Written by Eric Shukan<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n In my role as Player Investigations Leader I have seen countless DQ reports.\u00a0 While some are simple and straightforward, a great many involve conflicting stories or incomplete evidence.\u00a0 These are the ones in which the FJ\u2019s and the HJ\u2019s investigative technique and philosophy can make or break the final decision.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Inspired by actual cases from the Investigations Committee, I present a 3-part series on how to decide what information you want and then how to evaluate information that you get.\u00a0 Part 1 defines collateral truths and introduces the logic of the scientific method; Part 2 discusses motivations and probabilities that derive from those motivations; and Part 3 introduces the idea of how to know when to terminate an investigation, regardless of which way you will rule.<\/p>\n I would like to thank Jared Sylva<\/a><\/a> <\/p>\n Investigations search for possibilities and seek to confirm or disprove them.\u00a0 You should formulate a scenario in your mind about how things played out, and then seek to find evidence to support or contradict that scenario.\u00a0 The mental construct of the scenario is called a hypothesis<\/em> in the scientific method, and it is based on your understanding of reality.\u00a0 Your attempt to locate evidence related to it would be the test.\u00a0 Hypothesis-then-Test is the fundamental idea behind all investigation.<\/p>\n If you want to investigate a story given by a player, start by investigating the collateral truths of that story.\u00a0 This is related to the scientific method.\u00a0 Let\u2019s look at some examples.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A spectator comes to you and says that he saw Player A put two cards from his lap into his hand.\u00a0 You investigate a bit by doing a card count and find that on Turn 6 Player A has two extra cards.\u00a0 Player A claims that he doesn\u2019t know where they came from and didn\u2019t notice drawing extra cards.\u00a0 Now, ask yourself, \u201cIF Player A is telling the truth, what else MUST be true?\u201d\u00a0 The answer is clear: the witness must be mistaken or lying.\u00a0 But how likely is that?\u00a0 For the witness to be mistaken in seeing cards from the lap is virtually impossible here.\u00a0 To be lying, the witness needed to fabricate a story about the cards being in his lap AND would have had to get lucky in that Player A had two extra cards.\u00a0 These two together are far too remote, and so you should conclude that player A has cheated and lied.\u00a0 By falsifying the collateral truths to Player A\u2019s story, you have falsified Player A\u2019s story.\u00a0 This is one way of making a direct conclusion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a Round 1 deck check you find that player A has a small crease or \u201cnail mark\u201d on 18 of his 24 land cards in a constructed deck, and there are no markings on any other cards.\u00a0 The markings are in the same place on each sleeve, and they may be visible simply by looking down at the library.\u00a0 During routine questioning, player A tells you he just bought new sleeves and resleeved his entire deck, and he didn\u2019t notice any markings (although he sees them now that you point them out).\u00a0 How do you proceed here?\u00a0 GL for Marked Cards Upgraded?\u00a0 DQ for intentionally marking the cards to gain advantage?\u00a0 These markings could be a factory defect or an intentional cheat.<\/p>\n Ask yourself, \u201cIf Player A is telling the truth, what else MUST be true?\u201d\u00a0 To answer this logically, you will have to form a mental picture in your mind about how things happened and what other things must also be true.\u00a0 You can then test them<\/em>.<\/p>\n In this case all the markings are on lands, and that is quite unlikely if he sleeved a randomized deck.\u00a0 He must have separated out his lands and spells prior to sleeving, so you ask him<\/em> how he sleeved, and he tells you that he separated the lands and spells before sleeving.\u00a0 He also tells you that his friend Mark Smith helped him right before the tourney started.\u00a0 If this is true, then Mark Smith should back up the story (another collateral truth).\u00a0 You find Mark Smith<\/em> at another table, and he says<\/em> they did sort the lands\/spells and then sleeved them with new sleeves.\u00a0 If the player tells you which dealer, you might even ask that dealer to confirm<\/em> that Player A bought the sleeves right before the tourney started.\u00a0 You are testing the collateral truths.<\/p>\n Note that even if Player A has lied, he might have lied because he got nervous or because he wanted to avoid a GL.\u00a0 You still don\u2019t know if he intentionally marked the cards.\u00a0 The burden of proof for that determination is quite high, and that\u2019s why we have the GL upgrade.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a Limited event, Player A is found to have two extra, on-color bomb rares (not on his decklist) in his 40-card deck.\u00a0 He claims that he had put his deck into his bag and that some of the cards in his binders must have gotten mixed into his maindeck.\u00a0 We see this frequently, and I personally have heard it THREE times in tournaments where I was HJ.\u00a0 If his story is true, what else MUST be true?\u00a0 Well, the extra cards would have had to be sleeved in the same color sleeves.\u00a0 Then, they would have had to fall out of the binder into the deck, nice and neat.\u00a0 They would have to be two specific on-color bomb rares, as opposed to any of the other 1200 cards in his binder.\u00a0 AND two other cards have to fall out of the deck to get back to 40.\u00a0 None of these things is particularly likely, but for ALL of them to be true is beyond belief, so the conclusion should be that he has cheated.\u00a0 This is an obvious case, but it illustrates the idea of collateral truths quite well.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a constructed PTQ, Player A is discovered during a Round 6 deck check to have 19 sideboard cards.\u00a0 Four Extirpate cards are not listed on his decklist, and he is playing black.\u00a0 When you question the player, he says that he was playtesting the Extirpate<\/a>s before the tourney started, and that he decided instead to use 4 Mind Rot<\/a> in the sideboard.\u00a0 He also said that he was in a rush and he had no other place to put the Extirpates so he put them into the deckbox, but he never used them.\u00a0 What now?\u00a0 Ask yourself, \u201cIf he is telling the truth, what else MUST be true?\u201d\u00a0 You can then test those other ideas.<\/em><\/p>\n You decide that his decklist might have a cross-out in the sideboard section.\u00a0 You check, and it does.\u00a0 \u201c4 Extirpate\u201d is crossed out, and \u201c4 Mind Rot\u201d is listed at the end.\u00a0 No falsification there, in fact there is some confirmation.\u00a0 Then you look to see if he really has no other place to put cards.\u00a0 You check if he has a bag, but he doesn\u2019t.\u00a0 He has only a deckbox and a pen.\u00a0 No falsification there.\u00a0 Then you ask his last 2 opponents if they remember seeing him play Extirpate, but neither can remember.\u00a0 No falsification there.\u00a0 One by one you tested the collateral truths and you could not falsify anything.\u00a0 Now what?<\/p>\n You rule DDLP for having extra playable cards in the sideboard, GL.\u00a0 The evidence does not support intent and use of the cards.\u00a0 No DQ, right?<\/p>\n And yet, an L2 judge and an L3 judge this year DQ\u2019ed a player in the face of this quality of evidence, claiming only something like \u201cI DQ\u2019ed him to protect the integrity of the event\u201d.\u00a0 We ALL want to protect the integrity of our events, yet DQ\u2019ing a player without valid and describable evidence damages your event.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Judge Jared Sylva<\/a><\/a> If you can falsify the collateral truths, then you can falsify the main hypothesis.\u00a0 That is a fundamental aspect of the scientific method, and it is the heart of logical investigation.\u00a0 Attack the collateral truths.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/p>Over the years I\u2019ve seen articles about body language, how to ask questions of players, and generally how to handle the emotional aspect of the investigation so that you can get information.\u00a0 This article series instead focuses on how to determine what questions to ask and what information will likely be useful.\u00a0 Once you understand what information would be useful, you can employ those emotional techniques to try to obtain that information.\u00a0 But first you need to know what information you want and how likely it is that you\u2019ll be able to get it, and that is mostly an exercise of logic.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/span> for helping to shape some of the ideas in this series.\u00a0 While he didn\u2019t know it at the time, the discussions he and I had some years ago at one particular SCG Open solidified my concepts into something I can now articulate.\u00a0 Also I would like to thank Alejandro Raggio<\/a><\/a>
<\/span><\/span>, whose understanding of language helped shape the syntax for this article.<\/p>\n
Part 1:\u00a0 Verifying and Falsifying Collateral Truths<\/h1>\n
<\/p>Start by asking yourself, \u201cWhat do I THINK has happened?\u201d This opinion may be based on the initial statements that players have made, writing on match slips, personal observation, or any other type of data.\u00a0 This lets you put together a model that you can now test.\u00a0 If that model is true, certain other things, called collateral truths<\/em>, will also be true or very likely to be true.\u00a0\u00a0 Therefore, if you can show that a collateral truth is false or very unlikely, then the model you constructed will also be false or very unlikely.<\/p>\n
Example #1<\/h2>\n
Example #2<\/h2>\n
<\/p>So, you have tried to falsify the collateral truths, but they have held up.\u00a0 This doesn\u2019t prove that Player A is telling the truth, but it definitely supports his story.\u00a0 At this point you may well decide that no further investigation is likely to get you anything which will change your mind, so you terminate the investigation and issue GL for Marked Cards \u2013 Upgrade.\u00a0 In contrast, if Mark Smith said that he did NOT help Player A put sleeves on, you would have likely falsified Player A\u2019s story and then concluded at least that Player A lied to you.<\/p>\n
Example #3 \u2013 The Classic<\/h2>\n
Example #4 \u2013 Another Classic<\/h2>\n
Summary<\/h2>\n
<\/p>When players tell their sides of the story, you should try to construct in your mind a model of the reality that they are claiming.\u00a0 Then ask yourself, \u201cIf that model is true, what else must be true or is likely to be true?\u201d\u00a0 If you can prove those collateral truths to be false, then you can likely prove a story to be false.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/span>\u00a0put it a different way:\u00a0 \u201cForm a picture in your mind about what you think happened.\u00a0 Now ask yourself, \u2018What would change my mind<\/em>? (falsify my ideas)\u2019\u00a0 Then go hunt for that info.\u201d<\/p>\n
Looking Ahead<\/h2>\n