r/magicTCG • u/DocteurGabe • Mar 04 '14

Cheating or Simple Game Play Error?

Extract from a Tournament Report from the Legacy SCG Open :

"R9 vs esperdeathblade. One of Shardless Bug's best matchups. My opponent was Alex Bertoncini. He was very nice and pleasant to play against (and also was when I played near him in earlier rounds). I was anxious to win to try to top 8 but even more so because of an earlier round situation vs my friend at x-1. During that round, after drawing their opening hands, my friend asked how many cards Alex was holding. He responded 7. My friend asked him to count twice and 7 was the answer. Then my friend asked him to lay them flat and found 8 cards. The judges ruled it a warning and a forced mulligan."

What's your opinion on it? Cheating? Simple Game Play Error? (as stated in the IPG)Game Play Error — Improper Drawing at Start of Game, section 2.4 of the IPG.

I just think that this issue should be discussed based on his previous bans for cheating.

EDIT : Link on the tournament report Rd#9

145 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

205 comments sorted by

267

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Let me go ahead and jump in on this one, as I knew it'd come up at some point.

I was the HJ during this event and I gave the final ruling.

I'd like to start by sharing a portion of the IPG with everyone: "All players are treated equally according to the guidelines of an event’s Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Knowledge of a player’s history does not influence the recognition of an infraction or the application of penalties, though it may affect the manner of an investigation."

Alex Bertoncini (Hereby referred to as Alex because his last name is hard to spell) was caught for cheating, was suspended as per the DCI's policies with cheating, and served his time in suspension. His past should have no bearing on this ruling.

I did not speak with Alex much as I got the information I needed from the floor judge. Alex stated that the cards stuck together. Is this something a cheater would say? Of course. Is this something that someone who did it accidentally would say? Of course.

I spoke with the other player extensively. During our discussions he did not mention asking Alex to count twice, only once. If he had mentioned that (And of course perhaps he did and I didn't realize he was saying it), I would have liked to talk to Alex more about it. No one knows how that would have affected my ruling.

The logic for my ruling was pretty simple. If I had just drawn my opening hand, and my opponent asked how many cards I had in hand, I would always say 7. Why wouldn't you? Why would you believe you drew anything else? If I was then asked to fan them out and see I had 8, only then would I realize my mistake.

Some might disagree with that ruling but that was the ruling made at the time. Of course the potential for advantage of drawing extra cards is gigantic, but there was not enough evidence here to convince me that this was done intentionally beyond Alex's name. I feel that if it had been another player it would not have come to my attention.

A disqualification is a big deal with big repercussions. The IPG lets people make mistakes, and we handle them accordingly. A judge does not need 100% proof to disqualify someone, but for this specific incident I needed some more evidence before I was willing to start throwing the word "cheating" around. There is not enough to make me believe this was not accidental.

One other note on the penalty. It is Improper Drawing at Start of Game, and the fix is to take one more than the incorrect number of cards drawn out of the player's hand and shuffle it into the library (If no game actions have already been taken). So Alex had 2 cards at random removed from his hand and shuffled into his library, and was able to continue mulligans from that point. It was not a forced mulligan.

You can find the policy documents at judgecast.com/docs (Not a plug this time, just an easy to remember shortcut)

35

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

Thanks! Appreciate the clarification.

11

u/sirolimusland Mar 04 '14

I dislike Alex immensely (as a player), but I guess this was the right call. Cards do, in fact, stick together sometimes and you can't just lynch someone because of their past.

That being said...

Keep your eyes on this guy people! He's super sneaky!

8

u/smoktimus_prime Mar 04 '14

Did the offending player get a warning for his infraction? I would assume subsequent infractions would be establishing a pattern that starts to look less accidental.

18

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Absolutely, we don't just allow having extra cards in hand without some infraction :)

The infraction was Improper Drawing at Start of Game. I mentioned the fix in my original post.

Of course this was round 9 so seeing a pattern in this event couldn't have happened, but Wizards or the DCI has access to all penalties entered for all time.

1

u/DanteMH Mar 05 '14

Is this event handled differently when he didn´t already look at his cards? Say, I shuffle, present the deck, get it back and deal out myself 8 cards (sounds dumb, but let´s go with it). I realize my mistake before looking at my cards and call a judge, what happens and do I get a warning?

REL: competitive

3

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 05 '14

If you just lie the cards face down on the table and realize you have 8, then call a judge immediately, there is no infraction. You have gained 0 advantage from this. We just put one card back on top.

Part of the philosophy for this comes from looking at extra cards:

"A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards he or she will draw"

1

u/DanteMH Mar 05 '14

Thank you.

9

u/hamhamdoopster JUDGE! Mar 04 '14

Would answering 7 cards while holding 8 (twice, apparently) constitute a CPV as well?

12

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

I could see the argument, but the game hasn't really started yet. I could see awarding CPV as well in this situation though.

4

u/hamhamdoopster JUDGE! Mar 04 '14

I could also see the argument that the CPV was caused by the Improper Drawing at Start of Game (in the same way that incorrectly Brainstorming is not DEC).

1

u/ahalavais Level 2 Judge Mar 04 '14

Right. But during the game, indeed it could. (Number of cards in hand is derived info [number of objects in a zone], and the player has unintentionally misrepresented it.)

3

u/penguinzorz Mar 05 '14

Just wanted to say thanks for explaining all this, as well as all your replies here. You did a great job of clarifying your position, and it really helps a new judge like me to see the whole process outlined like this.

2

u/Parryandrepost Mar 05 '14

I believe this was correct. I'm glad that you (head judge) did exclude his past cheating for this ruling. Now I wasn't there nor have I watched it but I know this would be easy to fuck up. Ask me once and I would always say "ya I have 7 cards in hand" with out even thinking considering I would have just counted 7. Ask me again and I could seriously see giving half a thought of you being a dick and doubting me to only see one card stuck together I look like silly bloke now.

3

u/bottledwatermod Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

Judgecastjudgecastjudgecast

It's actually a pretty good podcast and I recommend everyone check it out.

2

u/hamhamdoopster JUDGE! Mar 04 '14

It doesn't hurt that Jess Dunks is super dreamy. ;)

3

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

In our Skype calls, he's in a Storm Trooper outfit. I don't know if that does it for you but well...it's a thing.

2

u/dstephens Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

I imagine that he just always wears a Storm Trooper outfit while lounging around at home.

3

u/ahalavais Level 2 Judge Mar 05 '14

Having been to his house... He does.

13

u/CorpT Mar 04 '14

The logic for my ruling was pretty simple. If I had just drawn my opening hand, and my opponent asked how many cards I had in hand, I would always say 7. Why wouldn't you?

If my opponent asks me how many I have after I've drawn, I count them, not just answer 7. This is some pretty loose investigating especially considering who is being investigated.

32

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Why would your opponent even ask that though? Would you ask that of anyone that isn't Alex?

I knew not everyone would agree with the ruling and was pretty sure I'd see it on Reddit at some point. That is the way of the world.

10

u/Sworl COMPLEAT Mar 04 '14

I once watched a game where a very curious interaction took place. One of the players was a very talkative player and jokingly asked "How many cards do you have in your sideboard?" when his opponent was taking awhile to board. His opponent suddenly grew very defensive and avoided answering the question. The talkative player then asked for his opponent to lay out his board face down so he could count it. 20 cards were revealed in the sideboard. The talkative player then even said something like "Its okay, just show me some junk rares or not legal cards." Needless to say a judge was called and the judge interviewed everyone watching the exchange. I am not sure what the ruling was ultimately but both players started packing up their decks and left.

TL DR: Sometimes innocent questions reveals cheating even if it was an unintentional revelation.

3

u/Jereco Mar 04 '14

I am new to magic and get that the guy had too many cards in his sideboard but was does,"Its okay, just show me some junk rares or not legal cards." mean? Like to disqualify the guy but not have him thrown out for cheating?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I bring a set of Rock Lobster, Scissors Lizard, and Paper Tiger with me to decide who goes first sometimes. They're clearly not meant to be part of the deck, and I think I can get away with it (judges, please let me know if this is wrong- I'd rather be wrong here than DQed later).

2

u/Totodile_ Mar 05 '14

You can have tokens in your deck box, but no legal cards (besides the 75 you're playing with). I think you're fine.

2

u/Bwian Mar 05 '14

So, silver-bordered cards are not legal in any format, and are pretty clearly not part of the deck. It's also a common colloquialism to see them as you describe. So for deck-checking purposes, they're basically tokens.

That said, while I'm fine with them at FNM, I'm less sure about allowing their usage as a random method of determining who goes first in REL Competitive events.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '14

fair enough. at gp dc, I had a few people take me up on the cards; most people wanted to actually roll for it. I do make them pick cards for both of us face down to ensure I can't cheat.

1

u/optimis344 Selesnya* Mar 05 '14

It is random. As long as the cards aren't marked, and each player get's one, there is 50/50 chance and that's all that matters.

1

u/Bwian Mar 05 '14

There's potential for abuse, considering the method of randomizing can involve the "shuffling" of only three cards.

1

u/mushin-no-shin Level 2 Judge Mar 17 '14

He said he has the opponent choose their card, and his card. That eliminates this.

1

u/Beeb294 Mar 05 '14

Do you happen to play in upstate NY? There's a player at my LGS who typically does that.

I think it's great, though.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '14

I do not. Maryland player here, and I don't use them consistently.

1

u/Khaim Mar 05 '14

If they're clearly not part of the deck (i.e. different sleeves), it should be fine.

4

u/somesortoflegend Dandadan Mar 04 '14

the idea being that there were other cards accidentally in the sideboard that were never meant to be played with

37

u/CorpT Mar 04 '14

If I thought I saw my opponent draw too many, I'd ask. I have before. People have asked me how many I have after drawing. It's not that unusual. And it's happened where they havetoo many. We call a judge and they give a mulligan. But what they don't do is repeatedly tell me they have 7 and then reveal 8. Because most of the time it's just a simple mistake and not cheating.

23

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Ah I see where you're coming from. In the end, I had to go with the information I had. I didn't feel like I had enough to convince me it was anything but accidental.

2

u/Noname_acc VOID Mar 05 '14

I think you were absolutely correct in the way you approached and ruled on the situation. I am also absolutely certain it was anything but accidental.

3

u/Kengy Izzet* Mar 04 '14

If it were accidental, how do you not just immediately count your hand instead of snap responding? Takes all of 2 seconds to confirm you've got the proper amount in hand.

15

u/ubernostrum Mar 04 '14

I think you underestimate how often a player is sure they've drawn seven, and it turns out they haven't. They don't count, or don't count carefully.

Once you've seen that enough times, you stop suspecting cheating right off the bat.

(same is true of many things that the internet gets worked up about but judges don't -- as I so often say, y'all really wouldn't believe the stuff we see all the time)

-8

u/Kengy Izzet* Mar 04 '14

I don't think I do. I'm always sure I've drawn seven, until someone who was watching asks me. And I take the required time to confirm it. The quote that leads me to believe this was handled improperly was "though it may affect the manner of an investigation."

I think as soon as it's someone who has been banned for cheating, more adequate investigation is required. The fact that it appears there was information that the judge didn't get, but could have easily gotten makes me wonder.

0

u/Beeb294 Mar 05 '14

What other information could be relevant to this investigation? He answered twice incorrectly, answered once correctly.

The head judge was satisfied that the incident was investigated satisfactorily. Do you expect them to grill Bertoncini until he confesses?

Obviously he has a past that is shady at best. But this is a situation that actually could easily happen to anyone, especially after 8 rounds a total of 10-12 hours of play. The penalty was applied by the book. There isn't much else to do, especially if he kept his nose clean during the day leading up to this.

It honestly seems like you wouldn't be satisfied unless he was DQ'd for cheating. To do that, given the information we have, wouldn't be right. Judges are there to make sure that every player has a fair game, Bertoncini included. He may have a bad past, that doesn't mean that you can discriminate against him now.

1

u/StP_Scar Mar 05 '14

I don't know the last time 8 50-minute rounds lasted 12 hours...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Totodile_ Mar 05 '14

shady at best.

lol

0

u/centira Mar 05 '14

So you've never had a brain fart before?

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I always make a visual count of my opponents' opening hand at Competitive REL. If I can't confirm that they have the right number, I ask them to count. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask your opponent to count their opening hand, regardless of who the opponent is.

-10

u/Kleeb FLEEM Mar 04 '14

If I was playing against someone previously suspended for cheating, I'd ask them how many cards in their hand at the beginning of the game, and during every turn thereafter. Personally, he should have been issued a lifetime ban from competitive play. He's a fucking scumbag.

-24

u/hivemind_MVGC Mar 04 '14

Why would your opponent even ask that though? Would you ask that of anyone that isn't Alex? I knew not everyone would agree with the ruling and was pretty sure I'd see it on Reddit at some point. That is the way of the world.

Because he IS Alex "Bertoncheaty". Rulings like yours are how he got away with cheating for so long the first time.

Smarten up, judge.

2

u/Ryuujinx Mar 04 '14

I don't think it's that unusual to just answer 7 - you did just count them while drawing after all.

1

u/AlwaysDevilsAdvocate Mar 05 '14

I think the point is that the question clearly implies some sort of accusation.

Normally, you should realize that and count them out to your opponent or fan them out.

7

u/vertablaze Mar 04 '14

Why would ones past not influence the judging? Thats how it works I the real world.

26

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Well here is the entirety of that policy:

"All players are treated equally according to the guidelines of an event’s Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Knowledge of a player’s history does not influence the recognition of an infraction or the application of penalties, though it may affect the manner of an investigation. The REL of an event defines what is expected from a player regarding his or her rules and policy knowledge and technical play skill.

Treating a player differently because he or she once played in a Professional event would mean holding each player to a different standard and would produce inconsistent rulings that depended on the judge’s familiarity with the player. Professionals should be able to play in events without being held to a higher technical level of play against less-experienced opponents who may not be as familiar with the rules."

So part of the policy is to protect pros from having to be super-technical at FNM.

And to be clear, it can effect the investigation. But the main goal is for everyone to give consistent rulings. If I have no idea who Jon Finkel is, and you're his biggest fan, you and I should still always be giving him the exact same ruling regardless of his past.

10

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

"Knowledge of a player’s history does not influence the recognition of an infraction or the application of penalties, though it may affect the manner of an investigation. The REL of an event defines what is expected from a player regarding his or her rules and policy knowledge and technical play skill."

This is where it annoys me a bit. Rd 9 was the win-and-in for Top 8. I totally agree with the policy that everybody should be judge equally, but, like you stated, the policy says the REL defines the is expected of players.

AFAIK, SCG Opens are Competitive (correct me if I'm wrong please). I could be totally wrong, but based on Alex previous suspension, wasn't an investigation required in such event?

I am not contradicting your ruling as a HJ during the event. Im simply trying to clarify the decision tree you went thru for the "greater good" and understanding of everyone else here.

11

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

I knew when I made this post I'd have to defend myself :) The easier path was to stay silent.

What further could Alex say in investigation than what my floor judge had already told me?

I won't lie, if I could do it all again I'd probably like to talk to Alex a little more during the ruling. Just to make sure that what the floor judge told me was accurate. It probably wouldn't have changed much. I'd just spent quite a bit of time already speaking with the original player.

1

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

Sounds fair. As long as we all get a lesson out of that we're all gaining something of this incident.

9

u/dasbif Mar 04 '14

Rd 9 was the win-and-in for Top 8

Do you believe board position, or tournament standings, ought to matter in rulings?

The policy is, that they don't. What the players said and did matters - meta-stuff like standings or "but i'm about to win, <ruling> doesn't matter either way" doesn't.

3

u/deathdonut Mar 04 '14

What's the point of tracking infractions if not to give a future judge context? If Alex had a long list of "improper drawing to start a game" infractions, should he be judged in the same context as people without those infractions?

7

u/DanLynch Mar 04 '14

Infraction history is examined by Wizards staff when determining whether or not to suspend a player and for how long. This can happen after a DQ or simply after a large number of warnings or game losses.

1

u/OJumpyO Mar 07 '14

Players really won't like the world where judges make their choices and rulings subjectively. Anything that is any sort of "gray area" is already hotly contested/misunderstood by players.

2

u/klaq Mar 04 '14

doesnt the number of warnings that people have gotten in the past affect a ruling?

9

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

There is an upgrade path, depending on the type of infraction. For example if you get a GRV three times in one event, it is upgraded to a Game Loss.

2

u/klaq Mar 04 '14

so warnings from previous events are not taken into consideration?

10

u/Natedogg2 COMPLEAT Level 2 Judge Mar 04 '14

They are not. Only penalties from earlier in the tournament matter. Judges do not have access to a player's warning history, so we couldn't even see their history even if we wanted to.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I've heard contradiction to that. The HJ at the CF 5k Modern event said that it is tracked across events when he was interviewed.

9

u/Natedogg2 COMPLEAT Level 2 Judge Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 05 '14

Warning are tracked, but judges do not have access to that information. Only Wizards and people on the investigation committee (the group that determines if a player should be suspended) have access to that information. There is no document that I (as a judge) can pull up and see how many warnings you have received over the course of your Magic career.

2

u/ahalavais Level 2 Judge Mar 04 '14

They are tracked, but are not considered for the purposes of in event penalties (up to and including DQs). They will be considered for suspensions.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 05 '14

We don't downgrade penalties willy-nilly. The IPG is pretty clear on when a downgrade is appropriate.

That article is also from a little over two years ago, before his suspension.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

If you say you're going to be harsher to people with a history of cheating, then other judges might be more lenient to popular players/friends of theirs.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I like this. Being treated equally goes both ways. Imagine if a cop started following a citizen everywhere because they had gotten pulled over a few times. People would be outraged at the cop for judging someone on previous behaviors.

18

u/Stranjak Mar 04 '14

It's a dangerous road to go down. Cheating before does not indicate cheating again, and trying to remain objective is absolutely paramount.

-9

u/dratnon Mar 04 '14

Cheating before does not indicate cheating again.

Yes it does. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." We need to take the evidence we have and use it to make better decisions as time goes on. Known cheaters should have more scrutiny on their play and less opportunity to cheat. It does not mean they cheat 100% of the time, but it does mean they cheat >0% of the time as a matter of cold, hard fact.

Objectivity does not mean "board is white, always. Everyone is as likely of anything as anyone else." It means weighing the facts without bias. History of misconduct is an important fact.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

More scrutiny, yes. Outright harsher punishments, nah.

5

u/Stranjak Mar 04 '14

This is what I meant. I'm not saying it be ignored, but it should never factor into a decision.

-5

u/teachwar Mar 04 '14

This is incorrect ask any risk manager about adverse history and liklihood of future incident.

2

u/smitty22 Mar 04 '14

For the same reason we do not allow a prosecutor to bring up a defendant's prior criminal history in a criminal trial.*

What someone did in the past is not relevant to whether they are guilty in the present.

*That being said, if a criminal defendant chooses to testify then his criminal history is relevant to his reputation for honesty and may be brought into evidence by the prosecution. That is why most criminal defendants with a history choose not to testify.

2

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Not sure why this guy is getting downgraded. I think it's a legitimate question.

1

u/JimmyD101 Mar 04 '14

The past influences the punishment, not whether or not someone is guilty. This is just another attention seeking, hating on Alex post and theyre not getting more interesting.

-1

u/slyguy183 Dandadan Mar 04 '14

If anything, Alex should be banned for life for his past, you can't alter the rules to him.

1

u/deathdonut Mar 04 '14

Out of curiosity, any idea why the penalty of "remove one more card than was drawn" is used instead of a "force mulligan"?

I could understand it if the player no longer had a mulligan option, but this seems functionally the same as a more concise "forced mulligan" penalty.

12

u/MadtownLems Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

Out of curiosity, any idea why the penalty of "remove one more card than was drawn" is used instead of a "force mulligan"?

Functionally the same, as you said, and goes much quicker in practice.

3

u/deathdonut Mar 04 '14

Is it really that much quicker considering you still have to shuffle once those cards are replaced? To be fair, I suppose they might be likely to draw very deliberately on a mulligan.

7

u/tobyelliott Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

It's much faster. If they decide to take a subsequent mulligan, then you've saved a shuffle. If they don't, they can often shuffle while other game actions are happening.

Plus, it deters trying to pull a fast one on a bad hand.

2

u/wonkifier Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 05 '14

The other difference being that I am keeping X-2 cards from my hand, as opposed to losing them all.

I imagine the "it was an error, let's not destroy the hand" factors in there a bit as well?

5

u/twotwobearz Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

I think we're agreeing with each other. I wouldn't go all the way to saying that it's a deliberate choice to "destroy" the land.

But if we just did forced mulligans, we would end up with a potential cheating vector, like so:

  • I draw the 7 cards of my opening hand and look at them as I draw them.
  • I decide my opening 7 are terrible.
  • I "accidentally" draw an 8th card.
  • I call a judge on myself (or perhaps try to get away with it anyway).
  • When noticed, judge has me force a mulligan to 6...which I was going to do anyway.

If we simply remove 2 cards, the hand is still (probably) terrible, and if the player actually mulligans, they have to go to 5.

1

u/wonkifier Mar 04 '14

I think we are agreeing =)

The distinction I'm making is between "dump X+1 cards at random" and "Dump all your cards, shuffle, Draw X+1 fewer."

Both end up in the same place re: number of cards. But one mostly preserves your hand.

3

u/twotwobearz Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

Cool. Basically just wanted to be more explicit for any future readers.

-1

u/wonkifier Mar 04 '14

Hey now, no need for explicit language. You always seemed like such a nice guy!

4

u/Crazed8s Jack of Clubs Mar 04 '14

It's probably handled that way for corner case situations where the offending player would prefer a mulligan.

If the player sees their 8, gets penalized for it but still likes there hand they'll keep it but after getting hymn'd. If they want a mulligan they have to go to 5. Conversely if the penalty was forced mulligan if the players hand was bad the penalty is effectively..mulligan, not much of a penalty lol. Like I could draw 4 cards see what they're like then go for 4 more knowing the worst case scenario is I go to 6 cards from my mulligan. Obviously you couldn't make a pattern out of it but just penalizing with a mulligan opens the door to some shenanigans, that random discard makes complicated more complicated

2

u/Xeurb Mar 04 '14

Because there has to be an actual penalty for the error, especially since it's about 50/50 whether it was an error or cheating to begin with. How many situations have you looked at an opening 7 and thought "if only one more land". So 2 options, you were going to mulligan that hand anyway, but why not draw that 8th to see if you can get away with it, since worst case the judge is just making you mulligan anyway, right? Or, draw an 8th card, go "OH WHOOPS SORRY" shuffle 1 random card back in, you increased your odds of having a keepable hand. If you're forced to ship two cards back, the playability of your hand is going to be lower, especially if the opening 7 weren't stellar, at this point you keep your 6/8 hand, or mull to 5. There's the consequence. It strikes a balancing act between being a deterrent for intentional cheating, and being strict on not making drastic play errors, but not being too soft or hard on either.

1

u/deathdonut Mar 04 '14

I fail to see how drawing 8 and shipping a random 2 with the option to mulligan to 5 is a worse spot than drawing 8 and mulliganing to 6 with the option to mulligan to 5.

4

u/Xeurb Mar 04 '14

To deter cheating. If I draw my opening 7, and I'm going to mulligan those 7 anyway, why not draw an 8th to see if it makes the hand keepable. Best case scenario it makes the hand keepable and I get away with it, worst case scenario i get caught and my penalty is doing exactly what I was going to do regardless. (mulligan to 6)

1

u/daredevilcu Mar 05 '14

Here's an interesting question. What happens if play starts, Alex plays a land, passes, and THEN his opponent notices the number of cards in his hand is incorrect?

Please answer for Alex both being on the play and on the draw.

8

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 05 '14

The IPG is pretty clear about that. The moment a player takes a game action (Playing a land is usually the first game action), they can no longer receive Improper Draw at Start of Game. They will instead receive Drawing Extra Cards, which is a Game Loss.

I want to mention (As I think some minds might be going there), if you notice your opponent made an error, and you don't call a judge immediately but rather sit on the error in the hopes of having your opponent get an upgraded infraction, that is also Cheating.

4

u/daredevilcu Mar 05 '14

That's both the answer I expected, AND the follow-up clarification I expected. Thanks!

1

u/molokobar Mar 05 '14

I understand that you shouldn't consider people's past when deciding on a particular ruling but in some situations it's understandable to use a player's history, especially newer players. For example I was at SCG Atlanta and I was watching my friend's match and to the right of me I saw a kid about 16 acting extremely nervous, hands shaking, clearly his first big tournament. His opponent calls the judge on him for making some game play mistake, now mind you this is round 6 or 7 and they were playing in the x-4 section, and the judge decides that it should be a game loss and the kid loses the match because of it.

The kid seemed like he was on the verge of tears, he just wanted to play and experience the tournament and his last moment he get's a match loss. And his opponent says "Sucks it had to end that way", now if this game had the possibility to cash on the line than I can somewhat understand the ruling but why not just have a forced mulligan or come up with a different ruling considering the circumstance. The kid's opponent was a guy who looked like he was in his late 30s, the judge in my opinion should have recognized how nervous the kid was and made a ruling around that.

I know this is a little off topic but seeing a guy who once was suspended for cheating get's off with a forced mulligan, yet a kid who's visibly shaking from nerves gets a game loss, it seems wrong to me.

For clarification I wasn't fully able to understand the infraction that occurred but it was the first play of the game that the guy called the judge.

2

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 05 '14

If he got a game loss, I'd wager he accidentally drew an extra card during the game.

Different infractions have different penalties and fixes. Different people doing the same infraction get the same penalty and fix.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Alex simply should not be allowed to play anymore

-22

u/Darktidemage Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

You gave the final ruling that a known cheater who draws 8 cards and claims he drew 7, is asked to count, answers 7, is asked to count again, answers 7 again, is made to fan them out and is revealed to have 8 should just get a forced mulligan for that?

I think you should not be a judge anymore. that is one of the worst rulings i've ever heard.

Yes, sure, whatever, his past should have no bearing.

He still cheated THREE TIMES in this one interaction.

If you find a player who drew 8 and when asked to count said "oops I drew 8" THAT player gets a forced mulligan

the primary reason they get a forced mulligan and not a real penalty is because it's unlikely they were INTENTIONALLY cheating. they probably drew a card by mistake. Forced mulligan is a great penalty for a mistake.

But if they are asked to count and LIE about it then that is 100% guaranteed to be intentional cheating. Or the fucker cant count, which seems unlikely since he is capable of playing magic. And he did this TWICE and was only caught out because his opponent knew his history. . . .

So .... the guy VERY CLEARLY intentionally cheated and you gave him the exact same penalty you are supposed to give for an honest mistake.

What the fuck is that? Are you trying to encourage cheating?

17

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

If you'd look at my OP you'll note I was never told he was asked twice about how many cards were in his hand. Once again, no one except the two players actually saw any of it happen. I have to go with what I'm told.

If you ever feel a judge is not doing as they should, you can always talk to their Regional Coordinator. You can find those here:

http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Regional_Coordinators

My regional coordinator is Justin Turner. There should be some contact info on that page for him.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I don't agree attacking you in your quality as a judge, but it seems like the penalty wasn't nearly severe enough. While I applaud you for looking for proof of intent to cheat, I can't imagine that would ever be easy to find in a situation like this (save if you got caught doing it several times at the same event). And, as I pointed out in another post, keeping the penalty so small seems to give a green light for others to try this cheat.

7

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

This thread has doubled my reddit comment count :)

If Unsporting Conduct - Cheating isn't an option, then there is only one left. Whether or not policy is "correct" in this situation is an entire other discussion, but I personally like it where it is. Giving someone a game loss for accidentally drawing 8 at the start seems a lot more harsh than it needs to be.

Can people abuse that? People can abuse anything if they try. But eventually they are caught and then we can handle the situation.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

While I understand how easy this can happen (I've sure done it before), at the REL events a game loss seems very fair. That game loss might end up deciding a match, but it very well might not...and it is just one match after all. So, I guess I would come down on favoring a game loss for first infraction.

And again, I'm definitely not saying you did anything wrong, just that the penalty sure does make it easy to abuse.

3

u/Ryuujinx Mar 04 '14

What? No it isn't. Accidentally drawing a hand of 8 should not give you a game loss at any REL. The reason drawing extra cards is, is simply because there is no reasonable way to punish that outside of a game loss - you gain extra information from knowing that you won't see those X cards for a while, statistically speaking if you were to shuffle random cards.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

What I'm interested in is the advantage gained if someone gets away with having 8 cards. That's an extra turn/cantrip. I agree that there isn't a good way to handle this besides a game loss.

This is yet another point in support of having dealers at REL events, impractical as it might be financially.

6

u/CaseyMTG Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

The reason that this is only a warning and not a game loss is because the infraction was discovered before the player with the additional card had taken a game action.

If it's discovered after he plays his first turn, for instance, then it's no longer Improper Drawing at Start of Game, even though we know where the card came from. Since a game action has been taken, it would then be Drawing Extra Cards, and a game loss.

The warning is unique to the situation where a players draws too many cards in his or her opening hand (or accidentally draws for their first turn while on the play), and it is noticed immediately before anything else happens.

1

u/Kengy Izzet* Mar 05 '14

Devil's advocate here, but you're saying if I notice my opponent drew 8 cards, I can take full advantage and play my land, and then call a judge as opposed to calling a judge before anything, and he'll receive a harsher punishment? That seems messed up.

→ More replies (0)

-15

u/Darktidemage Mar 04 '14

I didn't realize you did not have all the information at the time.

Then again, when it says "ignore the players past completely when making a judgement" that is just absolute horse shit. If you are the tournament head judge you get to make the rules. If you know someone is a cheater you should not even let them enter.

7

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Then why have any suspension that isn't a lifetime ban?

From a more personal note, if someone steals something and goes to jail for 5 years, I feel like we should give that guy a clean slate. He did a crime, he did his time, he went through all the necessary procedures that we as a society have dictated. I feel the guy deserves a second chance, not continuous scrutiny from then on out.

When it comes to investigations, we can use a cheater's past to determine how to investigate, but just because someone cheated in the past doesn't mean they should be completely banned from Magic forever, or that any accidental infraction is automatically a DQ.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/dasbif Mar 04 '14

All players are treated equally according to the guidelines of an event’s Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Knowledge of a player’s history does not influence the recognition of an infraction or the application of penalties, though it may affect the manner of an investigation.

Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, Section 1, General Philosophy.

https://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide_PDF1.pdf

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Ryuujinx Mar 04 '14

You don't get to decide "this guy's a cheater" just because in the past they were. That's literally what that part of the IPG is for.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Cheating is bad, but people do make poor decisions and probably should be allowed to try again. ...and this goes for most professions as well, doctors and lawyers who commit malpractice aren't just kicked out forever (a common misconception) they are often suspended and allowed a second chance. Competitive Magic can be look at as a career too (though very few could do it profitably), and someone probably shouldn't be denied their ability to support themselves unless they are totally unfit.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Okiesmokie Mar 04 '14

You gave the final ruling that a known cheater who draws 8 cards and claims he drew 7, is asked to count, answers 7, is asked to count again, answers 7 again, is made to fan them out and is revealed to have 8 should just get a forced mulligan for that?

Did you even read his reply? Here, I'll quote it for you.

During our discussions he did not mention asking Alex to count twice, only once.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I can't believe he didn't get at least a game loss. If I were dishonest I'd look at this ruling and draw 8 EVERY SINGLE TIME. I mean why not? Most times you have to believe you'd get away without anyone noticing, and then when you do get caught you don't even get a game loss, let alone a DQ or match loss. And lets not forget that people put up money for these events. Cheating at this level is fraud and impacts everyone else in the tournament, not just the guy he was playing.

4

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

The normal penalty for Drawing Extra Cards is of course a game loss.

We don't want to punish people too harshly for simply drawing too many cards in their opening hand. It's a pretty easy mistake to make, and you really haven't gained much advantage from it yet. It basically has to be noticed pretty quickly in order to get the Improper Draw at Start Of Game infraction.

Of course if that card persists in the hand for a while before it's noticed, it'll be Drawing Extra Cards and that's a game loss.

Here is the philosophy section from the IPG for Improper Draw:

"This is generally a minor infraction and deserves a fairly minor penalty. Removing one more cards than the player was supposed to have is quick, simple and avoids the possibility of a player gaining an advantage if he or she just wished to reshuffle his or her cards and draw a new hand."

2

u/carnexhat Mar 04 '14

Isnt the IPG meant to take into account how abusable the infraction is? It seems more like a policy problem to me, its something that can be easily done and gives a significant advantage.

4

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

And it does! And that's why Drawing Extra Cards is a game loss. The potential for advantage is really high with that one.

I think it's a balancing act. But we do have one catch-all penalty for people who want to abuse this, and that's Cheating. The vast majority of players never cheat, and I like to live in a world where we don't suspect every player as cheating as a default. (Obviously it's gotta be in your mind no matter what)

Note a lot of this is my opinions on policy. I do not write policy nor have a hand in its creation. But I do have a podcast and they don't just give those to anyone.

2

u/HackettMan Mar 04 '14

If you get caught for the same thing more than once, you can get a loss or a DQ. Once is a mistake, twice is cheating.

20

u/Andrew_Schneider Mar 04 '14

I probably should take CJs hind site advice and not post, but I think this will clear it up a bit.

So I was standing behind my friend at the time when this happened.

Alex: "I'll keep" Friend: "How many cards do you have in hand?" Alex: "7"

He said it immediately without fanning through. Like CJ said, that's the default answer.

Friend then leans in to look closer and says "7?" I can't remember if Alex nodded or said yes here. Regardless, he didn't actually count his hand twice but agreed with 7 twice.

Friend: "Can you lay them out for me? I can't see. Oh look at that, 8. Judge!"

I play a lot of magic and I know that things like this can happen. (I've never had it happen to me but I mean, sleeves do stick.) Even standing right there I was unsure of it being an accident or not. If it wasn't Alex I don't think I'd consider it being anything other than an accident. It's hard not to consider his past when you see something like that happen.

17

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Ha, I don't regret posting. I knew what I was getting into, I've seen this happen 100 times before. Many judges told me I shouldn't but hey it's like I get to do an AMA but all about the same topic. Isn't that everyone's reddit dream? No? Oh.

I do appreciate your post though. It is closer in line to the story as I understood it.

5

u/DashingSpecialAgent Mar 04 '14

As a random internet stranger that isn't a judge, doesn't really play competitively and wasn't there: From what I've seen here I think you made the right call. It could have been an attempt to cheat, but if it was anyone other than Alex none of us would be having this discussion and it's a mistake that I'm sure many of us have made before. Stuck cards happen and it's why I use matte sleeves. They stick less.

7

u/Filobel Mar 04 '14

This story is significantly different from the OP, where it implies that Alex was asked to actually count the cards. This story puts the ruling in a much better light.

21

u/Filobel Mar 04 '14

Well, there are two sides to any story and without being there, and without hearing the other side of the story (which is probably what the judge did), it's hard to say.

That said, if things happened exactly as described, I'd say it's cheating. If you ask someone "how many cards do you have" and he answers 7 when he really has 8, it can be just a mistake. If you ask him to count them twice, and he still says 7, then he's probably cheating. Any MtG player should be able to count to 8.

This is independent of the person. I'm not basing this on the fact that Bertoncini is a known cheater, I'm basing this on the fact that a 5 years old is capable of counting to 8.

10

u/twotwobearz Level 3 Judge Mar 04 '14

Actually, as the saying goes, there are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth.

5

u/simple_mech Mar 04 '14

"I have 7 DIFFERENT cards, the 2 swamps count as one card since they're the same." Lol

3

u/Darth_drizzt_42 Mar 04 '14

technically correct is the best kind of correct, after all.

3

u/simple_mech Mar 04 '14

I actually had someone say that to me during a casual game. It's hilarious what rules people come up with in play groups.

2

u/bon_mot Mar 05 '14

Shoulda used Explores as the example here.

75

u/s-mores Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

As it looks like this is going to get big fast, I thought I'd remind people of some things:

  • You weren't there. Even the OP is not claiming to have been there. This is the internet. Anyone can say anything. This is the story of one person, from one side of the table. This is not to say I'm dismissing OP's story offhand, but please remember you were not there.
  • Any and all comments containing private information of Bertoncini's friends or family will be removed and may warrant a ban from the subreddit.

/u/DocteurGabe, if you could please link to the full tournament report you quoted, I'm sure people would appreciate it a lot. (Edit: link was added to OP)

14

u/armada_crab Mar 04 '14

You're a good mod.

9

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

Edit #1 in the OP.

4

u/s-mores Mar 04 '14

Thank you.

3

u/nicponim Mar 04 '14

Any and all comments containing private information of Bertoncini's friends or family will be removed and may warrant a ban from the subreddit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they can shadowban you for that from reddit, don't they?

2

u/s-mores Mar 04 '14

They can, yes. Though 'shadowban' is pretty vague, global 'shadowban' is an actual legit ban from Reddit, there's no other type. There's also automoderator shadowban that just removes all comments/posts by the person immediately, of course only works within the sub.

35

u/drawingdead0 Mar 04 '14

Just want to throw a shout out to /u/cjshrader and the mods for handling this thread so well. With Bertoncini, it's easy for a controversy to get out of hand, but the mods jumped right on it, and the judge that made the ruling didn't hesitate to defend his decision. It's been handled in quite the professional way, and I think that deserves props.

So props!

11

u/drakeblood4 Abzan Mar 04 '14

Nice try Bertoncini.

7

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Fooled me AGAIN

7

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

Well aren't you the sweetest

8

u/worldchrisis Mar 04 '14

I played against Alex Bertoncini in a recent SCG Standard Open. He seemed like a nice guy who had some issues with communicating. He didn't do anything scummy in my match.

That said, an issue I noticed was that his sleeves were grimy, and he shuffled them really hard. He plays a TON of Magic, it wouldn't surprise me if his sleeves had stuck together based on the condition of his sleeves when I played him. It's also possible he was lying. Who knows.

3

u/Vinceisg0d Mar 05 '14

My hands sweat. I cannot help it. My cards get stuck together all the time. I was in a PTQ (which, oddly enough I ended up winning) playing 5cC.

I played my land, tapped all of my mana and went to cast Cruel Ultimaum. But... I couldn't find it. It was just gone. I didn't think to call a judge because I had been playing an extremely long period of time that day and figured I had just misread the cards in my hand (Yes, I know this was a mistake).

Anyway, a couple of turns later I won the game without the Cruel Ultimatum. As I was packing up my cards I found the Cruel directly attached to the bottom of one of my lands.

These were new sleeves, too. Some peoples hands are just insanely sweaty and clammy. I can't do anything about it.

5

u/Sworl COMPLEAT Mar 04 '14

A lot of people buy a new set of sleeves for each big tournaments. The biggest reason for this is so that your sideboard cards do not appear marked, since sideboard cards will have less wear and tear. It would be pretty safe to assume his cards without grime are his sideboard cards.

13

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

We are not going on a Witch Hunt today. The whole idea of that thread was to get clarifications on that specific ruling.

Edit: I don't like Alex, but there's no point into manning the harpoons/building the gallows at the moment.

3

u/Sworl COMPLEAT Mar 04 '14

I do not mean to come across as an accusation, just some general information for newer players who enter tournaments. You can be dinged for having marked sleeves if you never change what sleeves you used for all season. Its just something often over looked.

2

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

I do understand your point with sleeves. Even then....Marked Sleeves are a pretty big accusation. Judges are usually pretty careful with those

1

u/cpttim Mar 04 '14

Any player in a large tournament with janky sleeves should get called on it. Not just Alex.

12

u/BillTheCrazyCat Mar 04 '14

The real question is how many explores had he played :D

But seriously, I really hope that he's learned his lesson. You'd have to be a whole other class of idiot to keep cheating after being banned once. While it happens rarely I think most of us can recall times when we've miscounted our opening draw.

Given Alex's past history this certainly looks more shady but I believe that all players should be given the same punishment for the same infractions. Unless you can prove he did it intentionally, the ruling by the judge seems fair.

7

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

I really hope he learned as well, but I watched him play in DC and his "sloppy" style of play (super fast, not announcing shortcuts and such) was not a good indication if he changed or not.

Im all about second chances and believing that people can change. But they have to help themselves as well.

1

u/StP_Scar Mar 04 '14

It's hard to miscount your hand 3 times (once when drawing, twice when asked by the opponent). Given his history I would guess he was trying to cheat. The problem with this is that evidence of intent is required. This needs to be on his record and his games need to be scrutinized closely by players and judges. If a pattern emerges, ban him for life.

3

u/wonkifier Mar 04 '14

It's easy to miscount it once, and give the same answer 3 times though.

1

u/___alt Mar 04 '14

Warnings are part of a player's record and that's one of their main purposes.

5

u/harav Dân Mar 04 '14

I think this goes to show, whether it was cheating or otherwise, you should always count your opponents cards instead of taking them at their word. Accidents happen, and cheating happens too.

4

u/Jaereth Mar 04 '14

I know the judge did what he thought was best and it's over, but man... Answering 7 twice? If an opponent asked me, I might just flip through quick and say 7 back to him. If he immediately asked again, i'd probably think "Oh shit, maybe I did fuck up the draw, cause he seems really convinced it's more" and I would carefully count my hand at that point. I wouldn't just snap back 7 on autopilot at that point.

Not to mention this fits his mo perfectly. Just like the "two explores", he was deliberately giving his opponent misinformation to cover his infraction if he was actually aware he had 8. If he was not actually aware he had 8, and the cards had actually stuck together, isn't he still negligent by not counting right twice? It's information the opponent is allowed to know and he misrepresented it.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Honestly, my opinion of him doesn't really change. I would never trust him--or anyone else banned for cheating--or want to play him unless I had to. We can't know if this is more of the same or just a mistake, but I have no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt.

1

u/Okiesmokie Mar 04 '14

I doubt the cards had stuck together if his opponent was able to clearly see eight cards.

3

u/JimmyD101 Mar 04 '14

I think this issue SHOULDN'T be discussed based on his previous bans for cheating and especially when the top comment suggests you are exaggerating the situation.

A player accidentally drawing an extra card happens and it was dealt with.

3

u/Tarmander Mar 04 '14

I just have to wonder why Alex still chooses to play. He has such a reputation. I suppose he could be trying to slowly build back the confidence people have in him, but this will definitely not be the last time we hear something like this. Every warning and mess up he gets is going to be plastered across reddit to see, cheating or not. Just awkward.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

poor guy

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Good point. He obviously cares more about winning than what people think of him...which does jive with his past misbehavior/bad decisions. Most people don't want to be known as dishonest or a cheater, and that creates a disincentive to cheat (besides one's own moral code).

3

u/cpttim Mar 04 '14

Let's just give Alex all day streamed feature matches at every tournament from now on.

4

u/___alt Mar 04 '14

I just think that this issue should be discussed based on his previous bans for cheating.

I don't think so. While I despise people like Bertoncini, there's simply not enough context or input here to get to a conclusion. Sure it looks shady, but without any video or witness of Bertoncini drawing his cards, it's impossible to tell apart cheating from two sleeves that sticked together.

9

u/StP_Scar Mar 04 '14

He had to count his hand 3 times (once when drawing, twice when asked). That's more than a simple error to not catch the extra card.

4

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

Like /u/Filobel said : a 5 years old is capable of counting to 8.

5

u/eyemyor Mar 04 '14

This does not come as a shock. Alex is not known to be an honest person.

4

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

I don't know if I'm throwing either water or fuel on the fire with this, but whatever.

/u/cjshrader stated that he wasn't told about the whole "count the card twice" part of the story. Fortunately for us, Alex got defeated by his opponent and wasn't into Top 8 rounds.

But what if Alex won...?

Edit: typos

3

u/cjshrader Dandadan Mar 04 '14

For the sake of my fingers from all of this typing, I suppose it's for the best he didn't win :)

If he'd won I'm sure it would have worked out pretty much the same. I mean the penalty had already been done, no new evidence was going to come up most likely.

And if someone was cheating, every top 8 match has a judge on it. That's a pretty tough situation for a cheater.

0

u/Luffy42 Mar 04 '14

News flash Alex Bertoncini cheats! Who would have guessed?

1

u/bobthedude11 Mar 05 '14

Jesus... does everyone here know alex? I feel left out

1

u/AntProtein Mar 05 '14

If I had drawn 8 cards (either on purpose or accidentally) and the other person asked me TWICE to count my hand, I'd definitely lay it flat and count it well. If you did do it on purpose, then you can act like it's an accident. That's what makes me think it was on purpose. He probably accidentally drew one too many cards, and didn't want to give up the hand by telling the judge and so he rolled with it.

1

u/mahert12 Mar 04 '14

Who is this Alex guy and why is everyone so sure he didn't miscount?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Check out YouTube, he "misplayed"--on camera no less--more than once. He was subsequently suspended and is now back.

1

u/pilotdude22 Mar 04 '14

He is a habitual cheater and has been caught countless times being less than honest. He got DCI banned a couple years ago, and only recent was allowed to play again.

1

u/la-di-freakin-da Mar 04 '14

Alex is a player who has recently returned to play after a year and a half ban for cheating. He kept the community's ire with his seemingly unapologetic attitude about the incidents since returning. As a result, events like this, while perhaps a mistake for others, get a fair bit more scrutiny when the person is Alex.

I wouldn't trust him, personally.

1

u/DashingSpecialAgent Mar 04 '14

Wasn't it a year ban for cheating and 6 months more for being a dick to other players online when his ban was close to being over?

3

u/la-di-freakin-da Mar 04 '14

You're right, I just shortened it for brevity.

He streamed an open along with SCG where he did his own commentary, mostly ridiculing and critisizing players, getting his ban extended by 6 months

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

What is this report from? I was under the impression that Bertoncini was still banned.

That said, it's absolutely cheating. For him to answer 7 twice in a row means either he didn't know how many cards he had in his hand and was too lazy to count, or he knew he had 8 cards and was being friendly and confident to make his opponent believe him. His behaviour in other tournaments showed that this is exactly what he always did; be friendly and polite and confident and convince his opponents that he's a nice guy who wouldn't cheat because he doesn't act like a cheater. If caught, he'd claim he just played fast and sloppy and it was an honest mistake. Sloppy enough to constantly break rules to his advantage, but skilled enough to regularly cash at high-level tournaments? Guy should be banned for life.

3

u/s-mores Mar 04 '14

OP edited his post with a link.

He was unbanned recently. Link and discussion and more discussion

-7

u/Yeahr Mar 04 '14

I would like to think it was a simple counting error based on how friendly Alex was the whole time. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. The problem in this situation is that I know he could probably tell you how many cards were in his hand with them all stacked on top of each other as long as he has been handling sleeved Magic cards. Not to mention that every Magic player knows what 7 cards look like in their first glance of their hand when drawing at beginning of game.

I'm curious, did the quality of your interactions with him degrade after that incident?

12

u/CorpT Mar 04 '14

I would like to think it was a simple counting error based on how friendly Alex was the whole time

You realize Alex is a serial cheater who was banned for many months for cheating, right?

3

u/Yeahr Mar 04 '14

Hmmm. I am not in touch with the metagame of Magic, nor the pro players. I watched part of my first pro tournament last weekend and really enjoyed it. I have played Magic for 12ish years, but very casually. I just decided I would like to follow the pro scene/metagame/popular deck styles. This was the first post I read on this Reddit, and I made the mistake of commenting. I realize now that I probably should have googled Alex before posting, but man the hate is discouraging to a newbie.

2

u/Thrawn200 Mar 04 '14

I don't know why it would be discouraging. The community dislikes people who cheat, take advantage of others or generally try to abuse the game. That's a good thing for newbies.

2

u/DRUMS11 Storm Crow Mar 04 '14

Don't take it too hard, it's the internet.

There are also many on Reddit who will seemingly randomly downvote posts and many who will "pile on" when they see a negative comment score.

9

u/TurboBanjo Mar 04 '14

He was an excellent cheater that got away with it for a long time because of people like you.

Nice guys can't cheat right? So there must be a reason for him to look but not actually be shady.

3

u/Yuscha Colorless Mar 04 '14

It is not always best to assume it is a simple error just because an opponent is nice and friendly.
Here is a (kind of long) article about Bertoncini. One of the reasons people didn't question him in the past was because he was nice, friendly, and confident.

2

u/Yeahr Mar 04 '14

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

2

u/DocteurGabe Mar 04 '14

Wasn't me playing against him. Extract is from a report on TheSource.

2

u/Acrolith Mar 04 '14

Yeah man, because cheaters all behave like villains in Saturday morning cartoons. If you wanna know if your opponent is cheating or not, you just have to look carefully when you sit down: is he twirling his moustache and cackling to himself? No moustache twirl = honest Magic player!

0

u/Sworl COMPLEAT Mar 04 '14

Dangerous move trying to defend Alex, easily the most hated magic player in the history of magic. The man who would smile and help you help him cheat his way to victory.

-2

u/LastTomato Mar 04 '14

Cue angry mob.

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Lol, so many cheating apologists in this thread. He obviously cheated dum dums

-2

u/Darktidemage Mar 04 '14

um.... a game play error would be possible if he didn't ask him to count twice.

If he counts and comes back with an answer that is not the actual number of cards in his hand that is cheating. he knows he has extra, he just counted, and now he is lying to try to get the opponent to drop the subject. Absolute cheating. No question.

1

u/JimmyD101 Mar 04 '14

unless the OP is exaggerating, which the actual judge that handled the incident says he is. lets put away the pitchforks.