calm of a reasonably well done investigation, he admits
he knows he can't do that.

If we leave it at that, it looks
like a clear DQ. Case closed.

But if we recognize that he
might have stress-derp'd and asked for help without thinking about it,
then he wasn't actually aware of the illegality of it at the time, so
I'd be more comfortable with an OA. (I mean, I'd be skeptical of his
claim that he just derp'd. But it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable
that it could happen. And the difference between a DQ and an ML seems
to be worth taking a minute to sort
out)

——————————————————————————–
If
you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/569631/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8411/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8411/?onsite=yes

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

Could someone provide a link to the “How not to DQ” article being discussed? I was unable to search up an article by that name.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Glenn Fisher <
forum-8411-8f06@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> How not to DQ


http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/How_to_NOT_Disqualify_a_Player


//David