Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:14:43 — 17.1MB)
This week Ronnie rages (typical), Trey discovers a secret about Fiend Hunter, Jamey talks about a cat, and Ben gives more achievements! The guys discuss the StarCity Games Open in Alanta, the Gonzales incident and a really, really bad card.
Your hosts: Ronnie, Trey, Jamey and Ben
Email: visionsofbeyondpodcast@gmail.
Twitter: @vobpodcast and @Rhoxnews
Website: visionsofbeyondpodcast.
Facebook: www.facebook.com/vobpodcast
You have several things incorrect about the rules regarding Bribery and DQs. First, DQs are not automatically without prize. It is common, but not a given, that DQs are without prize. With Bribery, the rules are slightly different in the finals of the single elimination portion of a tournament. The finalists may decide to distribute the prizes and agree to a result for the tournament. So offering your ‘share’ of the prizes in exchange for the win–*in a PTQ finals*–is legal according to the rules of tournament MTG. Note that this does exclude offering anything outside of the prizes for the tournament.
While I am not privy to the full details of the actual ‘Gonzalez incident’, what I suspect happened is that Gonzalez got DQ’d for an offer that is legal in the finals, but illegal in other parts of a tournament, and the judge screwed up. Provided that this is true, the information about it would almost assuredly be in the reports by both the judge and witnesses, and WotC taking action there is appropriate.
I would like to specify two things: one, I’m an L2 judge in CT, and two, the information and opinion I’ve presented here is only based on the information presented on your podcast segment, as I could not find anything on Google about this. While I normally defer judgments about actual situations, as it relies significantly on being present, but from what you’ve presented on your podcast and knowing that WotC does not flippantly overrule judges, the only explanation I can conclude, based on what you presented, is that the judge made a mistake. We strive to make the correct ruling, but judges are human, and fallible.
If the DQ was an incorrect ruling, does the special invite no longer offend you so terribly? Did you consider that before your rant?
Gregory, first thing: Thank you for the clarification on the rules regarding Bribery. I know this is a sensitive matter, which is why I’m putting much time and resource into acquiring first hand accounts of what actually happened during the finals of this PTQ.
Now based on what happened: Gonzales and his opponent had agreed before hand that the winner would take the invite and the ticket, and the other would take the packs. From my understanding of the Tournament Rules (5.2) if at this point the opponent would have agreed to drop and do given split, it would have been completely within the rules. The problem then is the timing, which we did mention in the podcast. The bribe in question took place after game 1, with Gonzales up 1 game to 0. At this point, according to multiple eye witnesses Gonzales made a statement similar to, “So, do you want to take the packs now?” Now, I think any person can see how this can be taken as asking the opponent to concede and take the packs. I pondered over this point quite some time before I took an official stance. Since September actually, but after reading multiple articles by multiple judges about collusion and bribery, the point that kept coming up was if something had the appearance of bribery, it was considered bribery.
Now to address your point about offering a “share” of the prizes for the win. This can only be done when in exchange for the opponent dropping. Not in exchange for a concession. From the same paragraph in 5.2 that talks about single elimination prize sharing: “Such an agreement can never include a concession or an intentional draw.” Now from what I can understand from 2.4 and 2.10 is that at this point in the match, if the opponent were to “drop,” it would be considered a concession. I’ve talked to a couple of L2 judges and a L1 judge about this, and they agree on that point. (And hey, if they are wrong, then they are wrong)
I take a very strong stance on this issue, because I respect the work of our judges. I also respect our game very much. And because of those two things, if I feel an injustice is being done to one, much less both, then I will become very heated over it. We made the mistake of not going over the incident in as much detail as what might have been needed (I just listened to it again, and we should have been more thorough). We will take better consideration in the future to provide a more in-depth look at the situations that may anger us.
I say this sincerely (I honestly hope that I’m not coming off as a douche, it’s sometimes hard not to sound like one through written mediums), thank you for your input. I may disagree with you, but I love healthy and thoughtful discourse.
From the additional information in your response, I would still call that *not* Bribery.
If the offer had been accepted, the result of the event would have been the opponent dropping from the tournament. Every time this topic has come up, it has been generally understood that player language may be somewhat muddled about drop/concede. The fix for that from the judge is to make sure the player knows what ‘giving the victory to the opponent’ actually means–that no match result would be reported, that these two players being the only ones remaining means a drop still means second-place (everyone eliminated previously was already dropped from the event). In practical terms for the players, it is indistinguishable (esp. after Elo rating ended). The only real difference is in reporting the result in the software. I’ve seen nor heard (until now) of any judge making a distinction because an offer was made mid-match. The rule is there to preserve tournament integrity. One reason the bribery rules are altered for the last round of single elimination is that it cannot affect any other match. I suspect the ‘drop’ distinction is officially worded as it is, is to help prevent running afoul of gambling laws (which WotC is very careful to do).
Personally, hearing more of this story, I am shocked that Gonzalez was DQ’d, and provided that there’s not some crucial piece of info I’m missing, think a great injustice had been done to him. I think a special invite was appropriate.
All DQs get reviewed by a panel of high-level, experienced judges to determine if a suspension is warranted (the DCI Investigation Committee). This is automatic. I am rather confident that at least some segment of that panel was conferred with about this situation, before extending the special invite to Gonzalez. [I forgot to mention this in my previous post.] In fact, based on what I’ve learned about the event from you (and that I am certain a DQ was not warranted for the circumstances I am aware of), this may have been passed along to the WotC people in charge of giving out the special invites by Investigation Committee–though I suspect it came to WotC’s attention before the IC reviewed the case.
Link to an announcement with information about the IC: http://community.wizards.com/judge/blog/2010/10/20/investigation_-_q42010
I’d see if you can attempt to get in touch with someone involved in the decision process that gave Gonzalez a special invite. I’d suggest starting with @HeleneBergeot (that’s her Twitter handle)–she can probably provide a starting point. You may also consider trying to contact someone on the Investigation Committee.
On your last concern: I find no problem with your tone. Your post included relevant information and cited what helped influence your opinion.
As far as how in-depth you provide info about what angers you, I’d suggest seeing if more about the ‘Why?’ can be found out.
For instance, in this case, consider plausible reasons why WotC would ‘undermine’ a judge’s ruling–a mistaken ruling would have qualified, right? Then it’s a matter of investigation, and trying to find out if any definitive answers can be given. In this case, that would mean following up with the contact points I mentioned before (or similar).
“5.2 Players are allowed to share prizes they have not yet received in the current tournament as they wish and may agree as such before or during their match, as long as any such sharing does not occur in exchange for any game or match result or the dropping of a player from the tournament. As an exception, players in the announced last round of the single-elimination portion of a tournament may agree to divide tournament prizes as they wish.
In that case, one of the players at each table must agree to drop from the tournament. Players are then awarded prizes according to their resulting ranking. DCI ratings will not be affected because no match will have been played.Such an agreement may never include a concession or an intentional draw.
Example: In the finals of a 1-slot Pro Tour Qualifier that offers a travel award and an invitation to the winner, the two finalists may agree to split the tournament prizes, but this agreement cannot alter the results of the match. One player must drop from the tournament, leaving the travel award and the invitation to the player who did not drop from the tournament. That player is then free to split the remainder of the prizes as agreed upon. The travel award and invitation are a single item and may not be split.”
Basically, one of the guys would have had to drop immediately before the game began in order to split the prizes. Since they neither did they started play as normal and Gonzales’ question was indeed bribery as per “5.2 The decision to drop, concede, or agree to an intentional draw cannot be made in exchange for or influenced by the offer of any reward or incentive. Making such an offer is prohibited.”
The last part of that rule says it all.