How to deal with players that tries to cheat.

[JandPDS]

Cheating happens. In Oregon states once I had a one Pokémon start and then my opponent had a basic and attached an energy T1, T2 I draw nothing, my opponent evolves to stage 2 and attaches another energy, T3 I draw nothing, He evolves active to stage 2 attaches a 3rd energy and ends the game.


After the judge comes by and picks up our match slip. I congratulate him on having such a fortunate start, and entire evolution line and energy without having to play a single trainer.

He looks at me and beams no luck to it I planned it that way. I was very confused and asked him what he meant. Very proudly he picks up his deck and shows me; See he said I planned it that way. I go though his deck and he has basic Pokémon and the evolutions lined up throughout the deck, followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter, then he had another complete evolution line in a row followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter. The entire deck was stacked like that. So no matter where the deck was cut he would have everything he needed.

I then called a judge over to "officially" explaine to him why he could not do that with his deck.

 

[Gwaihir75]

JANDPDS: you should have shuffled his deck especially if you were sure he didn't shuffle his deck very well.

 

[Lawman]

Cheating happens. In Oregon states once I had a one Pokémon start and then my opponent had a basic and attached an energy T1, T2 I draw nothing, my opponent evolves to stage 2 and attaches another energy, T3 I draw nothing, He evolves active to stage 2 attaches a 3rd energy and ends the game.


After the judge comes by and picks up our match slip. I congratulate him on having such a fortunate start, and entire evolution line and energy without having to play a single trainer.

He looks at me and beams no luck to it I planned it that way. I was very confused and asked him what he meant. Very proudly he picks up his deck and shows me; See he said I planned it that way. I go though his deck and he has basic Pokémon and the evolutions lined up throughout the deck, followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter, then he had another complete evolution line in a row followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter. The entire deck was stacked like that. So no matter where the deck was cut he would have everything he needed.

I then called a judge over to "officially" explaine to him why he could not do that with his deck.

Did you not see them "randomize" their deck in your presence before the match started?? That is part of the standard set up procedure. Oppo randomizes in your presence, you are offered the opportunity to cut/shuffle said deck and then set up. While I dont really play anymore since I run/judge events (outside of league or home), I would seriously question why an oppo simply slide a deck to me to cut or do a simple cut/cut/cut to himself w/o any pile shuffle/riffle shuffle. The oppo's I play will have a randomized deck before they set up!

Keith

 

[Chairman Kaga]

Did you not see them "randomize" their deck in your presence before the match started?? That is part of the standard set up procedure. Oppo randomizes in your presence

Can we emphasize this point?

There really should be no shuffling until both players are seated and can observe each other.

He looks at me and beams no luck to it I planned it that way. I was very confused and asked him what he meant. Very proudly he picks up his deck and shows me; See he said I planned it that way. I go though his deck and he has basic Pokémon and the evolutions lined up throughout the deck, followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter, then he had another complete evolution line in a row followed by two energy and a trainer and a supporter. The entire deck was stacked like that. So no matter where the deck was cut he would have everything he needed.

And this is why.

 

[SteveP]

Forcing a reroll should be the LAST RESORT for a judge in a situation where the "truth" is at question. Many judging situations in tournaments involve determining the truth. A lesser judge will fail to investigate further, while a better judge will investigate, using logic and common sense to make a ruling that hopefully won't involve a reroll.

If cards have been flipped over, a reroll would require an entire reshuffle and restart.

 

[Gwaihir75]

If cards have been flipped over, a reroll would require an entire reshuffle and restart.

Why? Is that a ruling or the usual way head judges do?

thank you for your post.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

Forcing a reroll should be the LAST RESORT for a judge in a situation where the "truth" is at question. Many judging situations in tournaments involve determining the truth. A lesser judge will fail to investigate further, while a better judge will investigate, using logic and common sense to make a ruling that hopefully won't involve a reroll.

If cards have been flipped over, a reroll would require an entire reshuffle and restart.

I have to ask where logic and common sense can find the answer here. There's no energy attachments you can count to see who has taken more turns, you can't check the discard pile for common trends in plays. It's nothing more than "he said" vs "she said". I don't like the implication that someone who can't read minds is a lesser judge.

 

[PokePop]

If you talk to people for a while, it's amazing what becomes clear.

 

[Gwaihir75]

If you talk to people for a while, it's amazing what becomes clear.

Definitely, however it requires that esp. innocent one can speak the same language as judge do. So local smart cheater wins

 

[SteveP]

I have to ask where logic and common sense can find the answer here. There's no energy attachments you can count to see who has taken more turns, you can't check the discard pile for common trends in plays. It's nothing more than "he said" vs "she said". I don't like the implication that someone who can't read minds is a lesser judge.

"He said, she said" scenarios are common occurances in court rooms across America. Multi-child families often rely on parental intervention to resolve "he said, she said" disputes.

I'm not saying that a reflip isn't the answer. I'm saying it should be the last resort, after the judge has adequately questioned the parties, yet still can't determine who's telling the truth.

I know some judges don't have "King Solomon" wisdom in their ability to determine the truth, but a "better" judge will at least try. Teachers and parents are pretty good at discerning who the dishonest are. Judges can learn and acquire similiar skills.

---------- Post added 03/03/2011 at 05:00 PM ----------

If you talk to people for a while, it's amazing what becomes clear.

Ditto!

To quote my favorite daytime TV judge:

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." :lol:

 

[NoPoke]

I don't like the re-flip option much either. With the way the scenario could be expected to play out in discussion with the judge I'd anticipate the double game loss being applied.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

I had a big post all typed out last night, and as I hit submit my internet died. So, Ill try and briefly recap it.

Do we really have time to "talk to people for awhile" in the middle of a big tournament? We can't hold the whole group up just because one game can't get started. And even if you have a gut feeling about who is wrong, how can you be sure? Handing out a game loss with zero evidence will eventually come back and bite you.

In a court room, theres often quite a bit of evidence to use to support one theory or another. We do the same thing. We will look at hand sizes, what's in the discard pile, how many energies are in play, all those kinds of things you can't do when a game can't even get off the ground. If two people are looking at you with an unstarted game, both saying they should go first, do you really have to time sit down and chat to try and get a gut feeling on who is lying? And what if you're wrong? If the lying player isn't going to give in, he can be just as adamant about his innocence as the guy who is telling the truth. Making a judgment call here can easily lead to a bad call, and in a situation like this (blatant cheating), a bad call can get a good player DQ'd. That's not something I would ever want to risk when a double game loss is an available option.

 

[ChaosJim]

Shuckle,
If you're worried about holding everyone up, keep two things in mind.
1) Maybe the pressure from the group will lead to some light on the situation.
2) You can give a time extension to the game that needs it while you make a ruling if need be and get everyone started.

I'd rather judges take the time and make the effort to get it right to the best of their ability whenever possible. Not just my games. I want cheaters caught so I don't have to put up with their nonsense in later rounds and I can just focus on playing an honest game.

I also don't mind a round getting delayed if I feel its justified, but I do mind playing events late into the night over disorganization or over-extended meal breaks. These are very different things.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

How long is reasonable, and how long will it really take to figure out who is lying? And what are you going to talk about? There's only so many times you can go over a situation that consists of "I called heads, he says I called tails". Not to mention there are some very convincing liars around. Maybe not in Juniors, or even Seniors, but in Masters, I'm sure there are people playing who could be just as sincere about lying as the other guy is about telling the truth.

I wouldn't be worried about holding up an event, or a game, or a judges time, for a good cause. But I don't think there's a good cause here. There's no way to be sure about this call unless someone steps forward, and if no ones is going to step forward, you can throw as much time at it as you want and still get nowhere.

 

[PokePop]

How long is reasonable, and how long will it really take to figure out who is lying? And what are you going to talk about? There's only so many times you can go over a situation that consists of "I called heads, he says I called tails". Not to mention there are some very convincing liars around. Maybe not in Juniors, or even Seniors, but in Masters, I'm sure there are people playing who could be just as sincere about lying as the other guy is about telling the truth.

I wouldn't be worried about holding up an event, or a game, or a judges time, for a good cause. But I don't think there's a good cause here. There's no way to be sure about this call unless someone steps forward, and if no ones is going to step forward, you can throw as much time at it as you want and still get nowhere.

10-15 minutes is reasonable. The rest of the players can start. They don't have to be held up.

I'm not going to outline a discussion here. Not an appropriate place for it.
Come to the Judging seminar that will be held at Nationals to hear some techniques. Tickets will be limited, though. Reservations will be first come, first served when they announce it.

And sure there's a good chance that the truth can't be determined.
In cases like that, you don't throw up your hands. You do the best you can and here's the important part:
You give both players at least a Warning. This is important because if this issue comes up again, ever, there's a history to go on and it can be used in helping to determine what's going on.
What many players (and even judges) don't realize is that a player's penalty history does not begin and end within one event. It follows you around from event to event.

You don't get "one free pass" in each event.
You do something like this in one event, get away with it, then try it again a month later; you can get nailed.

 

[SteveP]

Shuckle:

ChaosJim and PokePop have spoken well.

A dispute of this nature might be nothing more than a misunderstanding, or it might be an attempt to cheat. Spending a few minutes to ascertain the latter sitution is absolutely reasonable.

Sometimes, the methods used to determine the truth might seem extreme. Most people are familiar with the King Solomon ruling to divide the infant in half when two "mothers" were disputing that the child was theirs. By their reactions, Solomon was able to determine the real mother. I would not rule out similar tactics for judges to use (ie., threaten to give BOTH players a game loss / DQ and see how they react).

Do remember that the cheating player would love a reflip ruling if he can't win the dispute. The judge needs to understand that before he "throws in the towel."

 

[ShuckleLVX]

Do remember that the cheating player would love a reflip ruling if he can't win the dispute. The judge needs to understand that before he "throws in the towel."

I have never advocated a reflip, for that very reason. Everyone seems to be saying that you will find a solution if you're a good enough judge, but the ways your describing to find said solution have huge holes in them. If no one steps forward, if the players are stubborn, if you can't play mind games and figure it out, what do you do? Give a warning to both players and walk away? That still doesn't get the game started. If neither player will admit to having made a mistake/lying/whatever we want to call it, and a reflip is out of the question (which I totally agree with), what do you do? This is the situation I see happening, as no one who is openly lying is going to give in and say so.

Spending a few minutes is good, sure. But you can't assume you're going to get an answer from that, and I don't think you will. The Solomon analogy seems to be in line with a DGL, which is what I have been advocating this whole time >.>

I don't disagree that you should take a good look at the situation and go from there, not just toss out a DGL without a thought. But the implication that a "better" judge will be able to throw time at it and come out with the perfect answer seems rather rude. There's not always a perfect answer.

As for the Judging Seminar, it doesn't matter how few tickets there are, I have no way to get to Nats >.>

 

[SteveP]

A double game loss is a possibility, though I wouldn't go so far as to make it automatic when no one confesses.

Actually, I think many judges assume they CAN get to the truth, given enough time of course. It's in their job description: "gather the facts (truths), then make a ruling."

I think we're in agreement that judges should do their best to get to the truth. However, I see you are a bit more doubtful in your confidence that judges can consistently do that in a timely fashion. That's where we differ. Like PokePop has mentioned, the judge training at US Nats will include advice to help judges hone such skills. Watch any skilled judge in action, and you'll be amazed at how easy it is to see who's lying. Certainly, there are skilled con-artists out there, but there are also many skilled judges.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

A double game loss is a possibility, though I wouldn't go so far as to make it automatic when no one confesses.

Then what WOULD you do? Not trying to argue, just curious. You seem strongly opposed to the reroll as well.

 

[PokePop]

I have never advocated a reflip, for that very reason. Everyone seems to be saying that you will find a solution if you're a good enough judge,

No, that's not what everyone is saying. What I'm saying is that you may find a solution.
I've gone into dozens of "he said she said" situations that walking into them looked impossible to resolve. Many of them wound up getting resolved. Not all. But many.

If no one steps forward, if the players are stubborn, if you can't play mind games and figure it out, what do you do? Give a warning to both players and walk away? That still doesn't get the game started. If neither player will admit to having made a mistake/lying/whatever we want to call it, and a reflip is out of the question (which I totally agree with), what do you do? This is the situation I see happening, as no one who is openly lying is going to give in and say so.

You give a warning, but you don't walk away. The situation isn't resolved until the game is started. I'm not sure exactly how I'd start the game, but resolving it would include getting the game started.
Newsflash: Judges aren't psychic or able to make the right call 100% of the time. But a call has to be made.
[/QUOTE]