{"id":2613,"date":"2015-01-06T18:06:23","date_gmt":"2015-01-06T18:06:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/?p=2613"},"modified":"2017-06-06T09:07:31","modified_gmt":"2017-06-06T09:07:31","slug":"investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/2015\/01\/06\/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigations &#8211; The Search for Collateral Truths (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wp-caption alignleft judgeimg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/apps.magicjudges.org\/judges\/dci\/73071093\"><img src=https:\/\/apps.magicjudges.org\/dci\/avatar?dci=73071093&size=200 alt=\"Written by Eric Shukan\"><\/a><p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><em>Written by Eric Shukan<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/2014\/12\/30\/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths\/\">Part 1<\/a>\u00a0I talked about collateral truths as being testable consequences which could be examined to give you information about the truth of a player\u2019s story.\u00a0 Now we expand to a metagame idea in order to analyze the matter from the perspective of motivation.\u00a0 This idea cannot prove or disprove a player\u2019s story on its own, but it might help you to assess <em>probabilities<\/em> associated with truth.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>There are many reasons that players may cheat, but they all follow a similar overall consideration:\u00a0 <em>risk vs reward<\/em>.\u00a0 This is the idea of weighing one course of action against another to decide how to obtain the best result.\u00a0 This is the opposite of randomness, and these mental exercises are the heart of Magic the Gathering.<\/p>\n<p><p><img  style='float:right'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Reaping the Rewards'><\/p>Intelligent beings seldom behave randomly.\u00a0 We tend to make judgments and decisions that are based on our experience and understanding of cause-and-effect, and these decisions are geared towards optimizing our lives.\u00a0 Magic players play MTG for exactly this reason.\u00a0 Consider random Magic play:\u00a0 random lands in your deck, random spells, randomly attacking or not, etc; it would be ridiculous.\u00a0 Very few would enjoy that, and even fewer would care to spend their free time and money investing in such a random hobby.\u00a0 But the game becomes more enjoyable when the players have to use logic to increase their chances of winning.\u00a0 Gamers love to solve puzzles, and puzzles that involve risk and gain can be quite exciting.\u00a0 Add in money and prizes and fame, and the incentive might become so high that some players decide that cheating is a better choice than playing fairly.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h1>Part 2:\u00a0 Risk vs Reward, also Known As Cost\/Benefit Analysis<\/h1>\n<p>There are three ideas associated with comparing possible actions:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the payoff (potential gain)<\/li>\n<li>the payout (potential loss)<\/li>\n<li>the probability of achieving each.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In many cases the probabilities of each are linked, so we\u2019ll consider that it is just one probability of succeed (or fail).\u00a0 As the gain goes up or the probability of success goes up, we are more likely to try that action.\u00a0 As the loss goes up, we are less likely to try.\u00a0 The formal name for this kind of decision-making is cost\/benefit analysis.\u00a0 Consider the following two situations to illustrate the point.<\/p>\n<p>Suppose you play the lottery and you can risk $1 to win $1000.\u00a0 You have a 10% chance to win.\u00a0 Many of us would play that.\u00a0 If it cost $100, some still might play, but it would be less attractive.\u00a0 If it cost $800, very few of us would play it.\u00a0 If the win is only $2, then a 10% chance seems silly to try.<\/p>\n<p><p><img  style='float:right'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Gamble'><\/p>Here\u2019s another example, this one from MTG.\u00a0 Suppose that you will lose if you don\u2019t draw <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-content\/plugins\/lems-mtg-helper\/lems-mtg-helper-cardfinder.php?find=Lightning+Bolt&width=223&height=310\" class=\"jTip\" name=\"\">Lightning Bolt<\/a> on your next turn.\u00a0 You have 21 cards left in the library and you have 4 Bolts in there.\u00a0 At the end of your opponent\u2019s turn you crack a fetchland and get a mountain, and so now you have a 4\/20 chance of winning.\u00a0 You know some sleight of hand tricks in manipulating your shuffle, and you have to decide whether to use them to improve your win chances.\u00a0 What would you consider to make the decision?\u00a0 The risk is that you will be caught, DQ\u2019ed, and suspended for a long time.\u00a0 There is also risk to your personal integrity and how others perceive you.\u00a0 The reward is that you will make the Top 8 at this tourney.\u00a0 You think you can get away with it 70% of the time.\u00a0 Do you try it?\u00a0 At FNM?\u00a0 At a PTQ?\u00a0 What about at the Pro Tour where you would win a LOT of money for Top8?\u00a0 Would you do it if there would be only 8 cards left, so that you would succeed without cheating 4\/8 times?\u00a0 Would you gain as much now?<\/p>\n<p>These are key questions that players might think about.\u00a0 Sometimes they consider these in great detail and plan things out (what we call <em>premeditated<\/em>).\u00a0 Sometimes they don\u2019t plan to cheat, yet an opportunity presents itself and they make those judgments very rapidly (what we call <em>opportunistic<\/em>).\u00a0 If you as the judge can assess some of these ideas, you might be able to use them in your determination of cheat or no-cheat.\u00a0 None of these ideas could prove or disprove the matter, but the ideas might be used to inform your decision.\u00a0\u00a0 Let\u2019s look at some real MTG examples.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Example # 1A<\/h2>\n<p>Player A is in round 7 of 8 at A PTQ.\u00a0 He\u2019s at Table 29 of 31 with a record of 1-5.\u00a0 After losing a long Game 1, Player A starts playing slowly in Game 2, so slowly that Game 2 might not finish.\u00a0 The position in Game 2 is about even on Turn 6.\u00a0 You nudge him to make a play, and Player A claims that he\u2019s tired and not thinking straight.\u00a0 His pace speeds up, but two turns later it slows down again.\u00a0 When you consider the infraction here, do you consider Stalling to be a serious consideration?\u00a0 Consider what the player might gain in the match (nothing \u2013 he\u2019s going to lose 1-0-1 if time runs out).\u00a0 Consider what he will gain in the tourney (nothing \u2013 he\u2019s out of contention for Top 8 or for prizes; maybe he can get a few PWP?)\u00a0 Warning for Slow Play may be indicated, but DQ for Stalling is not.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Example # 1B<\/h2>\n<p>Player A is in round 7 of 8 at a PTQ.\u00a0 He\u2019s at Table 5 of 31 with a record of 5-1.\u00a0 After winning a long Game 1, Player A starts playing slowly in Game 2, so slowly that Game 2 might not finish.\u00a0 The position in Game 2 is somewhat against him on Turn 6.\u00a0 You nudge him to make a play, and Player A claims that he\u2019s tired and not thinking straight.\u00a0 His pace speeds up, but two turns later it slows down again.\u00a0 When you consider the infraction here, do you consider Stalling to be a serious consideration?\u00a0 Think about what the player might gain in the match (win instead of draw \u2013 he\u2019s going to win 1-0-1 if time runs out; if not, he might tie 1-1-0).\u00a0 Consider what he will gain in the tourney (quite a bit \u2013 he\u2019ll be able to draw into the Top 8).\u00a0 Note that status of the match and tourney doesn\u2019t prove that he is Stalling, but it should make you consider that possibility seriously.\u00a0 He is much, much more likely to have tried to stall in this situation than in # 1A.\u00a0 Keep that in mind as you investigate further.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Example # 2A \u2013 The Classic<\/h2>\n<p>Player A is in the last round of Day 1 at a GP.\u00a0 He is 4-4.\u00a0 In Game 3 Player A has gained lots of life quickly against a fast burn deck and both players have Player A at 21 life.\u00a0 Player B now has no cards in hand and is topdecking for a few burn damage each turn.\u00a0 Player B, recognizing that he cannot now win, has claimed that he\u2019s going to resign soon.\u00a0 After Player B draws Lightning Bolt, he says \u201cBolt you, you go to 19\u201d\u00a0 Player A says, \u201cOK\u201d, and reduces his life total to 19.\u00a0 A spectator comes to get you, and you investigate, discovering all the above. \u00a0When you question the players about the math, Player B says that he subtracted too quickly.\u00a0 Player A says that he wasn\u2019t really paying attention and just accepted whatever Player B said because Player B told him that he was going to resign soon and they were \u201cjust playing it out fast\u201d.\u00a0 Player A tells you that he is experienced and knows the rule about confirming life totals, but he wasn\u2019t paying attention because he was just trying to get the game over faster because both he and Player B were \u201con automatic\u201d at this point.<\/p>\n<p><p><img  style='float:right'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Miscalculation'><\/p><br \/>\nHow much will you consider DQ\u2019ing Player A for misrepresenting his life total?\u00a0 He might be telling the truth and overlooked it, possibly earning a GPE-CPV warning.\u00a0 Or maybe he knew it exactly and was trying to hide it.\u00a0 Ask yourself if this is the kind of cheat that Player A would run here, in a near-certain win in a mostly irrelevant match.\u00a0 There\u2019s very little payoff to be gained and a ton of payout to lose if he gets caught at it.\u00a0 If it is otherwise a close call, you probably should rule CPV as the more likely occurrence, because of the extremely unfavorable risk vs reward analysis.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Example #2B \u2013 Another Classic<\/h2>\n<p>Player A is in the last round of Day 1 at a GP.\u00a0 He is 6-2.\u00a0 If he wins, he makes Day 2.\u00a0 In Game 3 Player A has missed one land drop and has been burned down to 4 life against a fast burn deck.\u00a0 Player B has no cards in hand, but in his library he has multiple Lightning Bolts and Incinerates that burn for 3 damage.\u00a0 Player A draws for turn, cracks a fetchland for a mountain but does not indicate a loss of 1 life, and sets up a certain win on the next turn if Player B does not kill him on B\u2019s turn.\u00a0 Player B draws for turn, misses, and concedes.\u00a0 Players scoop their cards.\u00a0 A spectator calls you over, and your investigation reveals all of the above.\u00a0 Player A tells you that he is experienced and knows exactly how fetchlands work, but that he accidentally overlooked the 1 damage from it because he was playing too fast.<\/p>\n<p>How much will you consider DQ\u2019ing Player A for intentionally missing his own life loss?\u00a0 Do you see that this situation is remarkably suspicious compared to the previous example?\u00a0 Do you think that the missed life loss here has the same probability of being a simple error as the previous example?\u00a0 Player A\u2019s risk is still there, but now there is a very large payoff for him to gain \u2013 making Day 2 with much higher probability.\u00a0 If it is really a mistake, you would have to think that Player A was oblivious to his life total and to his fetchland effect.\u00a0 That is a collateral truth of innocence here.\u00a0 Ask yourself how likely it was that he was oblivious to going to 3 life against this burn deck?\u00a0 Might you not ask a few more questions here and perhaps look at how many other times Player A has missed the life loss from the fetch land?\u00a0 The large reward of this particular situation has caused for you a serious logical problem.<\/p>\n<p>When you can identify these favorable risk vs reward situations, you can use them to inform your decision.\u00a0 But they are not absolute proof one way or the other.\u00a0 Sometimes, you can get it wrong, as in this last example, which is from my own personal experience.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Example # 3 \u2013 You can never be sure<\/h2>\n<p>I was HJ at a SCG Open about two years ago.\u00a0 We were in Round 6 of 9 and we got a call from Table 137.\u00a0 I was walking around and happened to be closest to a spectator who was looking for a judge.\u00a0 Player A had played a sorcery spell that dealt 4 damage to all creatures.\u00a0 The spell wiped the board away, except that Player B\u2019s dragon was 4\/5 and should have lived.\u00a0 Both players missed it, and so the board was clean.\u00a0 A couple of turns later Player B reanimates the dragon and now realizes that the players have erred in letting the dragon die from the 4-damage spell.\u00a0 Player A boasts to Player B that yeah, Player A knew the dragon should have lived, but he didn\u2019t say anything because he didn\u2019t think it was his responsibility to help Player B play correctly.\u00a0 Player B is upset, but he keeps playing without calling a judge.\u00a0 A spectator comes to me and informs me of what has just happened.<\/p>\n<p>Player B\u2019s story is one of strict ignorance and very believable; I\u2019m not too interested in his story anyway.\u00a0 Player A told me that he had cast the spell originally thinking the dragon was 4\/4 and would die, but two seconds after Player B put it into the graveyard, Player A realized it should still be alive.\u00a0 Player A continues and tells me that he didn\u2019t think he had done anything wrong by staying silent, because he doesn\u2019t have to help his opponent, and besides that\u2019s how they play at his store.\u00a0 I ask a few probing questions about his background:\u00a0 this is his first Competitive event, he has been playing for 8 months all at his local store, and he is 0-5 in this Constructed event. \u00a0\u00a0His body language reads like a newer player.<\/p>\n<p><p><img  style='float:right'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Wicked Reward'><\/p><br \/>\nSo, I\u2019m on the fence about whether he knows that he has done something illegal, but I\u2019m about to give him the benefit of the doubt and rule it as only GRV.\u00a0 There\u2019s just not that much to gain if he really knows that it\u2019s illegal.\u00a0 He cannot win money or prizes, and it seemed to me that his story of ignorance of wrongdoing could be true.\u00a0 As I\u2019m about to rule GRV, Player A asks me how I knew to come over to the table.\u00a0 I told him that a spectator had come to me to tell me what had happened, and Player A replies, \u201cOh, man, I can\u2019t believe that guy <em>squealed<\/em> on me!\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Whoops!\u00a0 I was wrong, clearly.\u00a0 He may not have known the rules exactly, but he knows them enough to understand that letting the dragon stay dead is something bad enough to be \u201csquealed on\u201d.\u00a0 That\u2019s all I needed \u2013 some awareness at the time that he was doing something wrong.\u00a0 I issued the DQ.\u00a0 After all the post-DQ discussion it turns out that he was in fact a newer player\u00a0to Competitive, but he so wanted to win his first Competitive MTG game that he convinced himself it was ok to say nothing about the dragon.\u00a0 This was a completely opportunistic momentary lapse of judgment on his part, and he felt scummy about it.<\/p>\n<p>What did he have to gain?\u00a0 He would get his first Competitive tourney win, which to him was so valuable that he was motivated to take advantage of a cheating opportunity.\u00a0 I didn\u2019t see the value in it because I was too used to high-level competition.\u00a0 Note that he <em>did<\/em> have motivation, but <em>I couldn\u2019t perceive it<\/em> properly.\u00a0 It can work both ways &#8211; into issuing a DQ or into not issuing a DQ.\u00a0 One man\u2019s trash is another man\u2019s treasure, so they say.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Summary<\/h2>\n<p>In the definition of Cheating we require that a player has <em>awareness and<\/em> <em>intent to gain advantage<\/em>.\u00a0 Sometimes the opportunity to cheat presents itself and players take advantage of it, and sometimes they plan it out.\u00a0 But in almost all cases there are three main ideas associated with decision-making:\u00a0 the possible gain, the possible loss, and the probability associated with attaining either.\u00a0 By thinking about these three things, you might be able to take a close call and judge it one way or the other.<\/p>\n<p><p><img  style='float:right'  class='lems-mtg-cardimg' src='http:\/\/gatherer.wizards.com\/Handlers\/Image.ashx?size=small&type=card&name=Hidden Predators'><\/p><br \/>\nThese thoughts form the basis for a player\u2019s motivations and technique in executing a cheat.\u00a0\u00a0 But be careful, because it works only in one direction.\u00a0 Motivation doesn\u2019t itself prove that a player is cheating (you also need physical evidence to establish this), but cheating does imply that there is motivation.\u00a0 The collateral truth of hypotheses about cheating is that a motivation exists.\u00a0 <em>Identify and examine <\/em>the risk vs reward, especially in close decisions, and you may learn something.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2>Looking Ahead<\/h2>\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/2015\/01\/13\/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-3\/\">Part 3<\/a>, I will talk about when to terminate an ongoing investigation.\u00a0 Often investigations can go on too long and compromise timing of events.\u00a0 Other times judges can give up prematurely and miss a key point, thereby incorrectly ruling guilt or innocence.\u00a0 The final part in this series will explore how to think about the process in a way that lets you know when to get out of it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>L3 and Player Investigations Lead Eric Shukan continues with developing investigations technique by considering Risk vs Reward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":2491,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[37,9],"tags":[216,217,3,50],"language":[180],"class_list":["post-2613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-education_development","category-events","tag-cheating","tag-dq","tag-eric-shukan","tag-investigations","language-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2613"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2613\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3829,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2613\/revisions\/3829"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2491"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2613"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=2613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}