Ruling 7 (finale) Judge Dave Breaks Down a Cheating Investigation
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- This is a scenario from a Mock Tournament conference after a Cheating Investigation. Learn how Judge Dave approaches investigations in general with lots of practical tips!
Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw
It's Dave's patented 'yeah I had a few judge calls earlier but I don't remember what they were about exactly' technique, 10/10 bamboozles every time
This is actually reasonably accurate. It's certainly not something you should expect for a player to know the specific names of infractions they committed. Also, it's not entirely realistic for a player to commit as many infractions in a single day as I did in this conference. That said, if a player gets evasive or seems to be selectively remembering things during an investigation, that could be a red flag.
@@JudgingFtW there are so many reasonable, common, bamboozleing things that can happen in a judge call. It's great that you're practising "I can't remember everything that happened today."
In netrunner land, player reveals hidden information after opponent asks them to pause play is a doozy.
This was stressful 😅 in a good way though, easily the hardest call I had to make. Still this was amazing practice on a subject thats probably one of the hardest things to do. Thank you both again for taking the time to walk me through it! 🙏🏻
this was giving ME anxiety!
15:20 his body language says you are 100% correct
@@CasualCoreK I am thankful om not the only one 🤣
I would have been at this event, except I already had plans for the weekend. Great to still be able to see a bit of it this way, thanks!
Been waiting for the finale
I don’t know much about judging, but it seems like an important thing to consider is who originally noticed the infraction, and who called the judge. If you watch the start of the first video, the player on the right is the one explaining the situation to the judge and even says “and that’s when I realized I missed the trigger”. Given that the opponent will have an opportunity to put the trigger on the stack anyway, it seems less suspicious to me if he is one that pointed out his mistake and facilitated the process of potentially letting his opponent resolve it.
However now that it is the player on the left's turn, the player on the right has more information about the gamestate. It's possible that the RIP player didn't want to exile graveyards at the time, but now he does and calls a judge.
The judge earlier gave the opponent the option to exile all graveyards and only after he declined did he bring up the possibility of cheating. I would think an accusing player would bring up the cheating before any ruling had been made. And even after bringing up cheating, could he then being given a second chance to exile all graveyards?
Enjoyed this content. Thanks for sharing
How long should things like this take? Obviously this took longer than it should've because of all the learning happening, but what if there is 5 minutes left in the round? Is holding up a tournament fine?
Personally I would feel pressured judging with the clock being so close!
This is a great question to ask, and it's something that has immense practical implications for real judges. I'd be comfortable taking about 5-10 minutes to gather information, but not much more than that. A common issue is that many judges want to take longer than that, sometimes a lot longer. It's a delicate skill to know how much additional information might increase our confidence without causing undue delay to the event.
A couple of important tools to keep in mind are that normally the Head Judge is the only one who issues DQ's at events with more than one judge, so involving the HJ as early in the process as possible is important to avoid having to process the same information multiple times. Another is that it's possible to DQ after the round where the incident in question happened. For example, in the case presented in the video, checking with the scorekeeper or other judges could be done after the ruling is issued. If there is no interesting information that these avenues provided, there's no delay in the event. On the other hand, if that turns up additional evidence that tips the balance in favor of a Cheating ruling, that ruling can be delivered at that point.
Obviously not a judge here but I don't really agree with that. Right having cards not exiled by intentionally missing a trigger is just going to be called out the moment he actually utilizes the graveyard because its obvious that the RIP was missed at that point when you put attention to it. At that point the owner+controller of the card would lose from DQ due to not being able to revert the state of the game. Way too high risk for pretty much zero return. What exactly is the advantage here? Hoping that Left doesn't notice that RIP triggers were missed even after utilizing cards from the yard? It seems like a completely pointless cheat to do if that was intentional. I find it much more likely that someone would miss a trigger when nerves are up and they need to think of stuff even if they were playing perfectly up until that point.
during a cheating investigation is there any rules if the player has a know mental health issue/medical reason impairing there memory/judgment during the game. with a clause for a lesser punishment for these types of players.
The fact that Dave played the RIP changes this, because if it was bad to exile his own GY , why would he played the RIP and just not use the Academy ruins. He played RIP thinking it is the best play and making this scenario honest mistake IMO.
So there is this thing called cheating...
@@grimztherapist yeah but my comment try to show that cheating does not ably in this case or would have being "bad cheating" and making no sense
.....MTG-Judges are playing their own META at this point
How likely do you feel cheating needs to be to make the call?
“More likely than not” 66-75% sure they were cheating would be my guess even if they subconsciously cheated they cheated. I’m not a judge I just don’t think you can expect them to be 90% + sure before making the call.
I would want to falsely accuse like, less than 2% of non-cheating players of cheating.
@@Playingwithproxies Looking at the weight of the outcomes, even 75% is too strict. Missing a cheater is bad, but if it's ambiguous then it probably doesn't ruin the game for his opponents, because they wouldn't know. Treating an honest player as a cheat on the other hand can turn them off pro magic. The false positive is more than three times as bad as the false negative, so 75% is too low as a threshold.
It's the same logic as not gambling even at 80% odds if the outcomes are that you win $1 or lose $10. I'm not sure how much worse a false accusation is to missing a cheater, but it's at least ten times as bad (implying 91% odds before you pull the trigger), probably more.
@@Playingwithproxies From the sounds of it cheating is considered after a rule is broken, and it gave an advantage, so the percentage is just did they do this intentionally or unintentionally. I don't know what you mean exactly by subconciously, but it seems you cannot unintentionally cheat, as cheating in this context requires intent.
@@o0Black0o has it given any advantage. The player who missed the trigger had access to additional cards in the gy but is that is only an advantage if they weren’t going to use it.