[Author's Note: I know I said I would not be using this blog for Magic, but sometimes a man has to use the resources available to him to further his message. My message. I figured that I had published 8 pieces, some of decent quality, and that I may indulge myself in return for the courage it takes to publicly share one's craft. Since 99% of my readers are Magic players anyway, I see no need to hold back—instead choosing to owe an apology to those who have no idea what I am talking about in this article. TCGPlayer has told me that they want only strategic content out of me, and not “happenings” or “stories for the sake of stories” and the like, so I am left not being paid for my work once again. Such is the life that I have chosen.
It is not particularly well-written, as it is more about the ideas and I am trying to post it in a timely manner. It is also more strongly worded than I would have phrased it had it been up for publication.
I will be in Richmond and then Japan, so Suspension Story #3, Part 4 will likely have to wait. Until then, enjoy.]
Chapter 1, Introduction
For those of you who do not know, Tomoharu Saito was disqualified from GP Florence for hitting his opponent with his backpack, knocking him out cold stalling. Subsequently, upon investigation after reviewing his appeal, he was suspended from the DCI for 18 months.
I am not here to convince you that Saito is a saint. This was not written to defend him just because I consider him a friend. Nor is this propaganda persuading you to join the droves of angry mobs after his head. Joining that bandwagon is something for the weak of mind, unable to look at the facts logically and draw their own conclusions. I will not pander to that lowest common denominator. This is not about who is right and who is wrong, and it certainly is not about whether he is guilty or innocent. I am not all-seeing and all-knowing, and, as far as I know, judges and the DCI also lack this necessary omniscience. This is merely an essay on moral relativism and capability for empathy. It is a call to reason.
On such an emotional topic, it becomes easy to demonize the alleged cheater while spitting “holier than thou” rhetoric. However, this is not Fox News and we are not simple-minded folk. There are influences at work that are larger than us, and we must take the time to recognize them. Even if you find a possibility outlandish, they are still worth understanding and considering.
Chapter 2, Piaget in the Hizzouse
[Author's Note: Due to the outline of this article and the flow I wanted to have with callback and segues and such, this chapter must go here. Sadly, it is probably the most controversial and difficult to wrap your head around chapter of the entire article. I ask that, if you think I'm crazy or retarded for having said some of these things, please disregard this chapter and continue without closing your mind off to my ideas. If you wish to reread this with the perspective gleaned in later chapters, please feel free. I just don't want somebody to disagree with some of the egregious claims I make here and be turned off to the whole piece because of it. Thank you for understanding.]
The term “childlike” is particularly appropriate for a moral stance that I have observed in which the person hears of the suspension and immediately piles on. Almost as bad are the couple of people that are blindly following Saito-sama, saying that he’s definitely innocent without a shadow of a doubt. Those people can’t be certain just like the people who are calling him guilty can’t be certain.
It’s time for a psychology lesson. Just call me Professor Feel-Good. That way I can use the business cards left over from my failed gig as a Disco Club DJ for my newly blossoming career in the wonderful field of education.
Jean Piaget came up with this model of moral development that was revolutionary, and a duder named Lawrence Kohlberg expound upon it. I’m fairly certain they liked to be referred to as The Psychological Duo of Larry and Jean, but couldn’t find a source to support my claim.
The theory dictates that there are 6 stages grouped by twos into 3 levels:
Level 1: Pre-conventional
1) Obedience and Fear of Punishment (How do I keep from getting into trouble?)
2) Selfish Orientation (What do I get out of it?)
Level 2: Conventional
3) Conformity (Trying to please people by being and doing what they think is wanted of them)
4) Absolutist Authority (The law is the end-all of morality.)
Level 3: Post-conventional
5) Social Contract (The world has many differing opinions and values that demand mutual respect)
6) Universal Ethical Principles (Views based on justice and empathy)
How I view the internet dwellers that are blindly vicious towards Saito is that they are merely stuck in stage 4 of moral development.
“These are the rules and how I have been taught to view them. He was caught so he must have done it. He was punished and so he was deserving of punishment.”
Anybody who thinks that is all there is to this situation is either very dumb or choosing to be ignorant rather than free their mind and make their own decisions. It could even be that they are merely in stage 3 and are just acting accordingly unbeknownst to them. However, being able to take a walk in another person’s shoes requires more than a stage 3 or 4 is capable of. A form of empathy is required to see that not everything is black and white.
Take the Heinz Dilemma:
A woman is dying of an illness. A scientist has made a pill that cures that disease but is selling it for $2000 when it only cost him $200 to make it. The woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he could asking for money but could only get together $1000 dollars. He begged the scientist to sell it to him for less or to allow him to pay the rest later, but the scientist said “No.” Heinz got desperate and broke into the scientist’s lab and stole the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
I highly doubt any person of intellect would say that he shouldn’t steal because stealing is illegal. They may say because stealing is wrong, calling to a higher universal ethical principle, but they would not claim that the reason it is wrong is because of the law.
So why is what Saito did wrong because of the rules? You’ll have to bear with me on this one, as I am aware that winning a match of Magic and having your wife die are not exactly dilemmas of similar magnitudes (Magic is obviously much more important). However, if we are to believe that laws and rules are not all there are to life and games respectively, then we have to look at it from our higher pedestal up on level 3. The rulebook isn’t what makes what he (supposedly) did into something that is wrong; it’s wrong because it goes against the social contract of not scumming eachother and the universal ethical principle of not cheating at games.
With me so far? Now, the rule can not be what makes it cheating, because if that were the case it would always be a DQ. However, for slowplaying (which is the form of stalling in question) you get cautions and warnings. So if we accept that the social contract and the universal ethical principle are what is at stake here, then the immorality of his (alleged) actions becomes easy to debunk:
He doesn’t see it as breaking the social contract (“don’t scum eachother”) because he doesn’t see his actions as scummy. He isn’t breaking the universal ethical principle (“don’t cheat at games”) because he doesn’t view it as cheating. More on this in Chapter 4.
I’m not asking that you absolve him in your mind. Rather, I merely ask that you know and understand why you are upset, and at what you are upset. “He broke the rules” is childish.
On a completely unrelated note, have you ever jaywalked? That’ll have to wait for chapter 6.
Chapter 3, You Don’t Know
As far as I know, Saito’s claim is that he was not stalling. He says that the gamestate got very complex when the clock coincidentally was low. Then, something happened in the game around when time was called that simplified the decisions that needed to be made. This would account for his differing paces of play. Is it true? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Neither were you. This isn’t a special detective hour where we sleuth out the culprit by following a trail of clues. We are here to acknowledge the circumstances and possibilities that surround this case.
Read, if you will, the following story:
Time is winding down in the round and Saito is way behind. He picks up and reads Jace, the Mind Sculptor 5 separate times in the course of only a handful of turns. His opponent was left unable to kill him due to running out of time.
Now that sounds like a damning piece of evidence, as I’m sure many of you feel. However, this story fails to acknowledge everything that was going on. It also lacks a mention of the origins of the story. For all you know, this could be completely made up. The truth is that I have heard this story numerous times from many different people, almost all second or third hand.
Did you ever play “Telephone” as a kid? You sit in a circle and somebody whispers a word or phrase into the ear of their neighbor. That child then passes that message along to the kid on the other side of him. The message goes around the circle, going into the ears and coming out of the mouths of everyone in the game. By the time the message gets back to the original sender, it is often quite different than it had been at the beginning of its journey.
The more times I heard the story, the less credence I gave it. This is mostly due to the details of the story varying greatly from telling to telling. As the message gets further away from the sender, it becomes less and less like the true message.
So what if someone has a first-hand account? These are refutable as well. People lie for all sorts of reasons that could be applied here. Jealousy, bitterness, boredom, bias, racism, and more. Even if the story is wholly true but exaggerates a couple of key details slightly, the story loses all meaning as you can no longer tell what really happened through the hyperbole. Do I think the people who told me this story supposedly first hand were lying? Not necessarily, but it is a consideration that must be made.
People also make mistakes. Perhaps they recalled a detail incorrectly or failed to mention a key piece of evidence. Then what bearing could one say that the story has?
And through all of this, time and time again, is it not also possible that Saito was genuinely reading the cards? Yes, I do believe that he knows what Jace, the Mind Sculptor does, but Mishra’s Factory? It’s been a while for that puppy, and Saito does not regularly play Legacy. It is also worth considering, despite the fact that no one seems willing to, that there was a strange interaction involving Jace that was unique to Legacy. As for him taking a long time to read it and reading it multiple times, I would like to see you quickly read a Japanese Magic card and not have to double-check. For how long he has been speaking it and how he learned and so on, he speaks English quite well. That doesn’t mean that he speaks it well by American’s standards, and it surely doesn’t mean that he reads the language easily.
All of these possibilities deserve consideration. Anybody who denies that it is possible, despite the slimmest of likelihoods, that this was a series of unfortunate coincidences and outspoken hyperbole, is ignorant and closed-minded. I’m not saying that you have to believe this to be the case, but that not bothering to even entertain the notion is damaging to the game, the community, your view of the world, the parties involved, and everyone around you that you choose to poison with your misguided rage.
Chapter 4, Society and Morality
Please read what is almost certainly Alex West’s best article:
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/19882_Best_of_the_West_Greatness_at_Any_Cost.html
It is about taking a view outside of your own, to oversimplify horribly. Being able to apply a schema other than your own to an occurrence or circumstance allows you to see what is truly going on. The Koreans spamming your IP address in Starcraft is considered cheating by the US. However, they view it as if there is no other option; that it is merely optimal play. Their scope of what the game actually is just happens to be more encompassing than our own. Does that mean they are all scumbags? No, of course not. That is ignorant and moronic. They aren’t breaking any rules, so how could they be cheaters? They just believe the rules to be different than what we believe the rules to be.
Is hitting a pinball machine cheating? That is wholly up to the person being asked. If a high-stakes pinball tournament was held without a rule in place about bumping the machines, the people not bumping machines to gain an edge would be at a large disadvantage. They would scream and yell about how unfair it was, how everyone else was cheating. Guess what? They aren’t cheating.
If you think that those players are scummy or cheat, then you are just like those guys that say that counterspells and land destruction are cheap and that only cheaters use them. Or a fighting game player who claims that a certain attack or series of moves is cheating or, god forbid, “gay”.
That’s not what cheating is. You don’t get to make up your own rules and apply them to the game and everyone else automatically has to abide by them.
So what does this have to do with Saito? There IS a rule in place saying that you can’t stall, so if he was indeed slowplaying (which I am going to assume is the case for the sake of argument), then he would be cheating, right?
As with most questions of ethics or morality, the answer is; depends.
For slowplaying, you don’t get DQd and banned for cheating. You get a warning (often proceeded by a verbal caution). If the rule was simply
Slowplay = DQ
then he would be cheating. However, that is not the rule. Do I personally think that slowplaying is still cheating? I do indeed, and I have my reasons, but this is not about me. This is about him. Maybe receiving a warning doesn’t mean anything in his world view, much like spamming IP addresses doesn’t mean anything in Korea: it’s just part of optimal play.
In basketball, fouling someone is not considered cheating. It is just part of the game. Your team gets a certain punishment and you are allotted a certain number of fouls. Late in the game, it is often correct to purposefully foul the opponent as the punishment for the foul is better for you than if you didn’t commit a foul. Is that cheating? I mean, they allow you those fouls as a part of the game. Using them to your advantage is called “strategy” and not “cheating”.
Is it so unheard of and impossible to imagine that certain cultures or certain people would view warnings in Magic similarly to the way that fouls are viewed in basketball?
And on another note, do you think that a Japanese player would make you discard two cards if you said “Esper Charm targetting myself.”? I don’t think even Mori would do something like that, and the very concept would make Kenji cry. So who’s immoral?
Chapter 5, Compulsive Competitor
This chapter is highly personalized. Most of what I have written so far has been entirely objective, but this one is from AJ Sacher’s coloring book of opinions. I want to discuss the difference between a cheater and what I believe Saito is, which is a compulsive competitor. I agree with Travis Woo when he said that he doubts Saito can control it. He just wants to win and win and win, and losing makes him try to get an edge to not be beaten. Now, is what he allegedly did illegal? Yes. Is what he did sinister? I believe not.
Whether you like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not, the clock is part of the game. It’s not supposed to be, but it is. If you are probably going to lose in a slow match-up, it is often “correct” to concede early, giving up your 2% shot at a comeback in order to ensure that you have enough time to finish the match in the event that you win the next game. I view that as optimal play, and I know for a fact that many players agree with me there. But is that not fairly close to clock manipulation? I don’t believe that it is as different as I would like it to be, but they can’t force you to finish a game and disallow you from conceding. That’s just nonsense. And so we have yet another grey area.
Would I ever do what Saito (allegedly) did? Absolutely not. I am one of the most anti-cheating people that I know on the Pro Tour today. And so if I’m not one of the many clamoring for his head on a pike, you know that something is different.
Trust me, there are many players whose domes I would love to skewer, but I don’t have the hard evidence that I require on Mr. Saito. There are a lot of accusations and not a small amount of hearsay, but I don’t lump him in with the real cheaters on the Pro Tour (and there are still multiple). The true slimeballs are constantly and deliberately trying to gain advantages illegally. When you look at players playing off their laps, drawing extra cards, lying about the gamestate, abusing language barriers, Nosey Goblin-ing, drawing off of their sideboards, looking at their opponent’s deck, manipulating their opponent’s deck, weaving their own deck, and so on, a guy that plays slowly sometimes is the least of my worries.
That isn’t to say that I am OK with it, as I would most certainly call a judge on him if we were to play knowing what I know now. And I understand why he is viewed so negatively. However, I do recognize the difference between a crime of opportunity based on a deeply-seeded drive to win at all costs, and peeling extras.
Again, morality is a spectrum. I can have him be on the right side of the X-axis but still not crammed into the black with the real dirtbags.
Chapter 6, Let He Who is Without Scum Chuck the First Rock
It all starts here with what is yet another groundbreaking work by Sam Stoddard.
http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/20564_The_Danger_of_Small_Cheats.html
Now, I have definitely done at least a couple of these in the past and I’m sure you have as well. We all have our own reasons and excuses, but we cheated. Plain and simple. In a GP this very season, I had to help my opponent kill me because he couldn’t do Bushwhacker math.
In. Both. Games.
Do you have any idea how heart-wrenching that is? To have to help your very stupid, poor-playing, mouth-breathing, drooling mongoloid opponent kill you? It is not a warm and fuzzy feeling, I can tell you that much. But I didn’t have to feel bad for the rest of the tournament; to be ashamed to receive my check in the mail.
Even now, I still get impulses to not help people correct the game state or what have you, but I fight through them to the best of my abilities. As Sam puts so eloquently in his article, it is what we are trained to do in playing this game competitively. I have sympathy for people who are unable to fight these impulses; it’s not their fault that their opponent stupidly missed something. A sideboard card being in your deck shouldn’t matter if you never drew it and he’s dead anyway.
I get it.
However, that is not the righteous path to take. Me understanding it does not excuse the behavior. All it does is show me that I am capable of empathy for those put into a bad situation. Their parents and friends didn’t teach them proper values and the game (and capitalist society in general) has taught them that the keys to success are in bending and breaking the perceived barriers. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to call the judge on them or am going to lend them money or anything. It merely means that I have been there and I can relate on some level.
Can’t you?
Chapter 7, Harsh, Baby. Harsh.
Now, Saito is known for playing slowly and I’m sure that the judges had been watching for slowplay and stalling. When he was caught and DQd, he issued his public statement and wrote his appeal to the DCI. They suspended him for 18 months as shown here:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci%2Fsuspended&tablesort=2
Lucas Siow noted that equal and/or lesser punishments have been doled out multiple times for:
- Assault
- Unsporting Conduct
- Match Fraud
- Tournament Fraud
- Manipulation of Game Materials
- Adding Cards
- Bribery
- Lying
Now, to me, a lot of those sound a lot worse than stalling, no? So why the hefty sentence?
Because he is a high profile player.
I feel that they are making an example out of him, showing that they will not allow cheating from anybody. A six month suspension would have seemed lenient, despite it being much more appropriate for a first time offender.
Now I know you are all going to say that he is not a first time offender. Listen, his previous suspension was for something completely different, a million years ago, and has no bearing on this case. As for people saying that he had multiple warnings before this, I bet you that he didn’t have nearly as many warnings as you think he did. And even if he did, you know who else was warned repeatedly for the same thing over and over but still refused to listen and ultimately got caught running the same cheat? Olivier Ruel. His sentence?
Six. Motherfucking. Months.
They wanted to put the foot down here, and Saito got the bad end of it. Is he deserving of his DQ? Most likely. Is he deserving of a suspension? Maybe. Is he deserving of a suspension three times as long as Olivier’s? No way.
The only reason they would do such a thing is to set an precedent that they failed to set with Mr. Ruel. To use him as an example.
Chapter 8, Speedy Deliberation
Normally, the DCI investigation takes quite a while. Upwards to 5 months is how long some previous actions have taken. I remember playing a match at Pro Tour Kyoto with Ben Lundquist to my right and Marcio Carvalho to my left. Marcio scummed his opponent out of a match that he had rightfully won and went on to top 32 the tournament, also collecting his Level 7 appearance fee. A few weeks later, he was suspended for a disqualification that had taken place weeks prior to Kyoto. The DCI dragging its heels cost a lot of people a lot of matches and allowed him to pocket an extra $4k or so of Wizards’ money along with a handful of extra valuable pro points.
So why did it take them only 3 days to ax Saito?
One word: HallofFame.
In order to protect their precious hall of fame, they rushed the deliberation process in order to keep him from attending Worlds, presumably excising him from the induction ceremony. So instead of his accomplishments being honored and playing in a PT in his backyard, he will likely not be in attendance.
It looks bad if you induct a player into the hall and then suspend him. Especially if you could have used that to keep a “cheater” out of the “hallowed grounds” (lol). In order to preserve the (already long-dead) integrity of their hall of fame, they made their decision very quickly. I feel it was rushed and quite brash, leaving him with a much more hefty sentence than if this had taken place 6 months ago.
The fact that the system is so broken scares the living shit out of me.
Chapter 9, Fallout and Conclusion
So what does this mean for Saito? I don’t know. I feel bad for the guy, though. This game is his life and this is just about the worst thing that could happen to him. The Hall of Fame means the world to him and he had it in his hands before it was snatched away. The man runs a store, deals, travels, and plays. That is it. And smokes. But that’s it.
Now, do I think he deserves what happened to him? It’s hard to say. I’d like to say that he doesn’t, like it was so easy for me to do when Martin Juza got DQd, but I’m afraid that it isn’t the case here. As much as I value his friendship, the guy has a problem. He was probably guilty and got caught and was punished and now he has to serve his time. Despite all of the rumors that surrounded him and the stigma that is now stuck to him forever, he is one of my favorite people to see at tournaments. He cracks me up all of the time and is just the nicest and most polite person you could possibly meet. He’s a fantastic player and a truly great guy, and I’m upset that this all had to happen.
I’m not surprised, but it wasn’t expected either. I have never seen him do or heard him be legitimately accused of anything other than stalling, and the fact that people want to lump him in with the likes of Mori and Long makes me sick to my stomach. However, what he was doing is wrong and it had to stop one way or the other.
I just hope the public eventually realizes that very occasionally turning a loss into a draw wouldn’t be enough to give him the results that he has put up. I’m sad to see that people didn’t vote for him for the hall despite one of the best resumes in the history of the game, and now I’m sad to see people dragging his name through the dirt without a second thought. If you consider all of these factors and have taken my arguments to heart and still think that he is the devil incarnate, then feel free to spew your venom across the interwebz. But, if you are able to come to some sort of middling conclusion that doesn’t lie in either black or white, but rather in the gray area in between in which we all live, then I feel we can take a big step towards reason and empathy over fear and hatred.
If you see somebody who may be ill-informed, feel free to link them here. I have comments moderated so only thoughtful posts will be accepted. And that means “well thought out” and not just “agrees with AJ”.
Thanks for reading.
-AJ Sacher, written but not edited.
Nice article. While I agree with your tone, overarching ideas, and most of your points, I have differing opinions in a few areas,
3: I agree with this point on principle, and the evidence (five times? Pretty sure it was three) can get exaggerated. However, I was watching the game in Columbus, and if I hadn’t seen the deliberation in 30-second turns with no relevant cards in hand and a lost board state, counting sideboards, checking graveyards, re-checking jace (I’m sorry, I know saito is not native english, but he is the most magic-fluent speaker in the world. The man that studied for and thus successfully top eighted two of the six ever legacy GPs, but he doesn’t know the wording for Mishra’s Factory? Sure. Jace? Don’t buy it. Want to count his opponent’s sideboard? Sure why not. His graveyard? A little excessive. Thirty second turns to decide whether to play the last dork in his hand for no value? Sure. Thirty seconds of his opponent’s turn with no instants? No sir. Saito is a master, in perfect control of his speed, and I saw him go from extremely tensed to relieved, smiling, when time was called. I believe he already knew the game was drawn, and he took almost no time in his last turns. Got to sign that match slip, eh?
Since you weren’t watching either event in question, I like that you give Saito the benefit of the doubt. Since I was there, I am not afforded this luxury, and am grateful that he is not out there taking honest player’s money for the next year and a half.
I am curious as to why you’re placing such emphasis on coloring this case when your stance on Pozsgay has been so black and white. That too was an incident where you just plain weren’t there, with POVs from a player admittedly concentrating on his own match and the most high-strung, exaggerated player in competitive magic (“5-1? I should just drop now, I’ll never make it!”) You even brought up Poz’s dq from his first pre-release ever as evidence against him, though you weren’t there either to know his opponent had excitedly shouted “I got a dual land!,” flashing it to him, to which I guess you’re supposed to call a judge.
The difference between the two events, methinks, is that you really like one of these players and you really dislike the other. This article, guised as a call to reason, reeks of emotion. I don’t blame you. To be human is to be hypocritical; it’s all about doing the best we can to balance our values. Though we disagree on both these players, I will tip my hat to another human trying to, in the most banal of cliches, do good and have influence.
7: “Unsporting Conduct – Stalling” is what is next to Saito’s name, so your list doesn’t make sense. Also, I think Ruel should’ve gotten a more serious sentence for the exact reason that I’m not upset with Saito’s sentence now. If a high profile player doesn’t realize he’s breaking the rules and continues to do so, despite a buzz about said breaking the rules so encompassing of the magic world that it saw talk on the forums he wrote on, if said player is truly dedicated to the game as a source of income and is being put into the permanent gravy train that is the HOF, then he should play at a reasonable pace. Maralyn Manson once wrote that the penalty for shoplifting should be death, because anyone caught shoplifting is so stupid that they probably shouldn’t be allowed to procreate. A controversial argument, to be sure.
Overall, I agree with most of your points. I do think that if a HOFer stalls at multiple GPs then it is likely that he has done so before. The way he boarded in the top eight of columbus (bringing in a few cards at a time, then taking a break, systematically reordering the entire contents of his library sb card or no, mana clump or no) scared the piss out of me. I didn’t go around shouting on such flimsy evidence, but I did tell my friends to pile shuffle against him. Why not?
Since he and Ruel have been busted on gaining unfair edges, I am inclined to believe that it’s probable they have done so before. Perhaps in complex formats, perhaps in complex board states, always where it looks reasonable, but one match, one game, per event makes a huge difference. I’ve heard of pros laughing at the idea of going to a GP without any byes, noting the difference that they make. Can you imagine a master like Saito or Ruel starting events with four byes? Why, the difference it’d make between him and the other masters would be enough to launch him into the HOF or something. It might make events such +EV that it’s worth flying to every-single-freaking one.
But I’m starting to get off topic. I don’t hate Saito, and my emotional connection to his punishment is tied to my connection with the health of the game. While he has knocked me out of a top eight and a day two, I picture him as the competition, as an obstacle, a goal. I was looking forward to a fourth match, and the only tinge of regret I feel at Saito’s dq is knowing that will be a long time coming.
*Regarding Pozsgay, I meant to say fellow drafter, not opponent. The judge watching realized the dq was silly, and even let them finish the draft, but rules are rules. I think holding this against Poz is identical to holding Saito’s earlier dq (asking for a prize split right after they changed the rules.)
Nice outline on how you think about cheating and the specific case in question. I do however feel that the “oversophistication” is not really necessary to grasp the issue. Cheating in any way destroys the game and deprives honest players from the spotlight. The tragedy is that for every cheat there is a certain chance that “Jonny Nonename” does NOT make the top 8 of a big event. It’s strange how often arguments arise about how unfair it is for the cheater but no one talks about the people that really deserve sympathy.
Top players do have a responsibility not only for themselves but also for the health of the gaming community. The “Hall of Fame” died for me the Moment they started admitting and tolerating cheaters. One of the reasons why I believe MTGO (Magic the Gathering Online) to be the “true” testing ground for competitive play. Good luck cheating and stalling there…
Best regards,
Marin Baraba
Founder MTGOAcademy.com
Ever since reading this:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html
I’ve been worried about the slow play/stalling rules in Magic. ‘Grey’ rules like forbidding manipulation of the clock are really hard to adjudicate, though as of yet I haven’t come up with a solution to this one.
Awesome article. It’s this kind of clear, smart thinking that makes me glad to be a part of this community.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the DCI goes for 18 months without a giant pile of warnings on record. It’s not like this suspension is a good thing for them either. I’m not claiming inside information or anything, but their terms are clearly harsher when they perceive a track record. His high profile actually pulls in the other direction as the track record for big names has been toward shorter terms (one month for Long (ancient history, but still), 6 months for Maher (whistle-blower discount), and 6 months for Olivier (which was probably about right but looks short compared to this one). There’s a chance they counted the previous suspension for more than they should, but mostly I just think they wouldn’t go for that many months unless the case for a pattern of abuse was rock solid.
That said, your points are still totally valid. I prefer intentional theories of morality so I don’t think clock manipulation is particularly gray (it’s just hard to prove), but I will say that as a compulsive competitor myself, part of me is glad that my lawful alignment wasn’t tested by 10 years of high level play during an era when you are obliged to point out your opponent’s game state misunderstandings.
Though I do not entirely disagree with Caleb’s comments and concerns, I disagree with a few things. The main thing, I would say:
“If a high profile player doesn’t realize he’s breaking the rules and continues to do so, despite a buzz about said breaking the rules so encompassing of the magic world that it saw talk on the forums he wrote on, if said player is truly dedicated to the game as a source of income and is being put into the permanent gravy train that is the HOF, then he should play at a reasonable pace.”
This may be correct, but no one banters on about Wafa-tapa playing slowly. A “reasonable pace” is what, exactly? Again, there is a lot of grey area. When does it become “a reasonable pace?” When does it become playing slow? Playing fast? Do we all have to play at some illusional/unspoken speed in order to maintain integrity? When and WHERE is it not OK? There has to be a line-drawn, but unfortunately, there has yet to be.
Similar to AJ, I am not merely taking sides on a situation. I am trying to get people to think that it’s absolutely ridiculous to lump stalling with “assualt” and “tournament frued.”
Manson’s quote reminds me of something that would happen in the old biblical age, not something that would happen in a standard, civilized society. Killing people for stealing, because it’s so stupid? Again, where is the line? What if I steal to feed my hungry family in a country where the famine is spreading across the land? Is that ignorant? Is that stupid? And many-a-people don’t get murdered for plenty of stupid things. Should asking questions the average kindergardener should know warrent of a death penalty? Who are you or anyone else to decide?
I am not saying you, or anyone else, feel that that was correct, as that is obviously an over-exaggeration of epic proportions. What I am saying is, your example is completely useless. If anytihng, it proves that Saito’s punishment is too harsh, as they may be dealing with it in a way that that primitive people deal with things (This person did something wrong, they should be punished blindly as quickly as we can do so to the highest degree possible).
People should be punished for their crimes, most definitely. AJ never once said his claims about the Jace incident were completely viable, just stating that it is very possible that some if not many of the things he did may be otherwise innocent, not that they DEFINITELY were. Personally, I think he was probably stalling there, just from what I have heard. Can I say he definitely was? No.
He should be punished. I agree. To that extent? No. They need to find their place where they stop giving pro players the benefit of the doubt, when they don’t give newcomers the same deal (see: Craig Wescoe tattle-tailing incident), but they also need to do the same the opposite way, where they don’t use higher players as examples, simply because their are known.
People lump Saito in this horrible rep. They may as well be acting like he killed his opponent that he stalled against, honestly. The absolute blind hatred towards him is completely childish. You dont need to be spitting absolute rage against it, even if you are against “cheating” and “stalling.” Stalling is hardly the worst of crimes he could have committed.
I honestly think a year-and-a-half is much too strong. A 6-month suspension would have been enough for him to realize what he was doing was wrong. He has, in the past, come back from suspensions and changed his way of doing things. He learned. He will now, if this suspension doesn’t completely break him.
As AJ said, Saito is a really nice guy. He’s entirely and completely passionate about every aspect of the game, and is a VERY good player. I don’t know him personally, but I have had the pleasure of talking with him a bit. He is every bit of deserving of that Hall of Fame spot, and is every bit of deserving to be treated fairly in these situations.
I understand why he was made an example of, and I understand why people are quick to judge and spit blood all over him. But I don’t agree with either of those sentiments, even if I can take a step back and empathize with that way of thinking.
I have many similar feelings regarding this suspension and the reaction to it.
I also feel that the Saito is being made an example for others. This fact bothers me most because so far Wizards/the DCI have issued no public statement other than the vague comment from the judge who DQ’d Saito. Given Saito’s high profile, a detailed account of his previous record and why that record justified the harsh penalty should be given. Right now, the whole comes across as a witch hunt to me.
I am also bothered by the original DQ. Judges should give rulings based the actions that they observe and not infer intent beyond those actions. Just as judges are not expected to take strategic merit into account when settling a communication issue (e.g. “Esper Charm targeting myself”), they should not read strategic intent into slow play (i.e. “the slow play occurred near the end of the round so it was stalling.”). I do not see why the typical Warning->Game Loss->DQ path could not be followed in this case. I could even understand if the DCI took Saito aside at some point and cautioned him that he had accumulated an inordinate amount of Slow Play Warnings and was in danger of a suspension, but a judge taking it upon himself to jump straight to a DQ does not sit well with me.
I agree with one thing (actually I agree with most of the article)..that Saito probably wasn’t thinking about cheating or gaining an unfair edge. It’s probably just an unaware compulsion. I also think that 18 months is a bit overkill.
However I really disagree with part #2. I don’t think that the pile-on is due to any sort of authoritarian impulse. In fact, I think it’s exactly the opposite. I think it’s the communitarian nature of the modern MTG culture that’s behind this. It’s pretty simple. The community as a whole abhors even the slightest whiff of cheating or improper behavior. I think this is mostly a backlash to the early days where cheating ran rampant, but it is what it is. And in the end, it’s probably a good thing.
WotC/DCI (and CFB as well, really) didn’t have a choice in the matter. Both rely upon, to a large degree the continued health and support of the MTG community. And almost immediately, the greater MTG community spoke pretty loud and clear that this was not acceptable.
Oh, and Aj, I want to say that I really enjoyed this article. Chapter 4 reminded me, to the core, of Sirlin’s “Playing to Win.” Is it possible you got some of your ideas, and/or descriptions/concepts from that very book?
From what I have seen around the internet, there is a lot of confusion about what stalling actually is, and as such why Saito has been DQ’ed for ‘playing slowly’.
Stalling =/= slow play. If you are playing slowly, you get a warning which could be upgraded. Stalling is far more calculated than slow play, and involves specifically altering your speed of play dependent on factors external to the game being played- for example, the round clock. This can be detected by watching a player’s pace of play over an extended period; if this changes based on things like the time left on the round and the number of games they are up or down, chances are that they are doing this intentionally in order to gain an advantage. In an ideal world, there would not be a round clock, and all rounds would be untimed in order to maximise the chances of a game being decided on the intrinsic skill of the players (as is done in the top 8 of large events); unfortunately, this is just not practical for massive tournament magic, as people like to be able to sleep at some time. And so this abusable external factor is introduced to the game.
You raise the point of why this is cheating. I disagree with you when you say that it can’t be cheating just because the rules say it is cheating; that is exactly the reason why it is cheating! However, it is the philosophy behind the rules which is relevant. And in this case, it’s that it is depriving the opponent of the chance to play a ‘fair’ game of magic based on things like relevant play skill. I understand what people mean when they say that manipulating the clock is a test of play skill, but I respectfully disagree, again on the basis that the clock is more a necessary evil than a part of the game of magic…
Regards whether he did it or not: As has been pointed out, slow play and stalling are reasonably subjective. As such, the head judge says he did it, and so for all intents and purposes, he did it. Debating whether he did or not is a pretty pointless exercise. As for the ‘rushed’ suspension: I’m pretty certain that there will have been more to it than the consideration of the hall of fame, and that Worlds itself may well be one of them. There is precedent for relatively high risk or high profile cases being hurried through before a very large event, and everyone seems to be fully aware of why the DCI may want to sort out this kind of suspension before someone is competing on a very public stage for large amounts of money.
I like the Manson quote because of the humor, and it also illuminates a strange logic that you seem to be missing. He isn’t saying that shoplifting itself warrants a punishment, he is for most antiestablishmentarianism. Rather, his stance is that shoplifting is so easy a crime to execute that those caught deserve what they get, despite his support of shoplifting itself.
This isn’t a direct port to Saito, but neither is it useless, and my context (which you ignored) should show that. In this situation, the extreme nature of Saito’s stupidity makes it hard for me to sympathize with his harsh punishment. It’s the equivalent to a CEO, knowing he’s under investigation, embezzling funds he doesn’t need because it’s what he’s used to doing. It’s shouting “I’ve got this thing, and it’s fucking golden” over your tapped phone.
But that’s the CEO’s job! He has committed to it! Don’t you feel bad? No. Saito has been banned before, and he surprisingly did not starve. He owns a successful business with a loyal patronage, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. The only difference is that he we’ll have one less cheater (even if he only does it once per event….) on the professional scene. Once per event, one less straight-playing but nice opponent won’t get stalled out because he’s impressed with how nice Saito is.
As for his niceness, I’ve seen him be legitimately kind, and I don’t think he’s evil. However, I don’t think he’s particularly nice in regards to his actions. He came up to me, all smiles and congratulations, when I was a lock for top eight, asking me to scoop him in. I didn’t, because I wasn’t sure, but obviously he got there anyway. The next round, he was in a similar situation, and brutally dream crushed his opponent with no smiles, no apologies. This is fine, as we’re all allowed to play the game how we want to. Is it nice? Hell no. Is it two faced? A bit.
We all know there’s rampant cheating and scumming on the PT, ones less is a good thing and a move in the right direction, not the other way around.
Do I think we should castrate or execute Saito? Heck no. He isn’t a mass murderer, he just loves to stall, and stalling is against DCI policy. GTFO of our tornaments.
My comments aren’t thoughtful enough for you? Fine don’t post them… /shrug.
Now if only we could get Carvalho, Edel and all the other cheaters banned… boy that would be great…
Wafo-Tapa (or Dave Humpherys for that matter) are completely different. Those guys just play slow, all the time. Saito wasn’t punished for slow play. He was punished for *changing* his pace of play based on the clock/game state … aka, stalling. It’s possible that slow play should be punished more harshly than it is, but that’s a completely separate conversation that has nothing at all to do with Saito.
First of all, this was a very well written and well thought out piece. I obviously wasn’t in the room when the DCI passed down its judgment, but the Hall of Fame must have played a very large roll in the decision. I’m not sure about whether or not Saito will still be inducted into the Hall of Fame (this is just a matter of ignorance on my end, not speculation). If they are still inducting him, then this feels like a last ditch effort to deliver a message to Saito that they want him to stop being accused of cheating regardless of whether or not what he did can actually be considered cheating. If they aren’t allowing him into the hall because of this, then it is a simple way to save face on WOTC’s end.
I struggle to decide whether or not I consider what Saito did cheating. I in no way think that the law is the end all of morality. I, in fact, have broken many of them and consider myself a very moral person. The thing is that I find the rules set out by a game to be a different thing entirely. Rules set out by a game are there for a reason and if you don’t agree with them you can’t just say “I don’t like this rule,” and break it. Magic has a very clearly defined set of rules that all players must abide by. That being said, I still think the rules that pertain to the clock are open to interpretation. Unfortunately tournaments have to take place within a reasonable time frame, so there has to be a clock that dictates how long rounds will take. This means that there have to be rules making players make decisions in a timely manner (also, due to the complexity of this game those rules can never be perfect, nor can an ideal system ever be devised). Otherwise you could win game 1 and stare at your opponent for 40 or so minutes while the clock winds down. I don’t however find it cheating or shady to use the full amount of time the DCI has granted to sideboard and present even if you have made all of your decisions, nor do I feel cheated if my opponent chooses to mulligan keep able hands when the clock is getting low as long as they do so in the amount of time they are given. After all there’s a reason that rules don’t say “you can mulligan a hand because it is bad.” To form an opinion of whether or not Saito cheated I would have to know Saito’s intentions, which I could never do with 100% certainty. The question in Saito’s case in my mind becomes whether or not banning “overly-deliberate” players is a necessary evil to maintain the health of tournament play and if it is would Saito’s ban be consistent with the DCI’s policy past bans of this type. Personally, I don’t think it is and its certainly not worthy of 18 whole months, but not having a harsher penalty than a warning for slow play leaves a lot of room for people that are perfectly capable of playing within the time limit to push the limits of the rules. There’s a reason no one likes to see that they’re name across from “Turbo” Bob Wagner’s on a pairings board. Overall there is a lot of gray here, in my opinion Saito is both worthy of condemnation and a martyr at the same time, but I still believe his ability to play the game at the highest level as he has demonstrated time and time again means he is hall worthy. Now Pozsgay on the other hand…
The real reason I’m posting a comment is to address Caleb and the MTP situation, but I felt I at least owed it to the author to address his article first. Chicago has a proud tradition of corruption and scumbaggery on every level. The city is basically built on filth and lies, and the Master of the Wild Hunt himself seems to be honoring that tradition. The Pozsgay situation is very black and white, he deserves to be banned. The Saito case is completely different as it involves the rules pertaining to the clock. I do think Pozsgay abuses the clock, but even without that he deserves a ban, and a healthy one at that. Pozsgay has cheated many times over the course of his Magic career. I can say of at least two for sure, and believe I’m in the right to speculate on more.
Instance number 1: So there I was at the M10 pre-release, drafting with Jeff Novekoff and Aj Sacher who were both in from out of town for some reason or another. As I’m in the process of sending Novekoff on full blown tilt at Zach Gray for hooking me up in the draft, I notice a homeless man approach presumably looking to take the change I was using to keep track of how big my opponent’s protean hydra was at the time. Upon further inspection I realize that it is in fact Michael Pozsgay whom I hadn’t know for very long but had no great gripes with brandishing his prize. He’s bragging about his draft deck that he just won with, so I take a gander at it. I don’t remember the conversation went word for word, but it went a little something like this. My initial thought was “wow, that’s a lot of mind controls.” so I said to Pozsgay “wow, that’s a lot of mind controls.” To which he responded “Yeah, I added them.”
“Wait, you added them like after you drafted.”
“Yeah, my opponents were doing it, so I thought I would even the playing field.”
“How do you sleep at night?”
Situation 2: I woke up right around 12:30 p.m. and looked at the clock. To my disdain I had slept right through the alarm and missed the PTQ not 30 minutes from my house. I headed over regardless to hang out with my friends. Jeff Rabovsky was in from out of town, and I met him for the first time after hearing a fair number of stories about him. He won the JSS proper a few years back with White Weenie. He is also about a billion feet tall. After yucking it up with the Brass Gnat I wander around to talk to some people, when I stumble upon Ray and ask him how his round went. He says “I played Pozsgay.” As I take his deck box from his hand and look through I say “Oh, how did that go?” To which he responds with “He gave me $30 to scoop to him.” After handing him his deck back I thought to myself “How does he sleep at night?”
I was also at the FNM in question that Pozsgay allegedly cheated the Michael Bernat at. Unfortunately I was listening to “Spirit of the Radio” at full blast and came in about halfway through the judge call. So I can’t confirm or deny the allegations that have been made, but if I had to bet I would say he cheated and that he knew he was cheating. Never bet against the Brass Gnat.
Finally, I feel compelled to comment on Aj’s writing. Aj, for a long time I thought your writing was a hot mess of garbage, but these passion pieces you’ve been writing on this blog have changed my mind completely. Keep it up.
Sincerly
-The Talent
You’ve commented about walking a mile in another’s shoes requiring empathy and an ability to see outside your own perspective. I wish to show you two other perspectives for you to consider.
As a casual player, FNM going individual, pro players are viewed as paragons of Magic. Yours are the decks we net deck. Yours are the plays we try to emulate. No one likes learning that our Dads are just men, and our heroes are as well. You are expected to represent the best of gaming and our rather expensive hobby. Saito’s actions didn’t just betray his opponent, they betrayed his fans and friends that do look to him as a “Good Player”, or Hall of Fame candidate. This incident is doubly ironic or tragic after his November 14th article on ChannelFireball.com about “Playing and Enforcing an Honest Game”. His behavior should be beyond reproach.
From Wizards of the Coast’s perspective, Saito is a high member of the Pro Player’s Club, at least Level 7 from just his points this year in the Player of the Year race; if not a vested Level 8 from previous years points. These Pro Player Club levels compensate him with airfare, lodging, and appearance fees over and above the tournament prizes. As such, he is PAID to be a recognizable face to Magic. He is paid to be a paragon to the Casual fans. He is paid to represent the game that Wizards markets and promotes. Wizards would not want to promote and endorse this standard of play to their marketed demographic. His actions are not a standard of behavior they wish to promote to the smaller communities such as FNMs. His 18 month ban ensures that when or if he returns to tournament play, it is as a Level 1 Pro Club member. Wizards will not be endorsing his behavior until he repairs his reputation.
I do not know if this disqualification will prevent him from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. It should this year, but perhaps he shall be inducted in the future.
I don’t bear Saito any ill-will. He’s not one of the pro players that I actively follow. I’m not spewing invective on teh interwebz about him. And although I don’t think he’s a genocidal puppy rapist in morally relative terms, I do expect better from a HoF/PoY candidate, and am glad that Wizards refuses to pay for less than what’s best for themselves and the game they make.
I found this piece an interesting read, but I can’t help but disagree on various of the points within it. It’s entirely possible that my disagreement comes down to having differing feelings on the subject, but much of it seems particular enough that a simple difference of opinion, colouring future judgements, could sum things up.
In all that follows, I’d like to point out that these opinions/interpretations are my own. While I work for WotC from time to time on coverage, I’m not a judge, and in this case am certainly not acting as a spokesperson for WotC or the DCI. If I am wrong in what follows, that is only really a commentary on my own being stupid, not anyone else.
Thinking about the DQ, I feel that the distinction between slow play and stalling needs to be re-stressed.
Lots of players play slowly all the time. Their reasons vary; some overthink, some get easily distracted from going about their business, some just think slowly. There isn’t any harm in it, except for when it means that the game doesn’t come to a timely end where one player or another wins. Slow play of this ilk isn’t a tactic; in some respects it is little more than a mannerism. That it is punished is down to the fact that slow play, which will consistently result in games failing to conclude, is something that is not desirable. That it is punished with warnings that slowly accumulate into worse suggests to me that it is seen as an area where the powers that be are looking to teach players the value in picking up the pace a bit and finishing games.
Stalling is, as I understand it, slow playing with the intent to alter the course of the match, simply by virtue of the pace of one’s play. This intent is important. You are robbing opponents of points not because you are a better player, or a cleverer one, or even a luckier one. You are manipulating the game to get what you want, but not what you deserve.
Now I will freely admit that there is a big grey area between slow play and stalling. They both result in similar outcomes, and look comparable. Warnings are given for slow play because it is an undesirable inevitability of a thinking game, which helps players to learn the value in making timely decisions. DQs are given for stalling, because it is deemed to be cheating. There is a level of dishonesty about stalling that doesn’t exist with slow play. It might not be premeditated in the way that adding cards, or working on dodgy shuffling is, but the intent is there. I can see how people might see it as a part of the game, but I respectfully disagree. Think of it this way – in a casual game, where at some point things need to wrap up (perhaps the venue closes, or somebody has to leave to make an appointment) if the game doesn’t reach an end because someone happens to be a slow player, is that the same as if it doesn’t end because someone chose to keep it going longer when losing, purely through slow play, such that they haven’t lost at the end of the night? The first is unfortunate, the second is someone being an overly competitive douche.
Whether Saito was in fact stalling I do not know. I know that his pace of play when losing has been brought into question before, which is a good reason for judges to be particularly vigilant. I know that it was ruled that he was guilty of stalling. The penalty for that is a DQ. If there was an error in the issuing of the DQ (and these definitely happen), then there is a fair chance it will be picked up in the investigation that follows. DQs for any cheating offence tend to come with a ban, but from time to time nothing comes following a DQ, suggesting that the investigation ruled that for whatever reason further penalty was inappropriate. Neither Gindy nor Juza got bans following their respective DQs, for example.
That Saito got a ban following his DQ suggests to me that no further information came up in the subsequent investigation to suggest that the DQ was in error.
18 months does seem like a long time for a ban. It seems an atypical amount of time for the offence. However, this is one of the few occasions where a player has received a second banning over the course of their Magic playing career. It seems reasonable enough to me to think that the DCI might employ harsher sentencing in such cases, as it is not in their best interests for players to start treating their penalties as a ‘sin bin’ and not learning from them.
The speed of the ban is something that has raised eyebrows, but I think that it is probably correct. While it might be unprecedentedly fast, I think that this is probably a good thing. The Hall of Fame *is* something worth protecting, and while it is at time of writing unclear what the impact will be on the hall of this ban, it made sense for Saito’s investigation to happen without delay given the possibility that there might be a new inductee banned almost immediately following Worlds had WotC delayed. I doubt that the fact that Saito is a top pro impacted on the judgement, or the sentencing, but I would imagine that it did have an impact on how quickly a verdict was reached.
Finally, thinking about society and morality, I am of the opinion that when one starts playing in DCI tournaments, one is becoming part of a society. It doesn’t matter that moneydraft rules/conventions are different to kitchen table definitions of fair play, and that neither of these are entirely in line with how the DCI does things. Playing within the Duellists Convocation International I feel like cultural norms should take second place to the conventions inherent in the Tournament Policy documents. Saito IP spammed in a Starcraft tournament where IP spamming was illegal. It doesn’t matter if he disagreed – by signing up to the tournament, he gave notice that he would abide by those rules or face the consequences.
I agree that the impact of this ban on his life is likely greater than any previous ban for any other player, and feel like that is pretty rough no matter which way you slice it. Without knowing the facts, I don’t feel that it would be appropriate to declare if I think that what has happened is just. I do think that it is internally consistent though, which means that my faith in the system is just fine with the way this has all played out.
There are a lot of questions that come with this DQ. I think it would be hard to say that Saito is innocent of slow play, but the stalling call is on the judges. Not seeing the situation, it would be hard to make the call on that jut because of how subjective stalling is when compared to slow play. It’s cases like this where I wish the DCI’s policy on not talking about investigations wasn’t there. I’d really like to find out why they decided that this was the time where his play was deserving of a DQ/ban.
There are two ways that stalling effects the game state. The first is by turning losses into draws, and draws into wins. The second way is in forcing your opponent to play suboptimally. If I’m playing in a match with a complicated board state, and I need 7-8 more turns to lock up the win, but the clock is almost out, I am forced to choose to either take my time and play for the draw, or to try and speed up my route to victory, and give my opponent outs.
In paper magic, time is a shared resource. When you are taking an inordinate amount of it to make your decisions, and forcing your opponent to make his decisions in less time than they should be using just so that the game doesn’t end in a draw, you are getting a huge advantage.
I don’t have time to respond to all of the comments, most of which are wonderful, but I did want to say that I agree with Stoddard. I feel that he actually did this to me in Kyoto. It’s hard to say if he actually did but it is possible. I think that the second effect that stalling has on the match is very relevant to consider.
I feel that differentiating between “slowplay” and “stalling” was one of the couple shortcomings of this article, but the message and points I made still stand. Writing a piece and immediately printing it will ensure that it has some holes in it, but I felt that getting it out there and not overcensoring my initial thoughts were more important than making sure that it was pristine enough for public eyes.
After all, this is a blog.
Thanks everyone for reading!
Intelligent. interesting and entertaining.
I could write more but your blog has generated
reams of responses I thought I’d go for the pith.
wotc way of saving money while banning someone, it feels like to me. which is truely sad. (afterall we use to have more pt’s and gp’s a season with bigger pay outs, yet we get record breaking attendance gp’s now and slightly less pay out seems weird to me)
four years ago youd see way more than like 25+ pros travel to different continent gps now its down to 8ish (juza,lsv,pv,saitou,watanabe,nakamara,kibler and brad nelson) saitou was one of my favorite pros oh well, i wonder if they even considered how magic was the world to saitou.
i feel as if saitou got banned waaaay too harshly
I agree with a lot of the article and basically came to the same conclusion independently.
First of all, yes, I do think he probably did it, and probably did deserve the DQ. However, as anyone who’s been to even a PTQ-level event knows, stalling isn’t all that uncommon amongst the highly competitive types. I’ve watched several games go to time that really shouldn’t have because of one player changing the pace of his play. And I’ve rarely seen any judge adjudication on it. I mean… is intentionally playing defensively to try to go to time illegal or unsporting? I’m certainly not saying “everybody does it, so it’s okay,” but it does bring into question the legitimacy of the rules on game times. I think part of the reason Saitou was even in that situation is because of his reputation. During this year’s HOF discussions, a lot was said about his suspension and previous stalling infraction, which caused him to be watched more closely. But because Saitou was now seen as “shady,” he was caught.
I also agree that his sentence was rather unwarranted considering his offense. 18 months for stalling/unsporting conduct? I think the crux of the issue with stalling being an offense in the first place is that Magic has (seemingly loose) penalties on what is deemed “unsporting conduct,” which seems to me both open for interpretation and problematic in that it polices not just the conduct itself, but the intent as “unsporting.” Unlike in basketball, where a foul is a foul, an accidental infraction in a Magic tournament is viewed very differently than a deliberate one.
So basically, my thoughts on this boil down to agreeing with the article on some points, but that the DCI needs to overhaul their policies when it comes to adjudicating cheating in particular.
I’ve been thinking about writing a similar but different article, mainly on the danger of the inherent ambiguity of the Slow Play and Stalling rules as they stand, when combined with a situation in which a player with a history of Slow Play and with a bad reputation (essentially hearsay efficiently perpetuated in the facebook age) is being ‘watched’.
Interesting/telling thread I think, here: http://www.roguegaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10777
The most terrifying thing about this for me is the vague nature of the DCI’s original statement using language like “seemed” and “appeared to” to describe his actions. Not a single hard recount of what actually happened. As an aspiring competitive player, it’s scary to me that one could be served an 18 month suspension based on a judge’s perception of your pace in one game of one match, with no previous warning in the tournament at all. That is something that needs to be fixed.
I really loved this write up. It perfectly articulated my views on the subject and I always have been and always will be a fan of Saito, even if he “seems” to play slowly now and then.
I enjoyed this, but I do take a few concerns with it. Namely, the bit about Saito picking up and reading Jace 5 times in a short period of time. If you consider certain facts, it really is a damning piece of evidence, even if there was a strange interaction. 2-3 times should have been the absolute maximum he should need to pick up the card and read it.
I’m sure we’ve all watched Saito play. He can play so fast that it seems like he’s in almost a flurry without making many, if any, mistakes. His knowledge of the game is obvious and he understands how a large majority of cards interact with each other. Saito is a Magic Professional. One who may make it into the Hall of Fame even. Not just some random guy at your FNM. Even if there is a strange interaction in that particular situation he was in, it would be a thing that’s so rare that he probably wouldn’t need to read Jace, the Mind Sculptor even more than once to get the information he would need to make the proper play. This confidence comes by being a player myself. One who understands enough about the game to know how most interactions work. When there’s a card in play that is used as frequently as Jace, the Mind Sculptor, we (frequent players) generally understand the implications and effects it will have on the game. One strange interaction might take 1-2 times reading a card. Will more than one strange interaction happen? Almost certainly not. Certainly not to the point of needing to read such a heavily played card 5 times in such a short period of time, and especially not by a professional who is a potential hall of fame player.
The other issue I have is that your take on the rules of the game is very flexible AJ. The story about the man stealing the pills for his wife is a great point about being morally right while being lawfully wrong. I just strongly disagree that the story bears any relevance to this topic. Why? For a multitude of reasons. This is a game we’re discussing. It’s not life or death, and he’s not breaking the law to save someone else’s life. He’s breaking rules to win a game, and potentially (more) money. Self-gain. There are no proper morals for breaking the law for pure greed. Ever.
Sirlin would be 100% against stalling:
http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?p=921&highlight=magic#post921