Scrubbing out at Grand Prix tournaments is frustrating. Not only do you leave the place empty-handed, but you have nothing to talk about in your report! All I can say about GP: Strasbourg is that:
a) I picked the wrong deck (I played Saito’s deck from the Pro Tour, to which I added Greater Gargadon), and…
b) That you wouldn’t learn much from my matches –I won three mirror matches, lost to Mono Green, and twice to Teferi.
Oh, and one more thing: the format is now dead as a stone now that Future Sight is legal.
Future Sight is out next week on Magic Online, and we can finally work on the new draft format at home. That also means Pimp my Draft will soon start again. I don’t know the draft format that much yet, so I guess the picks will be even more arguable and that you’ll be able to bash me twice as much in the forums!
This week I wanted to do something different. I’ve been asked a lot about cheating and judging lately for my other column. I also have a few questions of my own, and was looking for answers… so today I interview two judges who’ve agreed to answer my queries. Level 4 judge David Vogin from France, and Level 5 Jaap Brouwer from the Netherlands.
Raph: Hi David / Jaap, can you introduce yourself quickly for those who don’t know you?
Jaap: I’m Jaap Brouwer from the Netherlands. I’ve been playing and judging since 1994. I’m a certified Level 5 (professional) judge. I have judged and head judged many smaller and larger tournaments over the last few years, ranging from prereleases to Worlds. As Level 5 I’m involved in developing the judge program, including training and testing judges, and involved in the discussions that come with the development of DCI policy.
David: Hello! I’ve been judging since 1998. Obviously, I started as a local judge and, event after event, I started travelling all over France, Europe, and then the world. I became Level 4 in early 2005, and I’m currently working towards Level 5. My first major event was Grand Prix: Tours in November 1999, and I have judged about 36 GPs since then, including some far from home like Singapore 05, Melbourne 05, and Beijing 05, and head-judged several of them, especially the largest GP ever held in the U.S. (GP: New Jersey 04 – 958 players) and the largest in the world (GP: Paris 04 – 1592 players).
I attended 22 Pro-Tours and World Championships as a judge since Tokyo 01, and recently head-judged my first one – PT: Geneva this year. You could also have seen me at U.S. Nationals 06 if you had been there. I guess I can be considered as a road warrior…
Raph: Some people are really good at manipulating cards. Do you think the judge staff on GPs and PTs is competent (enough) to judge high level tournaments and spot the cheaters? Do they follow a special training or attend seminars? Should they?
Jaap: The judge staff is absolutely competent enough to catch cheaters. That said, of course the level of experience of the individual judges differs. That’s why the DCI has all sorts of mechanisms to continuously train the judges at the events, including on-the-job-training and seminars. And yes, I would like all judges to go through this training. Reality is, however, that not all judges in the world have the opportunity to judge in a GP or PT.
I feel the need to mention one other thing: it’s not only the judges who catch the cheaters, it’s also the players. It is you! If you, as a player, inform us about sketchy things, we will keep an eye and catch those cheaters eventually.
David: The role of a Level 4 or 5 judge is actually much more oriented towards mentoring other judges than actually doing the judging job. Trying to be current with cheating techniques is part of our job, and making sure that as many judges as possible know about it is a key aspect of it. However, not all judges have access to Grand Prix and Pro Tours, and it’s difficult to make it easy for people to be familiar with shuffling abuses through email… For instance, at GP: Toulouse last year, we had a magician showing to the judges several tricks with shuffling cards. It certainly helps… [Now that’s cool! – Craig, impressed.]
I have no doubt that any staff performing at a GP or a PT is competent enough to detect cheaters, but I also trust in self-regulation, and I always encourage players to let the judges know of any suspicion they have.
Players have to understand that cheaters are damaging the game and the whole competition circuit, so keeping them out of it for good is definitely the best way to ensure fair tournaments in the long term. If a player is aware of another player cheating, instead of complaining about “those guys who cheat” or just feel that they only have to be careful when facing that guy, they should definitely let the judges know…
Raph: Talking about incompetent judges, we all know that everyone can make mistakes, but what happens to the judges who gave a wrong ruling or a player a penalty he didn’t deserve? Do you feel it’s the players fault to trust the judges too much and to not have appealed the head judge? Or the judge’s incompetence?
Jaap: let me start with saying that (fortunately) judges making mistakes is more an exception that the rule. In the occasion that a judge makes a mistake and this mistake is caught later on, then the judge should inform the players about the mistake and how it should have been ruled. This way all involved parties know how to deal with this situation in the future.
If a player receives a ruling from a judge and disagrees (with a reason other than "it’s to my disadvantage, so I dislike it"), then this player can always appeal to the head judge. The head judge will then make the final call.
David: As you said, everyone can make mistakes, and not calling the head judge when you don’t agree with a judge’s ruling, or have a doubt about it, is certainly a good example of a mistake. At best for you the head judge will change the ruling, at worst he can give you additional justifications for the ruling.
I’m not saying that you should call for the head judge each time you ask a question of a judge, but double checking a ruling is better than leaving with a frustrated attitude.
Raph: At these last few Pro Tours, at least one player has been disqualified from the main event. But in reality, how much do you think players in high level tournaments cheat? Are there a lot that manage to remain undetected?
Jaap: I think that as soon as there’s something worth cheating for, then there will be cheaters. What the number is exactly? I don’t know. Let me just say that, according to me, there’s still too many. Seriously though, I firmly believe that the number of premeditated cheaters is low. The number of opportunistic cheaters, on the other hand, is relatively large. If someone makes a mistake, he or she shouldn’t try to hide it or cover it up. Deal with it. Accept it. Maybe it cost you the game, but whatever, you’re still playing and can try to win those others…
David: You should distinguish two types of cheaters: premeditated and opportunistic.
I do not believe that many players come to an event with a clear intent to cheat (by adding cards to their sealed deck, or using shuffling techniques that make the shuffle not so random, for instance). To give you a figure, I think we are below 0.5%. Those are generally easier to catch since they repeat infractions several times during the day.
Opportunistic cheating is probably more frequent since they are still a lot of players who are unaware of it. For instance, if you don’t tell your opponent that he forgot a mandatory ability or effect, you are cheating by misrepresenting the game, but some players still think that it’s a passable skill-tester to let your opponent not resolve his own mandatory effects (if your opponent forgets his own Howling Mine, for example).
Lying to the head judge is also a good example. I have disqualified several players who, even though I would have ruled in their favour had they told me the truth about what happened at the table, felt like they had to lie for me to do so… It’s human to be willing to hide your mistakes, but the most useful thing mom taught me is that lying generally puts you more in trouble than admitting a mistake.
Raph: We’ve all heard about Katsuhiro Mori’s suspension at the end of PT: Yokohama. How long did it take for the judges to make that decision? How many other players (we don’t need the names) are a couple of warnings away from getting the same sanction?
Jaap: The suspension of any player is always considered very carefully. The same goes for the suspension of Mr. Mori.
Mentioning numbers here wouldn’t serve a purpose, except for maybe frightening players. It is not the intention of the DCI to frighten or scare players away. On the contrary… please, come and play in DCI sanctioned tournaments! The DCI’s goal is to provide a fair, fun and competitive environment for its players. Those players that make mistakes often and choose not to clean up their act, they should know that this is not without risk. Players that receive an occasional warning for a random mistake have nothing to worry about.
David: You know, there is no such thing as an official “watch list.” However, we regularly discuss noticeable infractions that happen at major tournaments, and you can be certain that if you repeatedly commit infractions, even if you are not summoned for a lengthy discussion with the head judge each time, there will always be some judges at GPs and PTs who have heard of it and will be extra careful with you.
I can’t share the details of what happened with Katsuhiro Mori. All I can tell you is that after he committed several game procedure errors at PT: Geneva, and in the events before it he was clearly warned that due to his achievements as a player we were expecting him to be more careful.
Raph: When you disqualify a player, are you 100% sure he’s guilty of what he’s accused? Would you disqualify a player that is very likely to have cheated but you don’t have evidence that he actually did?
Jaap: When I DQ a player I am 100% convinced that this player cheated. No judge needs hard evidence to DQ a player, just the personal certainty that the player is guilty. A judge should be able to explain this to both the DQ’d player and the DCI.
David: It’s a wrong idea to think that a judge must be 100% certain that a player cheated to disqualify him/her. Ideally, 51% should be enough, but it’s generally close to 70 / 75%. I always have a doubt when I disqualify a player, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing, it leaves room for reflection.
By disqualifying people, we are not being harsh towards a player; we are trying to preserve the fairness of the event and the chances of all other players in the event. Even if mistakes happen, disqualifying someone who “likely cheated” is a service to all other players, and by putting the bar too high, a judge simply takes the risk to have a cheater win against honest players.
To answer your question about evidence, I would add that a judge is more a referee than a lawyer, so your conviction is the only evidence you actually need.
Raph: The DCI has been changing the ruling quite often about how a situation should be handled when a procedural error has been committed. For example, a player who laid an extra land unnoticed will get to keep it in play if his opponent spots the mistake the turn after, even if nothing has been played in the meantime. With a warning given to each player, it seems that if the land was laid on purpose, the cheater is supported by the rules (as it’s the responsibility of both players to keep the game state proper). What is your take on that? Don’t you think every situation should be handled separately? If there’s a way to correct the game state without influencing anything, shouldn’t it be done that way?
Jaap: We discussed this a little over MSN*. I don’t think that the DCI is changing the rules on how to handle PE’s (Procedural Errors) often; the previous rules were in effect for many years and left a lot of space for personal discretion. The current, new since February 2007, rules have been discussed at length between senior judges for more than nine months. The reason why this process was so lengthy and difficult is that we needed to come up with a set of rules that would be easy to implement and fair and consistent no matter what. There’s a huge difference between the amounts of support judges have around the world. Some have no judge buddy to discuss their experience with, or little to no access to online resources like IRC channel #mtgjudge. Others have 24/7 online access, have more colleague judges in their area than fingers on their hands, etc. Both should be giving the same fair and consistent rulings to their players, to make sure that a player, whereever they go, gets a consistent ruling.
The example you gave is a nice one (fetching the wrong land, finding out more than a turn later). Now you know exactly what happens if that happens. You and your opponent get a warning so, in case you want to try this little trick again, it’s on your warning record. Oh yeah, if the judge determined that you did this intentionally, you’re DQ’d for cheating (obviously). What if the judge was free in determining what the most appropriate solution would be? Then it would depend on the judge in your tournament, the judge at your table how the ruling would be. Sometimes you would be happier with it; sometimes you would be less happy with it. The DCI chooses for a set of consistent rulings to prevent rulings based on vague factors like the experience of the judge and the playing skills of the judge (and we all know that judges are stars when it comes to playing, right? Hehe).
*To give another example to Japp, I told him about what happened during my match against Tomoharu Saito in GP: Dallas. I sacrificed my Windswept Heath to get a Steam Vents, and used the Blue mana to cast a Meddling Mage. A turn later, a spectator noticed the mistake and we called the judge. Tomaharu and I got a warning and I got to keep the Steam Vents. I argued with the Head Judge for a few minutes to correct the state of the game, which in that case would have been to fetch a Breeding Pool instead of the Steam Vent, but he ruled that it was too late.
David: I wish I could paste here the hundreds of emails and hours of conversations that were exchanged between the high level judges when we were discussing implementing this policy.
I don’t believe that players would like to see similar situations handled differently at every GP or Pro Tour (or FNM!).
Similarly, I don’t believe that we could have all the judges in the world learn a document where we would put how to handle hundreds of different situations with different fixes.
Let’s take the example of a missed triggered ability. Some are optional (use the word “may”), but most are mandatory. Some are generally beneficial (Howling Mine), but can be detrimental in some cases (no more cards in library). Some are generally detrimental (Braids, Cabal Minion) but can be beneficial (if you need to get rid of your Mana Flare that is helping your opponent a lot – no, I have not considered playing a Braids / Mana Flare deck). Some may be easily forgotten because they are a side effect of a bigger thing or are delayed (resolved later in the turn), some are the main ability of a card. Some trigger during upkeep and are less efficient if resolved after, and some don’t. Some are made to trigger during your opponent’s turn, and some during yours. Some have a default option (“do this or sacrifice this card”) some don’t (“draw a card or gain 4 life”). Some have a huge impact on the game, some don’t, some sometimes do…
Trust me when I say that this rule is the best thing we came up with in terms of global consistency and ease of enforcement.
Additionally, keep in mind that intentional mistakes can end in a disqualification. I strongly believe that in the upcoming months, we’ll see an increase in disqualifications for intentional game play errors at the highest levels of play, since most judges are now better trained to investigate for a player’s intent when they rule on such situations.
Raph: What kind of relationship do you have with the players? Do you think it helps to be a friendly judge, like Sheldon Menery?
Jaap: in general I have a friendly but professional relation with players, and of course there are both positive and less positive exceptions to this. I think it’s important for a judge to have the confidence of the player community. Sometimes this is established through friendly chatter and sometimes by doing a good job. It certainly helps if players see a judge as friendly.
David: I consider that everyone at a tournament is here to have fun. I don’t believe in stern judges and I don’t like when judges feel like they have to chase the players for infractions. I like to stay in touch with the players: they bring ideas drawn from experience (as compared to our theory), and they let us know about wrongdoers and rumors, which helps a lot.
I do my best to get recognition from the players, both as a friendly and competent judge since it gives them confidence in what I do and helps in many judging situations (many players won’t try to argue with me when I make a decision, for instance).
Raph: Do you think players and judges are two different worlds that shouldn’t interfere?
Jaap: Absolutely not. Come on, we’re all just people trying to have a good time. Some of us do that by playing, some of us do that by organizing or judging, developing themselves along the way. Judges and players share some drives, as well as displaying some differences. We all like to meet our friends, make new friends, see foreign countries, meet foreign people, and last but not least, play our favorite card game. Does that make us so different?
David: No. As I said in your previous question, we are all here because we like Magic, having fun, and travelling the world.
Raph: Up to what level can a judge be influenced in giving out his decision if he knows the players at the table?
Jaap: Knowing the background of a player can help put certain actions in perspective, more specific help in the investigation for intent. It should help a judge in assessing the situation better so the result should be better. It doesn’t influence the procedure or the given penalty if there is one, though. So it can influence the decision of the judge in that the quality of the investigation can be better.
David: To be honest, up to 100%. I would not disqualify my brother of he tells me that he didn’t cheat, even if I would have disqualified anyone else in that situation (I hope he doesn’t read this!).
Without using such an extreme example, I can certainly tell you that if I know a player’s background, I’ll be more efficient in the course of the investigation. As I said earlier, if a player has a bad reputation, we’ll tend to investigate more deeply, even the smaller mistakes he can make.
Raph: Any closing words?
Jaap: Thank you for this interview. I liked the idea and the questions. If you or any of the readers see me at a tournament and would like to discuss any of the above, please feel free to bring it up.
David: Thanks for all this. I hope you’ll find it useful. I’d like to encourage all the regular players to try judging a tournament once in a while, I suspect it will help them understand us better.
I have talked a lot about cheaters and disqualifications in this interview, but that’s a very small part of the job. I don’t like judging because of this, I like judging because of all its aspects: communication, people management, event management, travelling the world… And overall supporting a great card game!
…
Thanks to both David and Jaap for their time! Hopefully they answered some of your questions too!
Keep it fair until next time!
Raph