Below is the full article from 2003's editor for Brainburst.com:
When I posted this article, I knew there was likely to be considerable dialogue regarding the issues raised, but it turns I really had no idea what I was getting myself into. At last count I've received well over a hundred emails, and a number of new ones have come in just while I've been coding this. Since most opinions tended to revolve around a few central points, I've tried my best to pull out a sampling of the responses which cover each of these viewpoints. Some of these will overlap, but were chosen anyway both because of how they presented their arguments and because even the most similar of responses often had multiple points to offer over eachother.
Presenting issues like this is often one of the most challenging parts of a job like mine. Deciding just when and how to allow players to air frustrations over issues like this can be an extremely difficult decision. In particular, I was accused of irresponsible journalism by some readers for even posting the original article in the first place. Out of fairness I've posted what I think was the best of these for your own review, and will follow the rest of these posts with one of my own to get a bit more into just how and why I make these kinds of decisions.
Kyle Palmer raises some serious questions about what constitutes stalling, and what steps (if any) judges should take to determine whether stalling is taking place during a game in which no obvious slow play is occuring. I have a few thoughts in reply.
1. Judgment calls are almost never as simple as they seem.
It seems so clear in this situation that your opponent lied. But how does a judge, or even you, know that he did? You built your deck "randomly...an hour before the GP started." Did you know your whole decklist cold? Were there any cards that you playtested with and then decided not to run at the last minute? Running a single Upheaval, either maindeck or in the sideboard, is hardly an unreasonable thing to do. I haven't played Squirrel Prison yet, but I can't imagine that I would do so without SOME answer to Worship and similar cards...why roll over completely to perrmanents when you don't have to? How is a judge to determine as a fact that he wasn't simply wrong? Alex Shvartsman's recent "bad play of the week" involves a player decking himself by making a totally unnecessary Fact or Fiction because he didn't realize that he'd boarded out a Memory Lapse and therefore thought his last card was a Lapse instead of an Island. Your opponent might have thought he boarded in an Upheaval as a "just-in-case" reset button.
Now suppose he really has an Upheaval. Assuming you're in a total lock and can't break out of it, is it really clear that he should Loot for it? After all, if you're at one life and locked down, Upheaval will win whenever he draws it, unless it's his last card. Why rush?
Please note that I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong -- I'm simply saying that it is not at all simple for a judge to conclude that he did...and trying to have judges make those sorts of decisions is, in general, a very bad idea. Most judges are not nearly as good at Magic as the players they are judging. Asking them to second-guess the judgment of players is, therefore, a dicey rules strategy for WotC.
WotC correctly sets a fairly high bar for accusing someone of cheating. I have watched judges at the Pro Tour (and at less strict events) show a player exactly where they've found marks on his deck and why those marks leave no reasonable possibility open besides cheating. They are very careful and very thorough. I would not want that bar lowered to where a judge would rule that I had lied/stalled based on guesswork.
2. Don't let frustration blind you to your own bad behavior.
You should never, under any circumstances, simply grab another player's deck at the end of a match and look through it. It's not your deck, and you have no rights to it. If you resolve a spell like Lobotomy or Haunting Echoes, that's one thing, but even then you should confirm with your opponent that the spell has resolved and wait for him to present his deck for you to examine. If I had been the table judge there and saw what you described yourself doing, I would probably have given you at least a caution for poor sportsmanship. I know it's frustrating to lose a match in this way,
3. Call a judge sooner, rather than later.
You said that game two lasted 40 minutes, but that there were 20 minutes left when you called a judge. I can't tell from your report how long it was between you getting Worship/Trenches out and calling a judge, but once you suspect stalling you should immediately call a judge. If that judge wanders off, call another and explain that you've already spoken with one judge and really need someone to watch your match. Ask for extra time to make up for having to explain the situation. If that judge leaves, appeal to the head judge then.
Time was called when he had six cards left. At that point, it is VERY difficult for the head judge to do anything. He wasn't there, so he is very unlikely to overrule the judge who was. You should have said, "I believe my opponent may be stalling and would like the head judge to watch our match" when there were maybe ten minutes left. That way the issue would at least be on his radar screen.
Good luck at your next event.
Regards,
Chad Ellis
In the match Mr. Palmer described, he failed to point out that in that time, he was unable to force his creatures through for a win either. It sounds like his opponent was not taking undue time for his turns either. Part of the strategy/tactics of tournament play is being able to win in the time allotted. Your opponent is not required to concede. If Mr. Palmer felt his opponent was taking too long he should have called over the head judge. If not, then he just plain lost because he didn't have any way to break a creature stalemate in his own deck.
Lewis H.
Stalling or no?
"162. Cheating-Stalling
Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.
Example
(A) A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do.
Philosophy
If it is clear that a player is stalling, he or she should face a serious penalty."
Was Mr. Wolbert Jr. really stalling? I think any judge will tell you that technically, the answer is no. While it might have been impossible for WJ to actually win the game, there is nothing illegal about playing for a draw. Assuming he was performing the actions available to him at a reasonable pace, there is nothing illegal about the conduct described by Kyle Palmer.
What about the non-existent Upheaval? As KP said, casting the Upheaval would have been irrelevant to the outcome of the match. The judge was there to watch for intentional Slow Play. That is all.
"Looking back on it, I am very upset that an obvious ruling such as this was messed up. Instead of the judge knowing that there was no upheaval and *determining that the game was a win for me* [emp. added] and then going to the 3rd game to determine a winner, Wolbert lied, and proceeded to make the one game 40 minutes long, and won by rules that don't have anything to do with the game." -KP
Let me make this perfectly, completely clear:
No where in the Penalty Guidelines or DCI floor rules does it state that a judge has the authority to determine who wins the match.
A judge is there to ensure that the game is played legally, and has the power to enforce penalties if a player does not follow the rules. One of these penalties is a game loss. While that equates to a game win for the player's opponent, the philosophical distinction is important. By applying a game loss, it remains clear that the player is responsible for their conduct. The penalized player decided the outcome of the match by committing the infraction: the judge merely enforced the penalty. Compare that to awarding a game win. That is equivalent to "It doesn't matter what your opponent is doing, you win." See the difference?
If the judge who was watching the match could not make a determination the WJ was intentionally committing a Slow Play infraction, that judge would have had no grounds to apply a penalty. Playing for a draw, while not necessarily the most enjoyable thing to encounter, is a completely legal and legitimate tactic.
Next time, pack more burn.
Gianpaolo 'GP' Baglione
DCI Level 1 Judge
gbaglione@mindspring.com
The author of the article complaining of stalling is wrong. Winning due to Time is just as much a win condition as 'Draw phase decking (unassisted by a millstone or even a coliseum or somesuch)' (which is what the author was trying to win with).
Situation: the author has Worship/Trenches in play against a U/G Orb Opposition deck, the U/G has FoF'ed a couple of times, so the Worship/Trenches man will win due to decking. This is game 2, and U/G won game 1.
Dr. Trenches claims that his opponent should scoop to an unwinnable game, but the U/G man could have an Upheaval, so he could possibly get out of it. The U/G man even claims to have an Upheaval, but after time runs out and the game draws the Trenches dude picks up his opponent's deck and finds no Upheaval in it (which should have got him DQ'ed and booted out of the door for picking up his oppponent's deck without permission.)
Trenches King claims that he should have won because the guy manipulated the "outside the game" win condition of the time limit. This is not "outside the game" - the time limit is a part of the game. There are control decks that are not viable in a certain given format because you have to ask yourself "can I win two games with this in less than one hour?".
Here is the clincher: Ask anyone who has ever been to a Meat Grinder (Nationals Single-Elim Qualifier Events): "would you play U/W Millstone at the Grinders?" NO, you would end up with draws, and draws won't get you Q'ed at a Grinder"
In closing, the time limit is as much a win/loss condition of the game as 'decking due to draw phase' (which was Mr. Trenches' only path to victory). That is the structure of the game, as much as a timed chess game can come down to being decided by the clock (that movement you sense is the feeling of every single serious chess player in the world nodding in aggrement with me). Any serious player, when money is on the line, will take a 1-0-1 (win and time out) win over a loss.
Thanks for reading, Leo Lansford
Dear Scott,
I am an an avid magic player that tends to keep up with rulings. Upon reading your situation I became upset because this tends to happen often and frankly I'm sick of it. I can relate; last friday I was playing an Iridescent Angel/Worship deck. I had the same situation where I was told one thing but in the end had to draw due to the time. My ooponent had a crystal quarry out and I had the angel/worship combo. I knew his deck had no global effects or untargeted removal so I knew I basically had the game won and I asked if he wanted to scoop. He declined and told me he was running legacy weapon. I said fine knowing I had enough counter magic to get rid of it but we played on. When time was called and our 5 turns were up I looked at his deck and there was no legacy weapon. This is actually cheating. The rule falls under misrepresentaion. By saying you are playing a card that effects the outcome of a game that appears to have a clear winner. The same is true when counting cards in library, graveyard, and hand. I believe he should have been given a match loss.
Brian Sysun
Mr. Johns-
Until now, I have been a happy premier member of the Brainburst website. However, I was quite taken aback by Kyle Palmer's article on stalling. Let me also preface my below statements by informing you that I witnessed this match in person.
Although I understand Mr. Palmer's frustration at the events that took place during that match, I do not believe Mr. Wolbert was out of line.
Did Wolbert have Upheaval in his deck? I believe he had it in the sideboard, but not main. Did he mislead Palmer regarding whether his deck had Upheaval in it? Yes. However, part of Magic is bluffing. Since Palmer was playing with Meddling Mage, Wolbert gave his opponent a red herring regarding what to play around and what cardname to eliminate with his Meddling Mage. Granted, the line of honesty may have been bent here, but trying to put your opponent into a situation where they could misplay, and misplay severly enough to swing the advantage of the game, is entirely within a player's rights.
Did Wolbert stall? The judges at GP Milwaulkee don't believe so. From the point that Mr. Palmer called a judge to watch for any such actions, there was at least one judge scrutinizing the match, and for most of the rest of the round there were at least 2. Did Wolbert take his turns in a timely manner? As a witness to the events, I observed that he did.
But more questionable than the ethics of the participants of this match are the ethics of this website in publishing this article. I spoke on the phone to Mr. Wolbert earlier today, and he informed me that he had not been contacted by any representative of Brainburst to verify the article. I feel that for Brainburst to publish this piece, in which John Wolbert Jr. is referred to as a "liar" and who is labled as making an "obvious attempt at stalling", is irresponsible journalism. At the least, I would have liked to see this piece should have been labled as an editorial, rather than labeled no differently than the strategy articles.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
Jef Moret
Is he Stalling and did he cheat?
In regard to Kyle Palmer’s article questioning John Wolbert Jr’s tactics in their match at GP Milwaukee. Responding to an article without both sides of the picture is always a risky proposition, however it seems that Kyle Palmer has a mistaken impression of the floor rules.
In my mind there are 2 clear questions regarding John Wolbert’s actions
1. Is he stalling because he cannot beat worship?
2. Is he cheating because he said he had an upheaval?
I also have a serious issue with Kyle Palmer's action of grabbing his opponent’s deck and looking at the library. That should have received an instant match loss at that level and even if the match was over it should have carried to the next round. Assuming of course the details posted in Kyle Palmers submission is correct.
1. Is John Wolbert stalling because he cannot beat worship ?
In my opinion he is not. As long as he is playing at an acceptable pace he still has the option of decking his opponent and creating tokens in an end step is a correct play to ensure that he is able to stay alive for this possibility.
Even if he is not aiming for a decking win, he is still more than allowed to continue playing to ensure that he does not lose that game, as long as he continues to play at an acceptable pace. Just as John Wolbert had no way to win through damage, it also seems that Kyle Palmer was left with no way to win either. Perhaps Kyle Palmer could have considered conceding to save time? Obviously he didn’t want to do this and why should he think that John Wolbert would either?
About the only area from this report that might show the possibility of stalling is if John Wolbert spent a lot of time counting his graveyard checking on Threshold if it definitely had no impact in the game. But this is impossible to determine from Kyle Palmer's article as it only paints one side of the picture.
2. Is John Wolbert cheating because he said he had an upheaval?
Well, this is definitely a lot less clear. If I was the judge at that table, it would be my opinion that he would not be cheating for making the statement that he had upheaval in his deck. The contents of the deck and the mystery associated with it are a part of the game. If one player says “If I draw upheaval, I win” means nothing to the game. His opponent should take that into account as much as he or she feels is important.
It is along to the lines of “I have 4 counters in my hand, you should concede.” If a player said that to me, it would have no impact on how I played the game and it certainly would not force a concession. (I might if the game was close and he showed me the 4 counters and I had no answers to let me win).
Gamesmanship is a part of magic, knowing what your opponent could have or play is an important part of being a successful magic player. Whether John Wolbert had an Upheaval in his deck is irrelevant in this situation as it has nothing to do with the accusation of stalling. Currently under the penalty guidelines there is no section dealing with “Lying to your opponent” and correctly so in my opinion. It would ruin the area of gamesmanship and bluffing.
Lying about the Game State is considered cheating, statements about possibilities within the game is not. Again, we are only seeing one side of the story. John Wolbert may well have had Upheavals in his deck or sideboard and may have thought he sided one in. But regardless, in my opinion the statement is not an actionable offense.
I would be very interested in the opinion of some more senior judges out there on how they would rule in this situation, but personally I would not issue any warning to a player who made a statement about the contents of his deck.
I think it comes down to the fact that a player does not have to have a way to win, as long as he plays at an acceptable pace. It is up to his or her opponent to find a way to win or the game results in a draw.
Sean Smith
Level 2 Judge
Whoa. This one hit me prety good. That is a hard one to consider.
Missrepresenting the game state is a penalty. But, cards that are in you're deck aren't part of game state, as per knowing what the cards are.
Something that I read somewhere said that the DCI is debating about the ruling on "can you tell you're opponent that you have a card in hand? Can you tell them if you do have a card in your hand even if youd don't really have it in hand?"
The judge must [ should ] have been evaluating the game based upon the information that he can see, and has observed.
- he was told [ not mentioned if directly or indirectly ] that there was an upheaval in the deck. -
I would guess it comes down to the direct/indirect. If the player in question said out loud, including the judge in his target audience, " I have an upheaval in my deck that I'm counting on." (or something like that) then the player would have been lying to the judge.
The player lied to the judge in this instance. Lying to a judge about a game is a penalty...
If the judge wasn't around when the information was passed, if it was said descreetly, or if it was said as a way to attempt to throw the opponent off guard (currently allowed) then the judge would have to take into account "Jedi mind tricks". The player was trying to play as if he had un upheaval, to "bluff" out a possible loss.
In that sense, I think the player could get away with it, providing the stalling wouldn't be any more than what the player would have played at if he had the upheaval.
So, my way of thinking, in brief:
Judge was told: lying to judge. Asses proper penalty, as this affected his judging abilities.
Judge was not informed: provided the game was played at a pace as if upheaval could have been a factor, no penalty.
Aaron Porath
aarcat@shaw.ca
Stalling, to be blunt, sucks onions. It should be watched for more closely and penalized more frequently and harshly. Until enough people start making a point of recognizing it and calling a judge over (appropriately, of course [1]), the problem will remain. In short, "you had me at 'hello,'" Mr. Palmer...
...right up until you lost me:
"I was frustrated and proceeded to grab the deck and look at the last 6 cards."
Now, leaving behind the possibilities that went unmentioned in the article (like, if it's possible for you to forget a card when building your deck, why isn't it possible for your opponent to make a similar mistake when sideboarding?), that's absolutely and completely unacceptable. Maybe I wasn't taught to share well enough when I was a youngster, but I also don't recall learning that it's ever okay to get all grabbyfist with things that aren't yours. In fact, in some circles, that behavior would get you a swift punch in the nose from the victim rather than ten minutes in Time-Out from the authority figure. [2]
I am not a judge, but had I been one in this particular case, your actions would've resulted in an Unsporting Conduct penalty. Depending on your attitude at the time, at REL 4, that would result in a warning, a match loss, or a DQ without prize. The actions of your opponent do not give you license to do whatever you'd like, regardless of your opinion of said actions. If your opponent has violated the rules, you can call a judge, or appeal to the head judge if you disagree with the initial judge's call. If you are unhappy with the results, you can file a complaint with the DCI. You cannot, however, demand a penalty, and you do not suddenly gain free reign over items which do not belong to you.
Chris Parker
cwparker@alve.com
[1] I had an opponent call his judge friend over at a prerelease because in his opinion, I was playing too slowly during game 1. Was I trying for an illegitimate win? No; it was simply the first time I'd played with the cards, and I had to think about a number of decisions with which my poorly built deck presented me. I continued to play the match at the same pace, and we finished the next two games with time to spare.
[2] Which is not to say that any sort of physical violence is an acceptable response, either. It is, however, a possible consequence to consider before taking liberties with other people's property.
Now that you've got a better idea where everybody else is coming from, I'm going to break a longstanding rule of mine. In nearly three years of running Magic websites I've never once posted my opinion to a community piece like this, reasoning that I'd much rather allow the community itself to express their views. However, in this case, I'm going to make an exception so that I can show you a bit more clearly how I actually go through the process of dealing with articles like this.
First, a reality check. While I would like to be able to personally verify and fact check every article I ever post, the simple truth is that this is completely impossible. In fact, the tournament report structure as we know it would mean that I would have to verify every single player mentioned by name. Considering that articles tend to go up within a day or two of when they are recieved, this kind of verification is completely impossible.
So what do you do? My answer to the problem has been two-fold. First, I make sure that when I post an article like this that it is clear that any complaints are that author's opinion. Second, Magic sites like Brainburst (and many others out there) are essentially public forums where the readers often get a chance to post their own views, and I always do my best to allow others to post follow-ups or rebuttals as needed as well. For the most part I think this system has worked well, and my opinion is that the right things tend to come out if given the chance. There's a certain amount of caution that has to be given to things like slander, but whenever possible I would much prefer to allow the dialogue itself to work things out as opposed to not posting issues pieces at all for fear of misrepresentation. So far, allowing everybody involved a chance to make their case has worked well in my opinion, and judging by the level of response and traffic, the resulting conversation and debate that has resulted is very important to the readers.
So the question for me as Editor tends to be, "does this offer anything to the readers"? In the case of this article in particular, I thought that a very good issue had been raised, namely "when is lying acceptable from a rules standpoint?" It's one thing to pretend you have a counterspell in hand when you don't, but it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish when you misrepresent certain other things to a player. (Life totals, etc) With that in mind, note that the caption text I used on the front page for the article was as follows:
An opponent at the recent Grand Prix drags a game to 40 minutes, claiming he has a chance because of an Upheaval in his deck. But it turns out that this was simply untrue...
When does lying become cheating, particularly if it was the reason you were essentially stalling in the first place?
One of my intentions with this specific text was to make it very clear that this was an opinion piece - one guy airing his frustrations. While I thought that Jef made a number of valid points in his above criticism, I think that the allegation that the article wasn't clearly an opinion piece is a bit off the mark. My other goal was to try and highlight why I thought this piece was worth your time in the first place - what the "real" issue was here.
While my own personal opinion in judging this was that the real question was "how can you know the guy lied in the first place", I thought that the issues raised were good ones, and ones which had not really been explored much in the past, so I went with the article to allow the readers to decide for themselves. Again, I'm normally going to err on the side of giving the readers the opportunity to make up their own minds, and this was a good example of that. That said, I think it's still a very important question as to whether or not to include player's names in articles like this. Even given the chance to defend oneself, it can sometimes be an unfair situation, and it's extremely difficult for me to know from here whether or not an accusation has any real merit. (Note for example what the added information that Meddling Mages were involved in this match does to the claim that the opponent was "lying" to the point of cheating.) Currently I'm leaning toward allowing posts like this but leaving out names when significant allegations are made, but I'm definitely interested in hearing what you the readers think of all this.
Now if I could just get this kind of input from readers sending in deck analysis and strategy articles we'd be all set! :)
Scott Johns
Editor, Brainburst.com
