MTG Regional Qualifier Drama: Bad Judge Calls & Violent Behavior?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 07. 2024
- This is a nuanced discussion with some objective parts as well, but lets breakdown the conversation around disqualification, personal reactions, judge calls and more when it come to the RC Dallas Situation.
#mtg #magicthegathering #disqualified #competitive #reaction
_________________________________________________________________________ Timestamps:
0:00 - Introduction
1:00 - Summarizing The Situation
4:06 - Commenting on Stanley's Behaviour
10:21 - Commenting on the Judge Call
13:49 - Concluding Thoughts
_________________________________________________________________________ Other Links:
Stanlye2099's tweet on getting disqualified from RC Dallas: x.com/Stanley_2099/status/179...
The google doc outlining the situation from Stanley's perspective: docs.google.com/document/d/1y...
Cedric Phillip's reaction: x.com/CedricAPhillips/status/...
@hovermyr's comments on the general reaction: x.com/hovermyr/status/1797985...
@in_mtg's response to Cedric's tweet: x.com/in_mtg/status/179798258...
@AndyAWKWARD's tweet on various reactions: x.com/AndyAWKWARD/status/1797...
@tiddypills take on the situation: x.com/tiddypills/status/17980...
_________________________________________________________________________
Come Hang Out On Twitch: / thatmillguy
Find Me On Twitter For More Updates: / millthat
Follow me on Tiktok: / thatmillguy
Mill Discord Invite Link: / discord - Hry
My favorite mtg drama channel
Staaaahp 😩😩😩
mods manaflood this player
My only issue is that if the judge was there to hear them make that decision, why wouldn't the judge intervene before Stanley could agree. Why wait until the end of the match to give them a loss instead of stopping them mid action and telling Nicole she can't do that.
Might be against rules for a judge to intervene like that.
I could be wrong, but I think once both players agreed to “illegally determine the winner” (in this case, concede after revealing the top card) it was already a game loss for both of them. The judge would have had to object Phoenix Wright-style to the suggestion, before the agreement was made in order to save the other guy.
A judge cannot do that. They have to allow the players to make a decision. What if a judge intervened and it somehow gave a player an advantage? The only time judges can do something is after something that is against the rules has occurred.
Knowing how judges at these PT events act, had Nicole won, that judge wouldn't have intervened
How on earth a judge can intervene _before_ something actually happens. How can anyone can humanely intervene before anything happens?
The judge is no a superhuman being. He is not there to play for you, or make you a better player or ethical player. They even take 2 seconds to call the judge, how is the judge responsibility?
2:20 very important corrections to the summary:
-stanley was not about to make PT, he needed to win 3 more games afterwards to lock it in, a loss (probably) took him out of contention for this though
-stanley wasnt exactly "about to win" there was 3 power of creatures in play, though he was a favourite
“I’m not advocating for a witch hunt against judges… this ruling however is garbage”
Had me cracking up lmao
Goading a player into a known rules violation should be a new, penalizing rule in comp REL. this feels like a cheap way to make sure your opponent can try to take you out with them. A match loss due to a “goading into a rules infraction” should be banned from this level of competition
I'm going to be real just cuz kids play this game does not mean it's children's card game anymore
Emotions that push you to physical aggression aren’t any more or less valid than other any other emotions that don’t.
It's a children's card game but in a tournament relates to more than 100k prize pool, it's reasonable to enforce the rule to the strictest.
Did this really happen in this order? Highly sus. “Can I look at my top card and THEN I will concede?” Or was it the normal concede, then look at your top card?
Why didn't they just keep going until their next draw step? It wouldn't have taken long and then they can look at their top card and either concede or keep playing. I don't understand how they could've done this in a way that broke the rules
@@tyeklund7221 my understanding is it wasnt meant to be a deal at all, and thats the problem. The player was just syaing "heads up, if this isnt a land, im conceeding" but it was worded in a way that made it sound like "do you think this is a land? If yes, you win."
I know I'm late, but yes it was in that order. It was during Stanley's turn and while he was thinking of his play his opponent just nonchalantly offered to look at the top card of their library then (during his turn) so they could scoop if it wasn't a land so both players could save time or whatever.
The fist thing is hard to deal with without being there. I've been accused of slamming my fist on the table when in actuality my hand was up because I gesture when I talk, and when the conversation goes nowhere, my arms drop. If there's a table there, guess what my arm lands on? That's not an act of violence. Now if he went towards a judge and/or full on punched the table, THAT is a violent outburst.
Sounds like you're a normal guy,
honestly there is no way this could be a rules violation on the winners end but also it technically isn't a rules violation either since they already confirmed a forfeit, a judge cannot really step in and tell you you're violating the rules of a game that is already resolved by handling your collection.
Slamming the table is NOT and "act of aggression or violence ". It's an act of frustration
I want to preface this with the fact that obviously the document was written by one of the affected parties so it will be slanted in a certain direction. This means that there isn't and 100% accurate description of events from a "neutral" angle, so my opinion could be changed depending on what "actually happened".
First I totally agree with the fact that the judge issuing a match loss is unwarranted. I also empathize with the OP and would also be very upset in that situation. I do however disagree with saying that hitting the table is completely unreasonable. Now first this absolutely depends on how extreme this action is. If they are absolutely wailing on the table I think that is too much, but if they just did like 3 quick hits to emphasize a point they were trying to say I would understand being emotional and letting that happen. This had only happened after going through multiple judges who all were making the same poor decision, it would have never escalated if any of the judges had even just talked it out with OP instead of just backing up the original call.
As a meta analysis of OPs actions. In our society men are taugh from a young age that the only emotion they are allowed to feel and display is anger, and that the way to display or vent that emotion is to let it manifest physically instead of trying to talk it out. Obviously this situation didn't escalate into a physical confrontation of two people, but I do think tof this as a compounding factor.
IF his account is accurate (which it very well may not be), then I don't the the DQ on grounds of Aggressive Behavior is warranted. Honestly, it fits almost perfectly under some of the examples under Unsporting Conduct - Minor. There clearly needs to be a threat to someone else, and nothing he described rises to that level. Now, it's possible he is leaving something out or misremembering something that would justify "aggressive behavior", but if HIS account is accurate, it doesn't seem appropriate
This is the most wild part of the mental gymnastics some people are conducting in this scenario for me.
The same people that will argue that the letter of the rule must be enforced with absolutely no deviation or discretion by the judges for IDW are perfectly fine in massively expanding the scope of Aggressive Behavior way beyond the letter of the rule, which explicitly says that aggressive behavior must be directly threatening towards a person. If spiking your deck box into the ground is a Minor Unsportsmanlike Conduct (and it is an expressly called out example) hitting a table and leaving is nowhere close to 'aggressive'.
If you think IDW was appropriate I don't know how you possibly conclude that under the exact same ruleset that per the letter of the rule Aggressive Behavior DQ was the proper call.
And yet... pretty much everyone I've seen onboard with IDW are also onboard with the Aggressive Behavior DQ, which just reinforces for me that the people that are the most insistent on how the rules must be followed exactly are also the people most likely to twist them to match their preferred narrative regardless of what they say.
The judges are right. They used unknown information at the time to determine a winner, thus leading to the dual gameloss
I am wondering if there isn't some mandate going around after the report you commented on about match-fixing? In theory you could construe the way they ended the match as colluding? A DQ without more context feels wild, but if the integrity of the game is being called into question world-wide I could see a zero-tolerance policy being put into place.
DQ was due to him slamming his hands and yelling this is absurd.
Which he was well within his right to do.
This bullshit of people must be perfectly behaved when being done wrong needs to go.
He was absolutely entitled to yell at those judges.
All the problems to get DQ for top 8 / day2 things is something that people are in general not aware of.
Its good practice for a judge to tell the players about not making any "deals" or "bets" or anything on a game to decide the outcome, and if a judge still sees it in a reasonable joke-like manner, they can just take the players aside and tell them thats this is not allowed (mark it for the player permanently , so if they do that "again" then upgrading it to a DQ is absolutely justified, as they knew about it and still did it).
But the 1st time people do this kind of things, immediately throwing a DQ around is usually just bad for everyone involved and not helpful at all.
Its genuine bad policy, its not up to the individual judge to overrule official policy , while a head-judge CAN do that, they shouldnt ; but in cases like these, its a good point to throw the topic to the discussions of if the policy is just bad as it is.
@11:50 rules specifically estate match loss is the penalty. Very clear at the top of the document. Had it been any other way, harsher or softer, you would have say it is unfair because the judge made this up. _"Oh but the judge didn't ruled a match loss. Should have been a loss. Judge made this up!"_
8:01 did he just hit a table????
He hit a table and yelled 'this is absurd'. He then got up, tossed his backpack to his friend, and left.
Is there a grievance process to dispute terribly bad calls? I'm not familiar with the competitive scene
There would be but this happens to be by the book correct. This rule is designed to be interpreted extremely harshly with zero room for discretion.
So you have to call a judge every time someone says, "if i draw one more land I'm going to scoop"? Got it 🙄
No just call judge when a player is about to cheat by looking at the top card of their library
Just scoop, you don't have to negotiate it or condition it. The good thing about MTG is Any player is free to concede, at any moment for any reason. You are free to go, doors are open. So, just concede, don't make it like you are a hostage.
If you are so emotionally invested in a bang of the table, then you need to get your priorities straight and re-evaluate yourself. Like an FNM table slam, yeah, that is just ape behavior. Having the ability to go on the Pro tour which is a once in a life time chance and missing out on literally one of the biggest life changing moments of ones life, yeah, I am sorry, but that is way more frustration than imaginable. But this begs the question of where the line is. I think it's context and intent. Was this a loud slam, followed by threats and clear signs of someone being physically threatened, okay there is an argument. Is this just a bang of the table and then immediately dropping it, then I think the best thing to do is just drop it and leave it as a match loss. No need to escalate further. A job of the judge is to mediate an event and if they too are this emotionally invested that they don't feel safe after someone removes themselves from a situation, that is on the underpaid judge who is having an ego trip. From the sounds of it, he banged the table, stormed off and dropped it. Thats it. I don't think it's that deep to suggest that person getting therapy and calling out their state of mind like that.
The video gives off holy than thou art vibes and I mostly like your takes. Even when you throw yourself under that bus by saying you have these issues too. There is definitely a difference between a PT wannabe acting out at an FNM in front of someone's kid and someone missing out on a dream. Context by context basis, the DQ was uncalled for and could have resulted in a further escalation that none of these guys are paid to deal with.
More arguments for just playing digital no human error
Apart from the missplays, you as the player make
If we are taking this guys words as the truth... You think that a single outburst of "that's not fair" along with a punctuating fist to the table is inappropriate? Like dude walked away right then and there too... That's hardly aggressive behavior. This feels more like friends covering for friends on the judges side. To big of an ego to say they got it wrong and so they paint the dude as an aggressive unstable person. Idk what if anything wotc has said. But god dam, can't yell once or bang on a table once while all your hopes and dreams come tumbling down... Crazy.
Exactly! Not allowed to have feelings or emotions...well unless you're a certain demographic of course.
Correct, you are not allowed to yell, attack your surroundings, and then storm out because it shows a violent/aggressive lack of emotional regulation. If you are the kind of person that can not handle losing a game or being given a ruling that seems unfair without reacting in that way, then you should not be playing a game at this level. You should be working on yourself. 👍
@@tentacle7690 lol you are part of the reason our country is weak
@@cdude665 It is pretty weak to have to get aggressive over a card game and not be able to handle your emotions in a mature way. Hope this helps! 👍
@@tentacle7690but internalizing your emotions can lead to worse reactions later. People need to be able to “fizz” the bottle after getting shook emotionally. You are denyiny that by not allowing them that by telling them to just take their medicine and move on
The way you started this video I thought I was going to disagree with you. However I agree as people we should be trying to improve and grow. Acting like a child at a competition is wrong, and even if you and your opponent came to a agreement that's a kitchen table play not a tournament kind of play. For example if you take a driving exam and you and your parents/ guardian say you don't have to buckle up till you hit the freeway would you expect to pass. Further more if you punch the steering wheel and cuss them out would you expect to not be delayed for your next test. Good for thought, am I wrong?
I have to say, if this guy remembered and recounted correctly, then I don't think he deserved a DQ for his reaction. I think that a warning would be more apropos. It seems like the judge was out for the guy.
He slammed his fist on a table? That's it? He didn't break anything or threaten anyone? I thought the big 'twist' of this story was gonna be that he said a slur or flipped a table or something. Why are people making a big fucking deal about this.
Every male with a decent to high level of testosterone thinks this is fine. Every male with low testosterone or females are scared of this.
I've noticed magic players tend to not be completely "with it" in terms of understanding emotions.
This guy was absolutely within his right to slam his hands and yell at them for screwing him over.
@@anannoyedpanda Depends... I am not a mtg judge, but I do work in customer service at the moment. If someone tries to return their item and are not legally able to return it by store policy, sometimes they flip out at me. Since I wasn't there in this moment I will not claim to understand what either party was doing or saying, but I think trying to get him to leave the venue by DQ-ing him was understandable
@anannoyedpanda I don't know, if that sort of thing happened at my store, the manager would definitely tell them to beat it. I've never seen a outburst there since they opened.
Yeah people are too obsesed with creating "a safe-space" which when taken to its natural conclusion, becomes a parody of itself. In this instance, the fact of a player's PT invitation essentially taken away from him by an insane ruling, is completely ignored in the face of allegations of "aggressive behavior" because "boohoo men bad"
Most of the people I've seen on twitter supporting the player getting kicked out and the judges decision just does not seem to understand the passion that goes into competition. People are flying from all over the country to be here. People are competing to achieve their dreams of playing pro. Frustration under these circumstances is human emotion. Nothing was damaged no one was hurt. All of these "Ummm Actually..." Rules lawyers just don't understand basic human emotion. And at the end of the day, It wasn't a big enough deal to warrant a IDW. 2 people were playing and had a mutual understanding of how the game was going to end so they just chose to end it. Who cares how the last turn of the game was played, the outcome is the same. Shame on this Judge.
good thing to talk about though this things happen in magic,, though since its a edited vid not live i think you have time to collect your thoughts kinda rambling a bit
A lot of the way this is presented feels very... just bad, frankly. Discounting the idea of the slippery slope in such a condescending way, when it's a valid concern to bring up in these situations, your proof being "I'm right" and "there are studies" instead of providing actual evidence, this just ain't it chief. Whether he did something wrong or not, whatever, but maybe reconsider these kind of topics if you don't have an interest in engaging them in these sorts of topics in the good faith due to them
Hard agree. Thanks for taking the time to put down these words.
Anybody that thinks hitting a TABLE is somehow some spectacle showing a complete lack of control has pretty clearly never played anything competitively in their lives. I played sports throughout my life into my early 20’s and then was trained as an official for one in my mid-teens and slamming a table isn’t even in my top 100 craziest reactions.
It’s a completely natural reaction to be frustrated after what feels like an unfair DQ in a situation where you were already locked in for victory and felt it didn’t matter.
It’s one thing if you threaten violence on others or take things too far, but this feels like a natural reaction, and for all of the people that will say, “it’s just a game bro, why does it matter?” That can be said about almost anything that isn’t 100% needed for us to live. “It’s just a painting, why does it matter that you messed it up?” “It’s just a sports match, why do you care you lost.” Etc. if you can’t feel angry about something, then you probably weren’t that passionate about it to begin with. Nothing this player did (if accurately recounted by them) ever put anyone in danger or the threat of danger. Bad call by the judge in the initial ruling and in the follow up. Judges should 100% be rewarded more for their time, but the standards should also be raised to hold them more accountable at the same time.
If you read the document, which I have to stress is written from this player's own perspectives (so it's already skewed and could be missing other things), he 1) hit the table, 2) explicitly told the security guards that he's not ok and he wants to break something, 3) continually told the judges they didn't treat him like a human being (even though they seemed professional), 4) continually tried to appeal the decision despite the judges already accommodating and trying to get more judges involve and they all already said no since the rules are really clear, 5) etc. The table was just step 1. Honestly reading his document he seems to refuse to understand his mistake at all.
Sports (physical sports) is rather different than a TCG/Strategy game.
@@BrotherChengI read the document at it is very drama-hungry and emotional In a bad way
@@errrzarrr Exactly. Also, even in a physical sport if you do something like this in say soccer that's a fast one-way street to getting a red card and getting kicked out of the field. Arguing with the ref incessantly without accepting the decision is usually a big no-no in most sports. Sports have penalty systems for a reason.
Bad judge calls got me completely out of a long stint in competitive card gaming, hate how much power they give to what are often power tripping volunteer dickheads who are told "you know everything AND you're in charge". I won't be going back to that life.
“Men need to be more in touch with their feelings…but not anger, you can’t express that one”
Learning how to control yourself when your emotions come is one of the great lessons in life. Slamming the table and storming off in a huff demonstrates that this young man is still working on that one. I think young people need grace when failing, but this consequence isn’t the end of the world, and will hopefully lead him to finding ways to be more measured in the future.
Its not IDW, its LaEC+concide
Judge and Head Judge should go on reattestation, or be downgraded to Rule Advisor level
A match loss for that? Some of these judges man are just clowns
Per the Infractions and Penalty Guidelines 4.3 Improperly Determining the Outcome of a Match: Using information such as top cards of the library which players shouldn’t have the knowledge of to determine the outcome of the match.
Using an outside-the-game method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament. This infraction carries the penalty of a match loss. If you’re gonna play in Competitive tournaments you should take the time to familiarize yourself with the IPG.
@@Urzaruthere is more nuance to this other than, read this, do this. The competitive REL has already been brought down to a more casual level than it was 5+ years ago. So not sure how a automatic matchloss for this was necessary. Stupid how this game has alot of gray areas which us confusing when it comes to how rules are enforced and should be more flexible depending on the situation.
@@cdude665 day 2 of the event was run at Professional REL
Spirit over letter bud. Every time.
Judges were completely out of line. @@Urzaru
You think that's bad? There was a high level league game that got a a complete match loss due to the first blood emote automatic happening. And then asked if the the player who died wanted the loss to stick he said yes because it hurt his feelings a fucking emote in the game. The best part is that team then instantly got dqed the next round for being dog shit.
Dunno, slamming a fist on a table is sounding more like "slapped the table in frustration"....
At the end of this there was a judge, who judged this worthy of a dq, havent heard anything overturning this 😮💨
The reaction was definitely not correct. An issue like this must be escalated to a higher authority in an objective manner and you must not actively overreact externally.
There are many people who, especially in tense tournament situations, let the fun of the game fall by the wayside and act stroppy, arrogant and generally unfriendly.
Especially with our deck structures like Mill, or other types of “prison decks” (KCI, Lands...), people tend to feel robbed of their fun and let you know this during the game.
I think there will always be such behaviors and even in the best community this issue will always happen.
"It's not that deep" - that guy who raged for Pauper to be a respected format. They definitely should look to see if that judge had anybody in The event.
Another big angle that needs to be considered.
Magic the gathering is one of the few card games that is not a children's card game
I think hitting your fist on the table as a sign of protest if done once is fine absolutely. If you're allowed to have an ugly cry face you're allowed to hit your fist on the table once. Overall it seems like a power tripping judge, from the very beginning of this video it said that it was agreed upon that they would concede thus the match ended at that concession. Looking at the top of the deck after that concession doesn't matter because the game was already over
"Oh he slammed his fist on the table, that's definitely threatening and inappropriate"
Are you a table? In what world is that threatening?
This was ridiculous. Put that man on the pro tour wotc
Dumb rule/ruling. Hate people that are sticklers for rules
Drama Queen Shaf loves drama 😂😉
I'm with you. The initial call is insane. There was no cheating, malice, or harm by either player. Judge (if they HAD to give a call) should have given a warning to not do it again just because of the optics of the situation moving forward. Done. Won't happen again. His rage is understandable but unwarranted yes. Should have been told to remove himself from the hall and collect himself as long as they didn't go over the top and direct the anger at the judge/someone else.
Per the Infraction and Penalty Guidelines the judges assessed the correct penalty. Match Loss is the penalty for Improperly Determining the Outcome of a Match. By looking at cards they shouldn’t have access to and the other playing agreeing to this they are both at fault.
@@Urzaru this doesn't seem to be improperly determining the outcome of the match though? He just said he was going to concede with but wanted to take a look at his top card first. This is unlogical and shouldn't happen but did not influence the outcome of the match at all.
@@Urzaru Sure, lets play this game. Per the Infraction and Penalty Guidelines his "aggressive action" fell squarely in the "Unsportsmanlike Behavior, Minor" category (which includes such actions as spiking your deckbox into the ground in frustration). Aggressive Behavior explicitly requires that you direct violence or threats at a person. No one has claimed he did so.
Do you think the judges should have DQ'd him?
@@CianWolffenspergeryou know nothing. It wasn't him who said that, it was HER and he agreed. Both committed an infraction on both sides. Everyone is criticizing the ruling, while they don't even know the rules and took a moment to learn about what happened
It might've been inappropriate behavior, but he didn't threaten anyone with physical violence or hurl insults at anyone, at least from his version. I think a warning might've been more in line like "hey that was unprofessional and our judges felt uncomfortable from your outburst" and probably escorted out so he could calm down , but a straight DQ? nah no way, not after that dumb fucking call to give them both a game loss after the match when a judge likely saw that shit happen and did squat
Based on the IPG rules, the match loss was the correct penalty for the situation ("Let me see the top card of my deck. If is a land I'll concede"). Don't know if they appealed the judge's ruling; but chances are if they did, the Head Judge would have sided with the judge and kept the Match Loss.
Now, Disqualifying them for the emotional response, in my opinion was unnecesary. The judge should have tried to calm down the players and not escalate the problem even more. I've been on situations were taking the player to a side and talk to him until he's calm was the best option for both.
Should the judge had just 'let it pass'? Hard to say. By default we're supposed not to intervene when someone is "making a mistake", and is expected to all players know the rules and how they should behave on a tournament with a competitive rules level.
It was not,
IDW mean that Stanley should have concide iif opponent drawn a second land. THEN this is IDW, without that route it not IDW it Looking an Extra Card
@@erfarkrasnobay "4.3. Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner : A player uses or offers to use a method that is not part of the current game (including actions not legal in the current game) to determine the outcome of a game or match, or uses language designed to trick someone who may not know it's against the rules to make such an offer."
They key part here is the word "Offers" in the Definition of the infraction. The opponent proposed an alternative way of ending the game (conceding after looking the top card of his library) and he agreed to it. For him to not commit IDW he should had just refused the proposal and continued playing.
As I said, RAW the penalty was correct, and the HJ would likely agreed if they appealed the judge's ruling. The DQ however, was an unnecesary overkill on my opinion.
@@DukeQuakem we have discussed this case in our judge community and opinion was split between "there should be lower penalty allowed by ipg" and "this is incorrect rulling by judge".
Please read provided examples of IDW violation. Each of them provide binary choice btween "player A win or player B win". And there is not situation like "Player A win or game continue"
Otherwise your ruling make that every concide is IDW
Looking at the IPG (Infraction Procedure Guide), Stanyle and their opponent's actions fall under 4.3 Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner. Both players agreed to determine the game outside the normal rules, which is not allowed. The penalty for this infraction is a match loss. Since both players agreed to this arrangement, they are both culpable and receive the same penalty. This is to ensure the integrity of the game and fair play. The judge made the right call according to the IPG.
Yea, people can think that the rules shouldn't be this way, but this is the most clear cut ruling ever with the state of the Tournament rules as they are rn. And that is something that should be more emphasized in discussion.
The judges (all 4 of them) that confirmed the ruling did nothing wrong here ever.
If people want to talk about rules changes for the future that is something that can productively discussed
Your purpose as a judge, particularly for these crimes of intent, is to show a degree of discretion when deciding whether they fall within both the spirit and letter of the law.
Rules applied by human beings exist for a purpose.
This rule exists, rather explicitly, to prevent improperly determining a winner of a game. It exists to protect the integrity of the tournament results. No one in the situation seems to believe that Stanyle wasn't going to win the game. Application of the rule in question did not improve the integrity of the outcome of the event, and instead actively diminished it by taking a clear winner and making them into a clear loser.
@@peterstewart7332 The thing is, the rules don't allow for discretion. The rules as they exist now don't allow for anything other than a match loss for this behaviour. And at competitive REL, judges can't just downgrade penalties, they would get in big trouble for that.
And specifically with this rule, my understanding is that judges as explicitly told to enforce it harshly, because in any other scenario it is disastrous if they don't.
Should the rules have more leeway, perhaps. But they don't so it would be improper for judges to show discretion where the rules don't allow ot
@@peterstewart7332 that rule exists to keep mtg from being classified as gambling in some jurisdictions. Saying that mtg has specific skill-based rules is the primary defense against calling it something akin to poker, which is regulated as gambling. Explicitly allowing an agreement to decide a game on a random element would undermine that argument.
Please check IDW context
It was not IDW it was Looking an Extra Card
There was not roul where Stanley will concide due to opponent get second lend on turn 4
As someone who doesn't play MtG at any kind of competitive level; This is pretty much why.
Judges, in general, are given too much power. There should be systems in place to challenge judge calls, and some kind of punishment for judges who make bad calls in order to incentivize them not to. Especially in instances like this, where the essence of the judge call wasn't correcting incorrect game actions taken; It was enforcing a game loss on a player who did not actually take any incorrect game actions, in a game where the outcome would not have been different even if incorrect game actions hadn't been taken.
Now, I can't excuse what essentially amounts to unsportsmanlike conduct. However, given this was-to the best of my knowledge-a first offence at an event he paid to take part in, disqualifying him for poor conduct is extreme.
Were I him, I would sue for a return of funds paid to enter the tournament, as well as damages for time wasted and emotional trauma. I'd say he has a solid case, and someone finally suffering consequences for poor judge calls would be good for the game.
enh right up there with forcing people to sequence their play to draw mana and then announce the spells they're casting - every now and then a judge goes on a power trip
Why do you keep saying banging your fists on the table like its a horrible thing... It's not the greatest way he could have acted but it's not like he physically harmed anyone... He might have had his dream taken away because one judge woke up on the wrong side of the bed, slamming his fists on the table is a pretty reasonable response in that situation.
Also please don't pick out random comments from people that are trying to make this a man vs women debate. I've seen women get mad, throw stuff etc, everyone can lose their temper not just men. Also the random tweet you picked out she says punching a table is a violent display of aggression. First off the document says slammed his fist on the table, which is a bit different than punching a table. Second I don't consider it a violent display of anything, he didn't attack anyone, he wasn't threatening violence, he just slammed his fist down in frustration. It happens to both men and women. Even in that persons tweets they say later on that the number of men they can trust is literally Zero. All you are doing is giving a bigger platform and taking the opinion of a random man hater and acting like she and you are taking the moral high ground by staying completely calm in a situation where the mans dreams got crushed.
How about having a heart and actual empathy than making a video where halfway through the video all I know is that you and this random man hater would have acted more calm in having your dreams ripped away from you by another person on a power trip. I'm sure if either of you had your dreams crushed you would have been able to be completely calm and understanding.
Sorry at first when I started commenting, I was just making a comment on what was confusing me about your video, but now that I have taken the time to write it out and process the whole thing, I realize I have no need to watch the rest of the video of someone I don't respect.
Dear TheMillGuy,
I really appreciate you sharing your perspective. I think it is important for the community to discuss such incident and learn from them together.
However, there are a few points where I disagreed with your presentation and would like to hear your thoughts:
1. At 11:55 you mentioned that "if this person won the match, they would have been qualified for the pro tour" in the context of the discussion about the game loss penalty. There are two points I do not understand here. First, unless I am missing something, the qualification criteria are not "be x-3 after round 10 of the RC" (where the match takes place), but rather rely on final standings, including tie breakers. So it is not clear at all that the person in question would be qualified regardless of the events of the three rounds to come. Second, even assuming this was the case, it seems like you are suggesting judge rulings should take this into account, that is, people would get different punishments for the same game situations depending on whether they would or would not get qualified for events. To me, this neither seems just, nor practical (what if multiple calls occur at the same time and affect each other?). If me and you play exactly the same matches, including decks, opponents, draw, all game actions and violations, but my match 10 is your match 9 and vice versa, do you think I should be treated differently than you because I would qualify with that win?
2. At 12:45 you mention that the goal of rules enforcement is to maintain competitive integrity. While I agree that this would be an intuitive goal to have for rules of a game, people commenting on the issue pointed out that for the specific rule applied here other interests are playing a major role. For the rule IPG 4.3 Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner for example the following page explicitly mentions a main reason for it's existence:"This is not only because the point of a Magic tournament is to actually play Magic, but also to uphold Magic’s reputation and position as a game of skill, not chance. This is important for ensuring that Magic isn’t associated with gambling." (see blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg4-3/). I would guess that for WotC it is high of priority for legal reasons not to be classified as gambling to continue selling and advertising their products to underage people. Thus, having this rule enforced in a very strict way is in their best interest. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but am pointing out that other considerations besides competitive integrity play a role and thus need to be accounted for when calling for different default penalties for game violations. In this regard, I think it would also have been helpful to highlight from your side that the match loss is the penalty for cases where people act innocently. When players are aware that their behavior is breaking the competitive rules, they are awarded a disqualification for cheating (see gain blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg4-3/ : "If the player was aware that what they were doing was against the rules, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct - Cheating"). You still may disagree with the penalty of game loss in general in such situations, however the judges' ruling does account for the lack of bad intentions under the current guidelines already. Thus, calling it flat out "wrong" does not seem adequate to me.
I think you are a bit too careful about your wording this video. You don't have to take this to "from a male perspective" or "a white cis male". You also don't have to say"in my opinion before everything you say. People will understand even without you saying these things. And I think the mtg community is hardly a community that gives you problems for not being fully politicely correct.
The judges followed procedure here. You can argue that the policy for these situations needs to be updated, but the judges followed the IPG. (Infraction and Penalty Guidelines)
The judge heard everything and is supposed to intervene by giving warning for the attempt to modify the rules
Sure but the procedure can be corrupted... if the judge had known people in the tournament trying to enhance their outcome with decision or sabotage. Not likely but entirely possible.
Spirit over letter.
I've corrected you three times in this regard. Delete all your comments please.
Under the IPG what he did afterwards is a Minor Unsportsmanlike that they overreached into an Aggressive Behavior. Was that 'following procedure'? You don't get to use the rules as both sword and shield.
Either they get enough discretion to decide he was threatening despite not even remotely approaching the letter of the rule (in which case they had enough discretion to see this wasn't actually IDW) or they are totally bound by the inflexible rules (in which case his DQ / ejection is totally unwarranted).
Side question: how is MtG a children's game?
It always says 13 and up and since 30 years its main audience are mostly adults and it only got more complex over the years....
When the game first started most players weren't above college age and the overwhelming majority were around 13 to 16. It's always been a kids game, the problem is nowadays they pander to adults who simply never grew up. Some of these new players nowadays act like such infants they think they can actually change their genders and they get mad at the people smarter than them for not pandering to their massive delusions.
@@tokertalk9648 wtf? Why do you have to aim at that topic now? Please don't answer.
I just reacted to a small throw away line at the beginning of the video.
Did he hit someone ??
I liked your videos man but it’s a bit insane to start talking about male vs female and “being better” because a dude slammed his fist in a high stress competitive environment. Get real man
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here, but the agreement was the opponent would scoop no matter what the top card was right? I mean if that's the case why did it matter that they scooped before or after they checked? I understand technically checking it before you actually scoop is against the rules, but surely as a judge you can understand the intent of the action, and have a chat with the players afterwards saying "hey, next time, just make sure you scoop before you do that".
Also if ,as the judge said, they overheard the conversation, surely they can just step in and say hey sorry guys you can't do that, seems really weird to hear a conversation about 2 players breaking the rules, and then wait until the moment they do to pounce and give them a match loss
Biggest issue i have, new drama youtuber stuff is boring! Lol
In Life we seldom get to WIN! we are told and shown as children that WINNERS MATTER! WINNERS are remembered!
Nobody wants to feel like a looser,
Building a Deck worth over $1200 - $2000 and then getting hosed would leave a bad taste in anybody's mouth especially if the Judge rules across the board a negative outcome for both players,
MTG and its player bass here in Australia has shown me many attitudes from many players who seem to resonate the "Im so good vibe" ego and competitive nature clash on these terms!
self control is dam hard, At my last Modern tourny I was crushed over and over against any counter spell deck my Green Tron just didnt have the juice it once had and I went home utterly gutted,
after the 3rd game against Delver deck free dragon etc.... I couldn't get cards on the table every play was counted or shut down even stealing my Map land fetch with a Charm utterly sent me over the edge!!! and I couldn't contain my anger so I blurted out at my opponent "Are you just going to counter every F-cking card I play" to this my opponent simply smiled and said "Yes"
I scooped and went home with tail between my legs haven't been back since!
Anger Cope is very real hahahahahaha we are only Human.
MTG decks are not worth 1200$ in this format. On the other hand, this WINNERS culture you talk about is very pathetic culture and a looser's culture. No surprise if you tell me he comes from that background
@@errrzarrr You are clearly wrong! considering Play sets of x4 cards each card costing any were from $80 up to some control counter spell cards worth upward of $120 each must I out line the cost of any cards or is you memory just bad!! all so did you realize I am talking about Australian Price lines which Is double the USA dollar basically! I was refering to Modern Format! you must have no experiance to understand whayt I am talking about!! as I have built many decks and bought many play sets eg Chalice of the Void which cost me $85.00 per card and then all my Fetch Lands FML you seem to no NOTHING! in relation to The format s and costs of Cards I all so play Cedh were My deck is currently worth over $3.5K again Im not going to outline each damn card! fml.
Let's be real for a moment: had Nicole won, that judge would not have intervened. Their issue was that the straight, white male was the winner. I've seen firsthand how judges at PTQs allow themselves to be partial. I was playing against a relatively inexperienced player that happened to be a lesbian. She made so many mistakes and I tried to walk her back how things work but she kept calling the judges and they would rule in her favor. Somehow a thoughtweft trio was unable to kill 2 scions of oona and a spellstutter sprite and survive combat. I had to call over the head judge and he asked them where they did their certifications.
Like this if he's a drama youtuber
Naw this DQ is stupid. I dont know why the gender is being brought up. He got upset at being unfairly match loss and then got himself ready to leave. He wasn't violet as violence implies harm or an intent of harm toward someone and he was just venting
Spirit of the rule is always more important than the letter.
The issue we have with the judge community is that they're mainly made up of social outcasts who have absolutely zero power, influence or social standing outside of the game and as such they like to flex that authority at every given moment.
Absolute farce of a situation, i'd be whipping my phone out to record that interaction if one of my mates was experiencing this shite.
IDW was correct call. Judges cannot possibly stop every time someone says something that would count as IDW.
If the judge heard the offer in this case, they gave OP the opportunity to deny/decline the offer, as anyone playing at Professional REL should know to do. (You are no longer REQUIRED to call a judge on your opponent if they make such an offer, it used to be even more cutthroat)
Instead, OP accepted the offer and the IPG was used by the judge to penalize the players appropriately. Everything else after that is a bit grey. He obviously blew up, but various accounts differ. IMO, OP needs to grow up
Incorrect.
Spirit over letter bud.
Sorry bro, but your message of neutrality comes off as victim blaming. Your take is that everyone did something wrong, but everyone is justified due to their position EXCEPT the victim of a potentially career-ending mistake and subsequent abuse of power at the end. Judge made a horrible call with lasting, if not permenant, consequence. Victim should be able to sue for a portion of potential lost earnings.
The match loss is as cut-and-dry by the book as it is possible to be. The Judge had no option but to rule that way, since the rule is very literally designed to have absolutely zero wiggle room or grey area and to be interpreted as strictly as possible regardless of the context. If either player offers or partakes in determining the result of the match via something that is an illegal game action (such as looking at the top card of a library when it isn't that players turn), they get a game loss. Period, the end, no ifs ands or buts.
Violating game rules and being rightfully reprimanded for that does not make you a "victim."
judges in all tcgs been trippin on power lately smh
I agree that he has a right to be upset and angry about this ruling, but cannot express it in a way that is violet as he did. But totally think he got a hit by a bad ruling, but it was fair to DC him from the venue after his response
the ruling was completly spot on
I think DDR730 covers this sort of thing pretty well (not in the original problem statement, but in his subsequent explanation of the related rules), and with that added context, I find it hard to fault the judge for any of this.
Without having seen any of the original context or documents (this vid was my intro to the “scandal”) I would just propose that if you intend to do something competitively, you need to develop a competitive mindset. That doesn’t just mean being a cutthroat robot who only thinks about winning, it means being aware of your decisions, and which ones might lead to suboptimal outcomes. That doesn’t stop at the spells you choose to cast, it extends to how you handle yourself, and what actions you take off the table. It might seem daunting, but every competitor who takes themselves seriously is fluent in the rules of their sport, and the ones who aren’t learn really quickly why they should be, due to consequences exactly like the one we saw here.
The silver lining is that the next time it happens, he’ll remember this and either call a judge immediately, or ask his opponent to forfeit the game BEFORE taking an illegal action. Either way, he’ll be saving himself from a loss.
He got a bs loss he didn’t harm anyone
It's insane to call the judges' call "insane". The rules are crystal clear and people who think they made a wrong ruling should learn how to read English. This was a high stakes tournament (aka not a "children's game"), where rules are supposed to be enforced. The player allowed a rule to be violated resulted in an IDW, and he got penalized properly. People should just read up on the rules and justifications why IDW is penalized so harshly (look up "Gambling, Bribery, & Inappropriately Determining a Winner in Magic: The Gathering" and "IPG 4.3"). The reason why IDW is enforced so strictly is that it risks turning MtG into a gambling game which threatens its legal status. It's the job of pro players to understand the rules of the game they are playing. Complaining about this is like playing soccer and then whining about how "offsides" are not fair. If they don't like the rules, don't play the game.
Also, if you cannot control your anger outbursts, you will be asked to leave. It doesn't matter what sport you are playing. Being rude to judges, refusing to accept rulings, and having anger tantrums is going to get you expelled anywhere. If you want to play in any professional sports, just saying that "everyone has outbursts" isn't going to protect you from penalization.
Knew few Mtg Judges. Only like 2 were decent people. Rest were weird.
"Minimum of power in hands of a fool" kind of moment. Hope his lack of lay is worth it.
Absolute garbage match loss call by the judge. The judge can hear what is going on but does not intervene before the infraction is committed. Two players came to a mutual agreement but the judge decides to step in and completely disregards the spirit of magic and swing their ego around. Now the anger shown is not acceptable and I think the dq is fair. You have to control your emotions. I get it, I get angry, but being unable to control anger is not something that should be allowed. Especially in a public event.
Anger shown was completely acceptable.
I'm making a stretch here. But imagine you got told you weren't going pro because you signed a contract with your left hand rather than right hand, and someone waited to tell you that later.
People are not required to be kind to those treating them like shit.
If you believe so, you are a weak individual and shouldn't be giving comments on these things.
@@anannoyedpanda Lmao, what a childish response. Imagine arguing for freedom of speech/expression and then in the same paragraph saying someone else shouldn't be able to express themselves.
Bad ruling leads to a judge making a shitty call and dude cannot control their anger. Blame the rulebook those who make it.
@@anannoyedpanda Dude broke the rules and instead of being an adult and calmly explaining their side and appealing to higher authorities against the judges call, the bursted out in anger. That is not professional, that is what a 6 year old does.
Signing with a left hand isnt illegal, taking illegal game actions to decide a game via information that isnt known IS illegal. Yeah the overall call was dumb, the judge was dumb, but the judge enforced the rules set out by WOTC, what a judge is supposed to do. Blame WOTC for that, and blame this adult who cannot control their emotions for 2 minutes to leave the venue or not start hitting things around them, again, like a 6 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
The problem is that judges don't pay for their wrong calls.
This player got his moment RUINED from a clown that doesn't know how to do it's job and nothing happens to the real culprit.
Different TCGs,same outcome.
The result of a match or game may not be randomly or arbitrarily determined through any means other than the normal progress of the game in play. Examples include (but are not limited to) rolling a die, flipping a coin, arm wrestling, or playing any other game.
Per the rules. The judge call was sound.
Incorrect.
Nah man, you wrong
The slippery slope is literally the name of a logical fallacy. It literally is not a real argument from any kind of logical standpoint.
The dialogue between the two players is a learned behavior at FNM. It does not belong at an REL type of event (RCQ or above). We can't blame the judges if we screw up during play. That's not how this works.
Incorrect.
Please read and acquire emotional education before speaking on the matter.
@@anannoyedpanda So you’re saying the players involved did nothing wrong before the judges intervened?
It is you who needs to be educated then. Do not shortcut, do, or say anything that is against the rules.
If you want a competitive environment (read RCQs and higher) you need to follow the rules as written without fail. No shortcuts. Maintain proper game state, announce all of your triggers properly, and use nothing but events happening in game to determine the outcome.
If the player would have thought to themselves, instead of saying out loud, what they were going to do based on the top of their deck this would not have been an issue.
Anyone who thinks this situation is absurd is an idiot. The rules are literally black and white. Both players deserved the game loss and context doesn’t matter. If someone was whooping your ass would you allow them to look at the top card of their deck? No? Why not? Because it is a RULE VIOLATION. Regardless of what situation is going on, a rule was broken and the opponent agreed and allowed it to happen instead of either 1. Reporting it to a judge or 2. Saying no.
If that player was about to lose, why not check AFTER the game??? When the winner has been decided. What would have happened if the player saw something on the top of their deck and decided not to concede? The result and the ruling would have been the same.
It is in this player who costed himself his opportunity. The rules clearly state that no player may look at the top of their library unless a card or game mechanic allows them to. People are upset because of the emotional aspect, BUT when it comes to rules, there’s no emotion, it’s logical.
For example, if someone murdered my child and in turn I murder them, am I still going to prison for violating a rule? Yes, yes I am. An emotional appeal of “they murdered my child” does not make sense legally. At the end of the day, the player screwed himself by allowing a rule infraction to happen when he was about to win the game, under no circumstances should any player allow another to break the rules in an actual tournament/competitive event.
Also, this should NOT be a game warning. Game warnings are for minor things like forgetting triggers or things that can be undone. This is giving a player access to information they shouldn’t have. It is blatant cheating. Like looking at a players hand. You can’t just say “okay, forget the card or cards or information you just saw”. They will have that knowledge and play the game as such. This is a clear game loss because it is an irreversible situation. The rules are logical, why would anyone try to use emotions to justify logic? That’s not how it works.
Technically the opponent was the one looking at the top of their deck, so why is he getting punished for them cheating, even if they asked him if they could cheat, the opponent is still the one that cheated.
@@GregRJohnson736how dense are you
@@arcdevil Apparently pretty dense as I still don't see why he is getting punished for his opponent cheating. Is it because he "allowed" them to cheat vs him? because he didn't report it to the judges? If so can anyone be given a game loss whenever you don't report an opponent who makes any violation?