{"id":2639,"date":"2015-01-13T20:57:28","date_gmt":"2015-01-13T20:57:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/?p=2639"},"modified":"2015-01-13T21:00:37","modified_gmt":"2015-01-13T21:00:37","slug":"investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/articles\/2015\/01\/13\/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigations – The Search for Collateral Truths (Part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Written<\/a>

Written by Eric Shukan<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Investigations can take a long time because there\u2019s a lot to think about.\u00a0 If you have ever been involved in a difficult investigation, you\u2019ll know that it is very easy to run 15-20 minutes off the round clock while you are asking questions and thinking.\u00a0 In the first two parts I introduced the idea of testable consequences and examining motivations.\u00a0 Combine this with analyzing game states, counting lands and cards, looking at life totals, etc., and we can easily spend too much time reaching a conclusion.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This last part focuses on how to protect the timing of your event, specifically by thinking about ways to decide when to end an investigation.\u00a0 How do you know when to stop?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part 3:\u00a0 Terminating the Investigation<\/h1>\n

Investigations are based on acquiring evidence to formulate or test a hypothesis.\u00a0 While the data may come from a variety of sources, it is all<\/em> used to challenge what you think happened (or maybe a collateral truth of what you think happened).\u00a0 In challenging your ideas, you are trying to change your mind.<\/em><\/p>\n

Recall the quote from Jared Sylva<\/a><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0back from Part 1<\/a>:\u00a0 \u201cForm a picture in your mind about what you think happened.\u00a0 Now ask yourself, \u2018What would change my mind<\/em>?\u2019\u00a0 Then go hunt for that info.\u201d\u00a0 The underlying idea is that data is used to change your mind, and this leads to a pretty simple idea about when to stop.\u00a0 As long as you have a reasonable chance of getting information that will change your mind, you should continue.\u00a0 When you decide that you cannot gain information that will change your mind, then you stop \u2013 and whatever is the current hypothesis is used to make your ruling.<\/p>\n

<\/p>Note that such information might not be obtainable for several reasons.\u00a0 One reason is that it would require a remote occurrence, such as a guilty player just deciding to confess even though he has previously lied convincingly.\u00a0 Another reason is that the information doesn\u2019t exist because your current hypothesis is correct.\u00a0 A third reason might be that you cannot think of the data that you would need. This last difficulty diminishes as you get more experience.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a look at some examples.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Example #1<\/h2>\n

At FNM two players call you over.\u00a0 They are fairly new to the game and to your store.\u00a0 They cannot remember whether Player B has already played a land this turn, and Player B wants to play a land now.\u00a0 At the moment you have no hypothesis at all, so you ask for some details to change your mind<\/em> into having a hypothesis.\u00a0 It is Player B\u2019s fifth turn and Player B is on the draw.\u00a0 Each player has 5 lands in play.\u00a0 For the moment your hypothesis changes to \u201chas played land.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>Ask yourself \u2013 what could change your mind?<\/em>\u00a0 Land destruction, land fetches, missed land drops, etc.\u00a0 You look through the graveyard and find a Rampant Growth<\/a>.\u00a0 Player B claims that he played it on Turn 2 and got a Mountain.\u00a0 Both players say they forgot about it until you just pointed it out.\u00a0 Your hypothesis immediately changes to \u201chas not played land\u201d, but you might change your mind if Player B has missed a land drop.\u00a0 You ask, and both players agree that neither has missed a land drop prior to this turn.\u00a0 There\u2019s nothing else going on; the game state is fairly simple with both players having played only two or three spells.<\/p>\n

At this point there is no chance to change your mind, so you terminate the investigation and use your current hypothesis to rule that Player B has not yet played a land.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately they aren\u2019t usually this easy.\u00a0 Or maybe I should say fortunately, because judging is more interesting when the calls are more difficult.\u00a0 Here\u2019s an example.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Example #2<\/h2>\n

At a PTQ round 4 of 7, you get called to Table 7 with a Faeries vs Faeries matchup in Game 3.\u00a0 You recognize both players; you know them well as frequent and highly-competitive PTQ and GP players.\u00a0 The game is over, but the players have stated that on the previous turn Player B was supposed to draw a card from a Vendilion Clique<\/a> that Player A just cast.\u00a0 The players all agree on the following details and actions:\u00a0 Player A is at 3 life and Player B is at 2 life.\u00a0 Each player has three 1\/1 faerie tokens late in the game with lots of lands (Player A had just cast Oona, Queen of the Fae<\/a> and activated it for three tokens, then Player B killed Oona).\u00a0 Player A asked \u201cHow many cards?\u201d to which Player B responded \u201cNone\u201d.\u00a0 Player A ended his turn with one card in hand and announced that he had draw step effects.\u00a0 Player B untapped and drew, then Player A cast Vendilion Clique<\/a> targeting B.\u00a0 Player A chooses to make Player B put the card he just drew on the bottom of library, but then Player B forgot to draw a card to complete the effect from Vendilion Clique<\/a>.\u00a0 Player B passes, then Player A draws a bounce spell for his turn, bounces a Faerie, and swings for the win.\u00a0 Player B concedes.<\/p>\n

If you are right now deciding whether to back up through the concession because of the GRV for failing to execute correctly the Vendilion Clique<\/a> ability, then you have missed the possibility that Player A may have cheated by intentionally failing to remind Player B to draw a card for the Clique.\u00a0 That issue needs to be resolved first because that determines the infraction<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0 So let\u2019s start there.<\/p>\n

<\/p>The default hypothesis is \u201cforgot \u2013 GRV\u201d, because we don\u2019t presume guilt without evidence.\u00a0 What might change your mind?<\/em>\u00a0 Player A confessing would, so you ask him to explain what happened, but in his story he says that he forgot.\u00a0 Yeah, that\u2019d be too easy here.\u00a0 You are still on \u201cforgot \u2013 GRV\u201d.\u00a0 What else?<\/em><\/p>\n

Maybe Player A\u2019s body language will tell you something, but when he describes what happened, you can\u2019t tell anything from his body language.\u00a0 Body language can be helpful if you know what to look for, but it can be a tricky and unreliable business.\u00a0 What else?<\/em><\/p>\n

It seems strange that Player A would forget because he had asked about cards in hand right before that.\u00a0 Maybe they had other conversation?\u00a0 When you ask, Player B says that as Player A cast Vendilion Clique<\/a>, Player A also said \u201cI hope this works\u201d.\u00a0 When you ask Player A about this, he says that he may have said something, but he can\u2019t remember for sure.\u00a0 It\u2019s unlikely<\/em> that Player B would make this up, and Player A\u2019s answer to you doesn\u2019t deny it, so you probably assume it\u2019s true.\u00a0 This may change your mind, because it appears that Player A knows exactly how he wanted the scenario to play out, and it seems unlikely<\/em> that he would forget when there\u2019s nothing else to think about.\u00a0 Put another way:\u00a0 Player A forgetting is a collateral truth of his innocence, and it now seems unlikely<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Now you start thinking about risk vs reward, as described in Part 2.\u00a0 You realize that Player A is 3-0 going into this round, and if this result holds up, he will be 4-0.\u00a0 One more win in the next two rounds and he could likely draw into the Top 8.\u00a0 That is a valuable payoff<\/em> and most judges wouldn\u2019t pick up on this, so Player A might think that the risk is low<\/em>.\u00a0 This might change your mind to \u201ccheat \u2013 DQ\u201d.<\/p>\n

At this point regardless of which way you think is more likely, it\u2019s time to stop the investigation.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t think \u201ccheat\u201d is the correct interpretation, nothing else will convince you.\u00a0 And if you think \u201ccheat\u201d IS the correct interpretation, nothing except telepathy will convince you otherwise. \u00a0\u00a0You might double-check your logic, but it is definitely time to stop.<\/p>\n

Note that it is possible to be wrong in whichever way you believe it to have happened, but if you can support your ruling with logic and evidence, then your ruling<\/strong> is correct<\/em>.\u00a0 Don\u2019t lose time by trying to find that perfect evidence, because it might not exist in a way that you can get it.\u00a0 If no reasonable possibilities can change your mind, end it and rule.\u00a0 Sometimes it\u2019s hard on you either way.\u00a0 Trust me, I\u2019ve been there.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Example #3 \u2013 Amazing but True<\/h2>\n

During a deckcheck of Players A and B at a Legacy Open, a judge discovers Player A to be standing about two meters from the deckcheck table and watching the judges check his deck.\u00a0 The judge is worried that Player A has followed the deckcheck team back to the table to gain unauthorized information about Player B\u2019s deck.\u00a0 You investigate.<\/p>\n

Player A says that he asked the swooping judge if he could get up and follow him to the deckcheck, and that the judge said yes.\u00a0 Your current hypothesis is probably \u201cWTF?\u201d, so you ask him why he would want to do that.\u00a0 The player claims that he was worried about his $4000 Legacy deck and wanted to keep an eye on it.\u00a0 You change your hypothesis to \u201cWeird but possible\u201d and decide that a talk with the swoop judge should help change or solidify your mind.\u00a0 \u00a0You ask the swooping judge and he says that the player asked to get up and go to the bathroom, and of course the judge had said yes.<\/p>\n

<\/p>Whoops!\u00a0 You might be back to \u201cplayer is lying\u201d or maybe to \u201cjudge is mistaken\u201d, but think<\/em><\/strong> for a moment.\u00a0 Do you really think that this player would make up THAT story?\u00a0 That story \u2013 if it is a lie \u2013 has just about a 0% of succeeding, and so you are missing something, because the player\u2019s risk<\/em> is ridiculously too large for this to be correct.\u00a0 \u201cPlayer is lying\u201d seems possible but unlikely.\u00a0 Is there any way to get more info?\u00a0 If only you had a third-party witness\u2026<\/p>\n

Well, you might.\u00a0 The opponent might have heard something because he was at the table.\u00a0 You ask him and he says that Player A asked to \u201cget up and follow the judge\u201d and the judge said yes!\u00a0 You ask both the opponent and the judge again about their level of confidence in what they heard, and both say that they are certain.\u00a0 Now YOU should be certain that one of them is incorrect.<\/p>\n

So where are you?\u00a0 In light of the opponent\u2019s testimony that corroborates Player A\u2019s story, you should be thinking \u201cno infraction (but maybe a great story for the judge dinner)\u201d.\u00a0 What could change your mind?\u00a0 The answer is\u2026 nothing!\u00a0 Even if you question the judge again about what he heard the player say and even if the judge says that he\u2019s certain that the player asked about the bathroom, you can\u2019t overcome the testimony of the opponent!<\/em>\u00a0 With the opponent testifying in favor of the accused, you have no chance of changing your mind.\u00a0 In other words, if you explained this to, say, the Judge Center (in a DQ report, for example), you could not justify a DQ for Lying here, because you cannot overcome the opponent\u2019s statement.\u00a0 A collateral truth of the player\u2019s guilt is that this opponent is either mistaken or lying.\u00a0 The opponent lying is incredibly remote, and if the opponent is mistaken in what he heard (unlikely), you will never be able to determine<\/em> that now.\u00a0 So stop the investigation immediately and get the players back to playing.<\/p>\n

This actually happened, and this investigation took a long time as the HJ went back and forth, hearing each story several times.\u00a0 The swooping judge\u2019s written statement indicated that he had assumed <\/em><\/strong>the player wanted to go to the bathroom from his body language and the swooping judge did not list verbatim what the player had said<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 So it appears that the swooping judge was not at all certain of his understanding of the matter.\u00a0 In any case, there was no point in going past the first 5 minutes once the opponent had confirmed Player A\u2019s story, because nothing after that would matter.\u00a0 Sadly, the player was DQ\u2019ed despite the support from the opponent\u2019s statement, and the HJ glossed over the opponent\u2019s statement as if it were irrelevant.\u00a0 Yet it was the most important piece of evidence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s another way to look at it:\u00a0 if you are going to ask the opponent and then NOT use his statement to change your mind when it contradicts your hypothesis, then why are you asking the opponent?\u00a0 You should be looking for information to help the player just as hard as you are looking for information to DQ him<\/em>.\u00a0 Investigations are about how to change your mind!\u00a0 As an Investigations Committee judge, I was unhappy to see this case because an injustice was done to the player.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Summary<\/h2>\n

<\/p>Look for evidence that would change your mind.\u00a0 If you know you won\u2019t get any, then just stop and make a ruling.\u00a0 Lots of judges delay and hitch just trying for the perfect evidence of guilt or innocence (or land played\/not played).\u00a0 It happens once in a while, but don\u2019t count on it.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve seen judges ask a player FIVE times to explain what happened.\u00a0 By the time #5 comes up, there will be some slight differences in the story, and some judges are quick to jump on minor differences between story #1 and story #5.\u00a0 This is called a witch-hunt (look it up) because you are not going to stop until you find a witch to burn.\u00a0 Please don\u2019t do this.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Wrap Up<\/h2>\n

This series was designed to help you formulate a plan during investigations and decide which information might be helpful.\u00a0 Part 1<\/a> defined collateral truths are consequences that you might be able to verify or falsify, so that you can test a story.\u00a0 Part 2<\/a> described motivation as a collateral truth of cheating, so that if you analyze risk vs reward, you might learn something.\u00a0 Part 3 described the idea of \u201cWhat can change your mind?\u201d as it should be used to decide when to stop an investigation.<\/p>\n

Approach every judge call with an open mind and a readiness to tweak or abandon your hypothesis.\u00a0 Be willing<\/em> to change your mind, try<\/em> to change your mind, and be aware<\/em> of when your mind can no longer be changed.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t expect to become expert at these right away.\u00a0 It takes practice, but you can get that practice in even the routine judge calls.\u00a0 Here are some things I\u2019ve learned along the way:<\/p>\n