said:

To all the people saying that he was just playing sloppy, sloppy play is no excuse. This is a competitive REL event, if you're playing sloppy you don't deserve to win. Everyone needs to be doing their part in a competitive event and calling judges whenever their opponent makes mistakes like these and judges should be doing their part in giving out warnings/upgrading them to losses after 3. Joe should have been given a game loss just based on what was on camera round 7. And if he was playing half as sloppy in the rest of the rounds, he should have been eventually given multiple game losses throughout the day so that he would never be in contention for top 8. It's kind of annoying that the penalties reset for the 2nd day given that day 2 was just top 8. Reseting penalties makes a bit more sense in a longer day 2 like a GP, but I think for just a day 2 top 8 it just allows for more sloppy play in top 8.

Vnayin is making the correct point. It's very difficult to prove intent. The rules are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if a play intended to play 2 lands a turn (ect...), doing so is a violation and should be treated so. We want Vintage to be above the bar, for people to play with honor and enjoy the game. I want this, but it allows us to be more forgiving. It also allows malicious people to take advantage of our community. When we are playing in a competitive REL event, we need to be consistent with the application of the rules. Not doing so opens the floodgates.

@ajfirecracker said:

@desolutionist https://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/v/98040029?t=03m00s Joseph plays a Mox Sapphire into a Thorn of Amethyst with no other mana sources in play

It was pretty obvious from me standing there that he made an honest mistake on that one, just as I believe his earlier mistakes were honest, too.

Think back and ask yourself about the last time you failed to pay extra for a Sphere/Thalia/etc. Should you have also been disqualified for cheating then? Mistakes are a part of the game.

He received a warning for a GRV, we moved on, and everyone was happy (or so I thought). But now I see that this is just another drop in the bucket that people are using to try to show he was cheating. This whole thing has really fed on itself in a pretty ugly way.

@Katzby said:

It was pretty obvious from me standing there that he made an honest mistake on that one. He received a warning for a GRV, we moved on, and everyone was happy (or so I thought).

But now I see that this is just another drop in the bucket that people are using to try to show he was cheating. This whole thing has really fed on itself in a pretty ugly way.

This comment is ridiculous and you should be ashamed. Looking at the objective evidence and trying to determine whether or not the rules were followed is 100% legitimate.

@ajfirecracker said:

@Katzby said:

It was pretty obvious from me standing there that he made an honest mistake on that one. He received a warning for a GRV, we moved on, and everyone was happy (or so I thought).

But now I see that this is just another drop in the bucket that people are using to try to show he was cheating. This whole thing has really fed on itself in a pretty ugly way.

This comment is ridiculous and you should be ashamed. Looking at the objective evidence and trying to determine whether or not the rules were followed is 100% legitimate.

Please explain what you mean. I know of and knew then of all of the rules infractions being raised here. However, simply listing them all doesn't prove that he actually intended to break the rules. Remember, only intentionally breaking rules is cheating.

Also, getting called ridiculous for trying to help clear up some of the misconceptions I see here is precisely what I meant earlier about being dubious about wanting to participate in this thread further.

Can you comment on why when an opponent requested that judges shuffle his deck that request was denied?

If the head judge is willing to explain what happened more I would appreciate having more information, so let's try not to escalate tensions.

What I am personally most confused about is why the collection of GRVs did not result in a game loss at any point. There are at least 3 GRVs from the Swiss and at least 3 GRVs from the top 8 by my count.

The thing I'm confused about is I made one mistake on camera. I had no prior grv's and was snapped dq'd which can only mean the judge thought I was lying or had other reasons. I'm not upset about the dq other then my integrity being put on the line. I personally don't think the situation was handled as well as it could have been.

@Samoht said:

Can you comment on why when an opponent requested that judges shuffle his deck that request was denied?

Yes, that was my decision and I completely stand by it.

As I've said above, I didn't think he was cheating, and this was a conclusion I came to after observing his play, talking to the spectators and opponents who reported issues, and most importantly, a brief interview with him Friday evening and a much longer one with him prior to his QF match.

If I don't think that a player is cheating, I'm not going to treat him like a cheater, plain and simple.

Besides, I gave the person that made this request my word that I would personally watch Joseph B shuffle. I didn't just say "no," scoff, and wave him off as I'm sure many in this thread imagine. I took him aside, explained my concerns, and also tried to make it clear that it would send the wrong message, especially multiplied by all those watching on stream. I did my best to reason with him.

And I personally did watch Joseph B closely for the entire match- I would challenge anybody to find any video or photos of me doing anything other than this. In fact, Joseph B had three judges watching his every move during the entire top 8. I arranged for this due to the public pressure and concerns about him. But, importantly, this was not because I thought he was cheating. If I believed that to be the case, I would have DQ'd him.

As a result, I am very convinced that no matter what you may think he was trying to pull throughout the event, that he couldn't and didn't do any of it on Sunday. If he had, we would have seen him do it.

@Katzby Thank you for participating in this thread given this heightened tensions at the moment. I am interested in what information only you can provide as well as your opinion. I'm interested in hearing your response to diophan's question as well as this question. After Joe made 2 land drops a turn twice in a game on camera and I'm assuming 2 GRVs that game, did you consider that suspicious and consider having his remaining matches on Friday monitored for more GRVs? It seems that it would be important to have a judge watch over someone in contention and have them aware that he was 1 GRV from potentially game lossing him out of contention.

Personally, I'd be a fan of having judges watch more matches for potential GRVs. I'm not sure how much is logistically possible, but maybe random matches similar to deck checks or in the later rounds more monitoring of in-contention matches. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on things like these.

@desolutionist https://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/v/98002914?t=01h14m00s Joseph repeatedly turns the cards all the way up towards his face while shuffling (so he can see the card faces) and as he finishes shuffling his deck it looks as though he's looking down at the bottom card of his deck (face side of that card towards him) while shuffling. He does this both while shuffling his deck and Andy's

@diophan said:

If the head judge is willing to explain what happened more I would appreciate having more information, so let's try not to escalate tensions.

What I am personally most confused about is why the collection of GRVs did not result in a game loss at any point. There are at least 3 GRVs from the Swiss and at least 3 GRVs from the top 8 by my count.

This is what I mean about there being so much misinformation about this on the Internet. He received a total of two GRV warnings on each Friday and Sunday.

Friday- GRV 1 for failing to discard.
GRV2 for attempting to play a second land.
I did not hear about the second instance of playing two lands until after the match was over. In that case, the judge in the area considered the issue to be rooted in the missed Mana Drain trigger that we also handled, and didn't issue a further penalty.

Sunday- GRV 1 for the Mox into a Thorn.
GRV 2 for tapping a Fetchland for mana just after an Urborg got Stripped.

No other GRVs were assessed. In both cases, though, one more would have resulted in a game loss.

As an aside, I was not thrilled about the prospect of 2016 Vintage Champs being decided by a game loss due to a play error, and even found some time to sneak away before game 3 and warn Nick that the chances were pretty good that that's exactly what was about to happen.

The dude knew how to play competitive magic. I watched Joe Brennan and him have a conversation in the Swiss. Guy knew how to play. But he also recognized when he could cheat. Of course when he makes the top 8 and his play is under a microscope he might tone it down a little.

Let this be a lesson for everyone to not trust your opponent, be very aware of their actions, and watch for marked cards, and making illegal plays while acting dumb. That is all for now.

@Katzby said:

@diophan said:

If the head judge is willing to explain what happened more I would appreciate having more information, so let's try not to escalate tensions.

What I am personally most confused about is why the collection of GRVs did not result in a game loss at any point. There are at least 3 GRVs from the Swiss and at least 3 GRVs from the top 8 by my count.

This is what I mean about there being so much misinformation about this on the Internet. He received a total of two GRV warnings on each Friday and Sunday.

Friday- GRV 1 for failing to discard.
GRV2 for attempting to play a second land.
I did not hear about the second instance of playing two lands until after the match was over. In that case, the judge in the area considered the issue to be rooted in the missed Mana Drain trigger that we also handled, and didn't issue a further penalty.

Sunday- GRV 1 for the Mox into a Thorn.
GRV 2 for tapping a Fetchland for mana just after an Urborg got Stripped.

No other GRVs were assessed. In both cases, though, one more would have resulted in a game loss.

As an aside, I was not thrilled about the prospect of 2016 Vintage Champs being decided by a game loss due to a play error, and even found some time to sneak away before game 3 and warn Nick that the chances were pretty good that that's exactly what was about to happen.

OK so is that 4 Game Rule Violations Friday and only 2 got a warning? Just to be clear

The issue I have with intent is that the accidental cheater gets the win while the victim gets the loss. If the opponents are anything like me, they spent their free time preparing, their disposable income traveling, their limited vacation time spent. If I have to choose between accidental cheater and the innocent opponent, I will take the side of the innocent opponent. We're all working toward the same goal. To overlook violations causes harm. I'm speaking in general terms here, not accusing anyone. I just do not believe misplay should be overlooked. Were not talking about kitchen table games here. I feel for anyone that is cheated by anyone intentional or not.

@ajfirecracker

Missed Trigger is a different infraction. Warnings for those don't stack up in the same way, but they can stack up individually.

The judge considered the second double land drop to have been caused directly by her influence on the match when dealing with the missed trigger infraction, and so didn't issue another penalty.

Again, I was not made aware of it until after the match, so even if I felt differently about it, it was too late to do anything about it.

@Trius said:

The issue I have with intent is that the accidental cheater gets the win while the victim gets the loss.

From a policy perspective, there is no such thing as accidental cheating. You can accidentally break rules, sure, but generally speaking, unless it is done knowingly and intentionally, that's not cheating.

@Katzby he had exactly the right amount of cards, you just took his word on which order he drew them and didn't think logically on the order of events in the match. I've been playing competitive vintage since 2002 and never once called an opponent on cheating. That changed Friday and to not have rules enforced really shows what a joke judging in this game is. NO matter what, it's still a human deciding something with incomplete information.

Truth is buddy, you blew up my tournament chances in round 2 yet I still almost got there. To see that you blew so many calls revolving around the asterisked winner shows a pattern of ineptitude. I'd honestly be questioning my ability to be a head judge when so many people are doing the same thing.

@Juggernaut-GO said:

@Katzby he had exactly the right amount of cards, you just took his word on which order he drew them and didn't think logically on the order of events in the match. I've been playing competitive vintage since 2002 and never once called an opponent on cheating. That changed Friday and to not have rules enforced really shows what a joke judging in this game is. NO matter what, it's still a human deciding something with incomplete information.

Truth is buddy, you blew up my tournament chances in round 2 yet I still almost got there. To see that you blew so many calls revolving around the asterisked winner shows a pattern of ineptitude. I'd honestly be questioning my ability to be a head judge when so many people are doing the same thing.

I like when we take really great people who dedicate their time to this neglected format and literally throw garbage in their face.

Get bent Travis, people like you are a scourge on normalcy in Vintage and a halfway decent time.

@Katzby

Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.

I think you can make a case that the repeated shuffling violations after being instructed to change his technique violate this particular rule (from the IPG). While I don't think that judgment is clear-cut, I do think it's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about it. The suggestion you've made that somehow the discussion itself is improper (i.e. that your work as a judge cannot under any circumstances be reviewed or criticized by the player community) is the most harmful thing in this thread.

@Juggernaut-GO said:

@Katzby he had exactly the right amount of cards, you just took his word on which order he drew them and didn't think logically on the order of events in the match.

Truth is buddy, you blew up my tournament chances in round 2 yet I still almost got there. To see that you blew so many calls revolving around the asterisked winner shows a pattern of ineptitude. I'd honestly be questioning my ability to be a head judge when so many people are doing the same thing.

As I said, I'm sorry you had such a negative experience, but I didn't just take anybody's word; I heard both sides and made a determination. I don't claim to be infallible, but I do claim to be fair.