Ok according to the IPG, for a player to be cheating they must be aware they are doing something wrong and gain an advantage from their action. So how about a scenario like this:

Alex is playing Bob and they are on the last round of a tournament. The winner has a chance to win prizes, the loser does not. 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. Bob sees this, nods in understanding and signs the slip. I was watching part of their match and know that Bob had indeed won a game. I ask Alex if Bob won a game and he lied and said no. I then ask Bob the same question and again get lied to and he says no as well.

Based on the new rules for cheating only Alex would be DQ'd for this because only he would gain an advantage from doing this correct? This seems wrong that both players can lie to a judge, but only one gets DQ'd and the other can lie since they have nothing to lose.

If Bob is gaining no advantage, what is his motivation? This is clearly not
an act of altruism, as he is knowingly degrading tournament integrity.

Remember, for most tournament players, winning or losing against another
specific tournament player (or that player's friends, who will know the
history) is a repeat play scenario. By giving a 2-0 result rather than a
2-1, Bob has just gained some amount of equity with Alex and his group.
Then he lies to cover up for Alex, potentially gaining more equity.

Bob doesn't have to gain immediate material wealth to Cheat. He just has to
“be attempting to gain advantage,” and by ingratiating himself to Alex, he
clearly is.

Snap DQ both players.

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

I was watching part of their match and know that Bob had indeed won a game. I ask Alex if Bob won a game and he lied and said no. I then ask Bob the same question and again get lied to and he says no as well.

Out of curiosity, what reason did the players give for changing the slip to 2-0 from 2-1? Did they misremember a game? Or did they remember all three games and intentionally agreed to report the result as 2-0 rather than 2-1?

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Cris Plyler
I was watching part of their match and know that Bob had indeed won a game. I ask Alex if Bob won a game and he lied and said no. I then ask Bob the same question and again get lied to and he says no as well.

Out of curiosity, what reason did the players give for changing the slip to 2-0 from 2-1? Did they misremember a game? Or did they remember all three games and intentionally agreed to report the result as 2-0 rather than 2-1?

Lets assume it's the later Brian, that they intentionally agreed to report as 2-0 instead of reporting it 2-1 and then lied to the judge about it.

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

Lets assume it's the later Brian, that they intentionally agreed to report as 2-0 instead of reporting it 2-1 and then lied to the judge about it.

Okay, so they do agree that they actually played three games, and reported the match result as 2-0 rather than 2-1. Still, what reason did the players give for doing this? When I asked them, what was the reason why decided to report the result as 2-0 rather than 2-1? Or why did they lie to me about this?

Because, the underlying question should be: Is there a policy that prohibits the players from reporting the match result as 2-0 rather than 2-1? If not, what are the players really lying about here?

I understand this is also a question about “lying to a judge” at all, since it seems that is grossly inappropriate behavior regardless of whether there's a benefit to be gained or not. (I mean, geez, that kind of hurts my feelings and affects my enjoyment of the event…) But, before I were to take any action, part of understanding that they lied is the reason why they lied.

This seems like a situation where the player knew that the results was
supposed to be 2-1, but didn't see any harm in reporting it 2-0. However,
when questioned about it, the player seems to believe that what he did was
wrong, either because it wasn't what really happened or because he thought
he wasn't allowed to do it or maybe because he didn't want the other guy to
get in trouble. Either way, he lied to cover up the change because he
believed someone would get in trouble if the truth came out.

On Tue Mar 26 17:34, Brian Schenck wrote:
> Because, the underlying question should be: Is there a policy that prohibits the players from reporting the match result as 2-0 rather than 2-1? If not, what are the players really lying about here?

Yes, the MTR requires that if you have won a game but concede the match the result must be reported as 2-1 (MTR 2.4)

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Yes, the MTR requires that if you have won a game but concede the match the result must be reported as 2-1 (MTR 2.4)

Is there a concession involved in the OP's scenario? Sounds like they just played three games as normal…

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Is there a concession involved in the OP's scenario? Sounds like they just played three games as normal…

That's an interesting point! Seems odd that we clarify that a conceding player who has won a game must report the match as 2-1, but we make no mention of how to report actual match results of 2-1. Is it just a “common sense” thing of reporting the match results as they actually happened, unless you're conceding/IDing?

Is there a reasonable argument that the players thought it would be ok to report a result different from the actual result when a concession/ID wasn't involved? “I don't see anything in the MTR that says I can't do that,” perhaps? I don't know if it should be necessary to add to the MTR: “Match results must be reported as they actually happened, except in the case of Intentional Draws or Concessions as explained below.” Though because the MTR is restrictive by nature (anything not prohibited is legal by default), I guess it wouldn't hurt? :P

It could possibly be argued that the player allowing the change is essentially agreeing to a “concession” of 2-0 instead of 2-1, contrary to the requirements of MTR 2.4.

Edited Josh Stansfield (March 26, 2013 01:55:42 PM)

Somewhere in the archives of Judge-L is a post from Andy, stating a clear philosophy: we want result slips to match reality.

It is interesting that the manifestation of that in policy suggests it only applies to concessions - but that's where it usually matters. Oddball cases like this scenario are doomed to fit between the cracks of well-written policy…

However, it is clear that we don't want those two changing a 2-1 reality to a 2-0 result slip. What to do about it? Well, that's what makes this a somewhat interesting discussion, eh?

I'd suggest then that the policy documents could use an update so the documents reflect the philosophy in unambiguous terms.

Players being held accountable for something they have no way of knowing seems like suboptimal service.

MTR 2.4 is clearly focused on ID and concession, so I can see the point about a naturally finished match. I'd suggest 2.5 (End-of-Match Procedure) could benefit from a clear statement along the lines of the one in 2.4.

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?

Cris, maybe you can consider “not getting DQd” as the advantage being gained. Unless the player is dropping anyway, I would say that “remaining in the tournament” is much more advantageous than NOT remaining in the tournament.

On 03/27/2013 01:59 AM, Josh Stansfield wrote:
> Cris, maybe you can consider “not getting DQd” as the advantage being
> gained. Unless the player is dropping anyway, I would say that
> “remaining in the tournament” is much more advantageous than NOT
> remaining in the tournament.

But that's not an advantage gained BY lying, or BY misreporting the result.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Sebastian Reinfeldt wrote:
> But that's not an advantage gained BY lying, or BY misreporting the
result.

The player thinks that there is a chance he will be disqualified.
The player lies to avoid that chance.
The player is attempting to gain advantage by decreasing his chance of
being disqualified.