Hey everybody! As the title says, my names Max Knowlan, and I’m the last member of the four-man Justice League. I’m one of the three Level 2 judges from British Colombia, an area that had an almost non-existent judge program just a few years ago. Now, thanks to some great locals and Level 4 Jason Ness from Alberta, we have a very strong group of guys that make judging here a pleasure.
As Riki mentioned in his introduction article for us, I am the dark horse of the group. I’m not as well known in the Magic community, or in the judge community, as my teammates are. I’m still a student, so traveling to Grand Prix tournaments isn’t as easy for me, but I’m hoping to leave the country at least three times this year.
My articles are all going to be dedicated to the penalty guidelines. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding penalties, and I think it’s important to bridge the gap between judges and players in understanding the why’s and what’s of the penalty guidelines. Hopefully, along the way I’ll be able to help some people avoid getting punished for doing things they didn’t even know were worthy of penalties.
Today, I’ll be trying to shed some light on why head judges will often announce “you may not offer your opponent anything to alter the result of a match.” Overall, there is arguably no penalty more controversial than the bribery/wagering. You could make a case for insufficient randomization, or slow play, but bribery seems to come up more often.
Why is bribery such a hot button issue in the Magic world? The act of bribing someone is usually seen as a universally bad thing to do. You can’t bribe your opponents in other contests, such as sports or poker, especially not when you’re playing at a competitive level. You certainly can’t bribe politicians (at least we would like to think that). So why is there so much frustration and confusion around bribery in Magic?
I believe the main problems are twofold. First, some players don’t see some bribes as a bribe. Other times some players just don’t understand how certain bribes can even be a bad thing.
Picture two players in the final round of the second day of a Grand Prix. Player A makes Top 8 with a win, and will not make it without one. Player B can’t make Top 8 even if he wins, but he will still make Top 16 if he does (which qualifies him for the next Pro Tour).
Player A: “We both know you can’t make Top 8 if you win. Could you just concede to me?”
Player B: “I really want that Pro Tour invite. It’s gonna be right in my home town, and I’d love to play in it.”
Player A: “What if I give you $500 to concede to me?”
Player B: “Sweet! Done!”
I think almost everyone would agree that both these guys are guilty. One player offered cold hard cash for a concession, and the other player accepted. Seems simple, right? So what’s the problem here?
Let’s make it a little more complicated. This time we’ve got two guys that sorta know each other playing game 3 in the semi-finals of a local competitive REL event that has a pretty good prize payout. Player A is about to defeat Player B.
Player A: “I’m going to concede for future considerations.”
Player B says nothing, and silently scoops up his cards.
Future considerations? What does that even mean?
It could mean a number of things. Maybe Player A knew that he’d be facing a bad matchup in the finals, and his friend wouldn’t be, or maybe he thought that he might have to leave before the final match could finish. Those would both be examples of “future considerations.” Of course, it is also entirely possible that this was the player’s subtle way of saying “I’ll concede if you give me stuff.”
So does the player get disqualified? Based on the information I’ve given, there isn’t a definitive answer, since you still need to do the player interviews and all that jazz. Keep in mind, though, that a head judge doesn’t need 100% concrete evidence to disqualify somebody. If they determine that it’s likely that this was an attempt at bribery, then the player will probably get the boot.
After the verdict on Player A has been passed down, that means that peace is restored and all is well. Right?
Wait a second… What about Player B?
His friend just conceded a game to him right before he was going to win it, and didn’t even give a reason. Clearly an unusual choice of actions, and yet Player B didn’t say or do anything; there was no real reaction. If I had an opponent give up a match he was definitely going to win, I’d at least be a little curious as to why. Wouldn’t you? So what do we take his silence as? It’s unlikely that he didn’t hear what Player A said, as that should spark even more of a reaction. Maybe the player really didn’t care. He was getting a win, and maybe that was all that really mattered. There isn’t a rule saying you have to know why your opponent concedes.
Whenever there is an instance of possible bribery, a judge has to know a few things. Was the player making the alleged bribe actually trying to make a bribe? Did the other player understand what possible offender was trying to get at? Did the second player accept the bribe? A judge would have to answer these questions to solve this puzzle. If Player B knew (or thought) that Player A was offering a bribe, he either had to accept it or decline it. So did Player B know what was happening? If he did, is would his silence be considered a refusal or an acceptance?
So in summary: we now have Player A possibly offering a bribe, and Player B possibly accepting something that is only possibly a bribe. To make things more complicated, what if Player A wasn’t offering a bribe, and Player B thought he was. Could it be possible that Player B may have taken a bribe that wasn’t even there?
Unfortunately, these are rhetorical questions. They can’t be answered definitively without actually having been there. But this clearly demonstrates just how complicated this issue can be.
Assuming both people involved are guilty, why should they be disqualified? “Because the penalty guidelines say so” isn’t really a good enough reason for most people, myself included. The Penalty Guidelines are there to deal with a few different issues. They keep Magic tournaments fair, safe, fun, consistent, and they keep them Magic tournaments.
I’ll elaborate on that last one.
They try and keep the game as true as they can to what it’s supposed to be. Everyone involved in making Magic what it is, from R&D, to the DCI, don’t want it to be about who can give their opponents the most packs, cash, or whatever. All making bribery an illegal action does is force players to play Magic the way it is supposed to be played, just like the other penalties we enforce.
So how can you avoid getting penalized for accidental bribery?
Don’t try and give your opponent $500 to concede to you. That would be a great start.
If you are considering offering your opponent something that you think might be considered a bribe and you just aren’t sure…
STOP!
Call a judge over and ask them if you can do whatever it is you want to do. You can’t get in trouble for asking about something you’re considering. No matter how sure you are about something, you should always ask a judge to confirm, especially if it’s regarding such an iffy topic.
Learn some lessons from my second example, and be sure to always use very clear communication with your opponent and judges. If you’re conceding, it’s always good to give a reason why. If it’s something private, then just make sure whatever you are saying is very clearly not a bribe. If you’re on the receiving end of a bribe, make it very clear that you don’t want to take it (unless you do… in which case, please don’t come to any of my events). When an offer has been made to you, call a judge. A lot of people are hesitant to do this because they don’t want to look like the bad guy, but you’re doing every other player in the room a favour, and if you know something that a player did wrong, not telling anyone still places some level of guilt on you.
There’s also that other part of the Penalty Guidelines rule #144… the “wagering” part of “bribery and wagering.”
Wagering encompasses pretty much all wagers at an event. Two players place a wager on their match, spectators gambling on a match, or on the tournament. Like bribery, you don’t need to be betting cash for it to matter. I used to gamble for candy with my brother when I was little; you can’t even do that.
Gambling at Magic events is much less common than bribery, which is ironic since there used to be cards that forced you to gamble. On the other hand, there also used to be a card that cost one Blue mana and drew you three cards. Things change, and there are good reasons why gambling died along with Timmerian Fiends. Wagering isn’t allowed for essentially the same reasons that bribery isn’t allowed. It simply isn’t what Magic is intended for.
Wizards has spent a lot of work into separating themselves from gambling. I think they’ve even been to court about issues that surround it. So help them out, and save it for the casino.
That’s it for now, but before I go, I’m a big fan of giving credit where credit is due, so at the end of every article I plan to acknowledge some people.
– Big thanks obviously go out to Riki and StarCityGames.cm for giving the four of us this opportunity.
– Paul, Doc, and Nicholas for getting things started with some great articles.
– The StarCityGames.com General Discussion (GD) crew. One of the reasons I was selected to be part of this was because I was so familiar with the people of StarCityGames.com. A large part of that I believe comes from the GD guys keeping me as attached to this site and its forums as I am. They’re also pretty great people in general. Anyone that doesn’t already participate in GD should come give us a try.
If you have any ideas for things regarding the penalty guidelines that you’d really like to know more about, then please tell me. I want to discuss whatever helps the players most, so whatever you think that might be, I wanna know! I’d love to hear any other comments you might have as well. You can reach me by:
Posting in the threads
Sending me a PM on here. I’m Mo0gLe
Emailing me at [email protected]
Until next month, stay out of the penalty box.
Max K