While this is nominally a response to Ryan Golden’s article about standardized penalties, this is, in fact, a general look into administrative hearings and the goings on behind them.
DCI criticism has been rampant in the wake of several high-profile suspensions. Some want to know what is going on, and accusations of conspiracy and backroom dealings have appeared multiple times since then. What I want to do is show how I, as a hearings officer, go about adjudication, and how the DCI would probably do the same.
By way of introduction, I am a housing administrator for a large state university. As part of my duties, I am the hearings officer for my housing complex, which consists of three buildings of about 730 rooms. I have a Masters in Public Administration, and I have worked in this field doing both confrontations and adjudications for six years now.
The largest misunderstanding on the part of many of those who criticize the DCI is the assumption that the DCI should follow criminal law. After years of indoctrination with”Law and Order,” people sometimes think that criminal law is the only way to go. This is a patently false belief.
If the DCI suspends someone from play, all the DCI has done is prevent a person from playing in any DCI sanctioned events: Period. That person can still play Magic, and can even participate in events sanctioned by non-DCI entities, like Magic Online, E-League, and so forth. No right has been denied, and only the smallest of civil claims could ever be made.
As a hearings officer, when I can put people on probation, terminate housing contracts, mandate community service, and so forth, I still am not legally bound by the”Reasonable Cause” burden of proof. All I have to prove, in order to find someone responsible, is that the person’s guilt is”More Likely Than Not.”
With only the lightest of penalties at its disposal, the DCI can easily justify use of the”More Likely Than Not” standard.
Another issue is with non-disclosure, and I can tell you that this is a legal mandate. Joe Blow may not have a right to participate in DCI sanctioned events, but he definitely has an expectation to privacy. Therefore, when the DCI publishes the person’s name, sanction, and violation, they cannot also start going into detail about the entire event. But Ryan and others look at the information that the DCI does publish, and draw major conclusions.
Let’s take a look at some examples from my work to illustrate. We’ll assume that I post names of offenders, any past action, what they were found responsible for, and any sanction (which I do not, but it resembles the DCI policy).
Joe Blow
Violation of section 4.1, weapons
No History
Verbal Warning
Joe Blow, Jr.
Violation of section 4.1, weapons
No History
Probation
Now at first, it may appear that Junior got a much harder sanction for the same offense. However, Joe Blow had a paintball gun, whereas Junior had a pistol. It was a violation of the exact same offense, but with very different sanctions. So one difference can be the degree of the offense. Let me give another example of this:
Joe Blow
Violation of section 3.2, pets
No History
Verbal Warning
Joe Blow, Jr.
Violation of section 3.2, pets
No History
Written Warning
Joe Blow, III
Violation of section 3.2, pets
No History
Probation
How could these three similar violations result in a different sanction each time? Well, Joe Blow the elder had a hermit crab – which, while a violation, is not a nuisance. Junior had a snake, which can get out, scare people, and be a pain to catch. And the youngest Blow had a poisonous snake, which could be even more of a hazard. Degree of offense is one of the most crucial causes in differing sanctions.
Another issue is illustrated below:
Joe Blow
Violation of section 2.7, noise
No History
Verbal Warning
Joe Blow, Jr.
Violation of section 2.7, noise
No History
Written Warning
Is this an example of unfairness? Do I not like Junior? Of course not; Joe Blow the senior simply complied with staff and readily admitted his guilt. Junior swore to staff, harassed them, yelled at them, and so forth – and therefore, I am more lenient towards Joe Blow in sanctioning. This happens all the time to reward good behavior. It offers a reason to cooperate by providing an incentive.
How about a more complex issue? Such as:
Joe Blow
Violation of section 7.1, marijuana
History: 1 Offense
Probation
Joe Blow, Jr.
Violation of section 7.1, marijuana
No History
Probation
How can I give the same sanction to someone who has been sanctioned once already for marijuana? While the previous factors could also apply, there could be any number of other reasons as well. In this case, Joe Blow voluntarily entered a drug rehab program, whereas Junior refused to acknowledge his guilt. How about:
Joe Blow
Violation of section 7.2, alcohol
No History
Written Warning
Joe Blow, Jr.
Violation of section 7.2, alcohol
No History
Probation
In this case, Joe Blow might have been willing to cooperate and tell me who bought and provided alcohol to him, whereas Junior might not have been willing to point the finger at the supplier.
And so forth.
In the real world, there cannot be an objective blanket sanction. Even criminal law allows for various circumstances by having a range of appropriate punishments. There can be any number of a host of aggravating or mitigating circumstances that cause me to change sanctions.
The DCI is no different. Whether a player appeared truly recalcitrant or not is a meaningful distinction that can affect sanctioning. If a person self-notifies, I always give a significantly lighter sanction – if any. After all, if a person goes to the head judge before the start of a tournament and tells him they misregistered their deck, shouldn’t the sanction be lighter than if the judge finds out near the end of the day?
Additionally, relying on the words of someone who was found responsible after sanctioning is highly suspect. I can remember times when I have found someone responsible after they confessed to me, but later I overhear that person telling all of their friends that they were innocent. I just smile and walk on.
The DCI cannot simply start disclosing everything in order to protect the privacy of the individuals involved, nor is the DCI bound to the traditionally viewed aspects of criminal law. And the DCI shouldn’t even have one set penalty for given infractions.
Life is more complex than the simple phrase:”If a person does X, then they get Y.” Shouldn’t the DCI’s policy reflect that?
What do YOU think? Share your
opinion with the community and you just may walk away with some FREE Magic cards… courtesy of your friends at
StarCityGames.com!