Nate Pease - Banned

[Myriad Games]

Nate's current name on TMD is "EotGiftsGG?"

[forests failed you]

So everyone in this thread is aware, the staff has contacted Nate Pease and offered to make arrangements to allow him to post in this thread in his own defense.  To my knowledge, he has not yet responded to that offer. 

Has Nate Pease been banned on TMD as well?  Was he already banned from before?  Has this content already been descussed previously, but I've overlooked it? 

[Godder]

I believe he was Jigglypuff as well, but I do know that he has been banned under at least one username (Jigglypuff was banned, but even that wasn't him, Pease has been banned at least once before). I'm not sure if he has been banned this time around, though.

[Demonic Attorney]

Below is Nate Pease's statement in response to the issues raised in this thread.  Note for the record that minor editing has been performed to make the formatting more understandable, and to remove a small number of inflammatory remarks not suitable for these forums.  Also note that parts of Nate's reply are copy/pasted from a thread in the starcitygames forums, available for viewing in its original form here.  Nevertheless, readers should be aware that the content of Nate's reply has not been substantially changed.

Dear Vintage Community and To whom it may concern,
The following is my account and rebuttal to the thread that I can’t even legitimately post in.

He did not check the decklist at this time to confirm that this was correct. Mr. Pease went on to lose Round 1, 1-2. After the match had completed, the judge came back and notified Mr. Pease that he only had 54 cards on his decklist and that he would have to fix it before Round 2. I noted this fact after I was done playing my match, when I was informed by his opponent. Mr. Pease was 0-1 right now and going into Round 2 with a game loss.

It appears that Mr. Yarrington (myriadgames) is not correct with the facts. I was never issued a game loss, so this can not be correct. The Judge was a mutual friend I knew from the store I played at frequently. The "judge"* quietly approached me right before round two pairings and told me there was a slight problem with my deck list, as it appeared that I was missing four cards; however, it was "no big deal". I am the first to admit that I'm not the best with numbers, being still a high school student, I haven't even passed algebra yet. Yes this is my fault, but it was taken care of. Or so I thought. Round two approached, and so did round three. The Result was of me being 2-1. The "judge" came over to me and said that because the aforementioned Mr. Yarrington was quite unpleased about the way he handled the "hushed deck list" infraction that he overheard about.

I queried the judge as to whether Mr. Pease had received a game loss in Round 2 for having an illegal decklist. He said something to the effect of “I wasn’t aware I needed to do that.” Not only did the judge fail to enforce the most obvious of penalties,

I am not trying to be rude, but how often have you asked the judge at a tournament about someone else's business? Being that judge was new, he wasn’t quite sure how to handle situations and instead of asking the owner of the store, he was "bullied" and influenced by Mr. Yarrington.

If you're not a judge at an event, and you're not a player in an event, you shouldn't be interfering with rulings. If you see an infraction that's gone unnoticed, it's fine to bring it to a judge's attention, but it is way over the line to attempt to influence rulings one way or the other. It's just plain inconsistent, and unfair to the other players.

Myriad Games took it upon himself to decide what Nate's fate should be and took all steps to achieve that goal. Sorry, but I have a problem with that since he was not A) the judge or B) the tournament organizer.

given that Mr. Pease was not penalized with Unsporting Conduct - Severe, a penalty which as you pointed out is SOLELY dependant on the descretion of the head judge, isn't it fairly clear that he was actually NOT in fact guilty of said offense? Whether you or other players feel that he should have been penalized for it is entirely irrelevant as none of you are the head judge. IF the head judge felt that Nate was guilty of this infraction why was he not penalized? I certainly think it appears from your description that Nate's actions were unsporting, but at the same time the description given above of the Unsporting Conduct - Severe rule could also be applied to your behavior if you ignore the descretion of the head judge element of it. The judge made a ruling, you didn't like it, you argued with the judge following said ruling, resulting in a delay of the tournament the effects of which were felt by all players.

He then said that because the "myriad crew" was upset that he would have to issue a game loss to me in round four. So what happened? I took the game loss and got paired to the store owner, Dave. I started out the match first and won games two and three. Standings come up right before the fifth and final round and it appears I can draw into the top eight with nine points. Pairings come out and I am paired to a teammate, Crossman Wilkins. I asked if he is paired up and he tells me he “doesn’t think he’s that lucky.” We look at the Pairings sheet and I now have six points. So by popular demand of the myriad crew the very newly appointed "judge" went into the DCI reporter and edited my match results of previous rounds, therefore knocking me out of a tournament I paid for. I was quite Outraged at this and I admit, and was out of line by causing a ruckus. The owner of the store and the "judge" and I were having a disagreement. It happens. After some time another regular came in, heard the story and claimed that the "judge" was (censored). I never called anyone to my defense like Mr. Yarrington claims

The end result of this confrontation was that the judge stormed out of the store, kicking a bin of Beanie Babies on the way. Mr. Pease was not disqualified from the tournament nor asked to leave the establishment.

He was quite frustrated. As I would be. The real reason is that the store owner felt that I did nothing wrong, and did not even support the "judge's" decision.

Instead of going into this with an opinionated fury, however, I will be clinical
and try to stick to the facts.

Fact: At TMD Open 8, Nate Pease received not one, not two, but three infractions
for marked sleeves and/or having an illegal decklist.

Fact: At TMC Open 1: Nate Pease received not one, but two game losses (one for
each of the tourneys), for having an illegal decklist.

It appears that deck violation, NOT MANIPULATION, is ground fore banning these days? Like I said, I am first to admit I am sloppy, but like everyone who has ever received a game loss I am often rushed to compile and complete such deck lists. I am sorry.

Fact: At the Beanie Exchange Event on December 10th, Nate not only had an
illegal decklist, he was told about it and DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. Infractions
are committed, but to act so apathetically is nothing short of clear and
deliberate cheating. Nate continued to be unsporting about the entire debacle
when the judge had mercy on him, even when he didn’t deserve it, and only gave
him a match loss instead of disqualifying him. That’s three penalties in one
day for those who are counting. Leave it to Nate to score the Hatrick

I guess that your view of the "judge's" mercy can also be viewed as a lack of knowledge about how to handle the situation. I never did anything about the deck list because I was never told to.

Nate was banned due to his repeated unsporting conduct.

From what happened outside your store? So You're saying that for instance I was you, and you witnessed a guy at Starcitygames get DQed time after time You'd ban him on the spot solely because of his attitude AT ANOTHER tournament.

its important to note that he wasnt initially given a game loss for mis registering. the guy judging was running one of his first tournaments and didnt issue a game loss and wasnt going to until the owner of myriad games interfered with the tournament and said that a mis reg deserves a game loss. He wasn't judging and only spoke up because he does not personally like nate. When I first started running tournaments at the beanie exchange at the end of 2004, I never issued game losses for paperwork. At REL 3 where most people want to run tournaments, its supposed to be a game loss, however, I never ran my tournaments at rel 3.

Ray has suspected nate of cheating forever because of deck reg errors and its his right to do so, however I have known nate since he started playing type 1 and I have never witnessed him cheat in any way EVER. If you can string together a whole bunch of events where his decklist was missing some obvious cards and making a paperwork error and call it cheating, then you can do that, but I wont ever say he cheated, because I know he didn't.

I think its much more convienent for people to label him a cheater then to explain how a 17yr old has so much success in vintage.

Banning someone for unsportsmanlike conduct is another thing alltogether, and If this was the case, then I would never be allowed at another magic tournament, I'm as beligerant as they come but I have a great time doing it. Ive been told personally by dan the owner of myriad games that I'm unsportsmanlike when I play, but no concequences have come of it.

Everyone has their choices to make, I respect Ray for his decision, I understand Dan's frustration, but I also know nate pease doesn't cheat. If that leaves me banned along with my friend for supporting him then thats something I have to accept, but banning me would make about as much sense as posting this fiasco in the full member forum on TMD where no one can actually respond to it.

And I just want to post some more details that were witheld and altered in dan's report. Nate was never even given a game loss by the judge for mis registering until dan interfered in a tournament he wasn't running.

If he doesn't like the way rulings are made at other tournaments, he shouldn't go. Its not his place to officiate the tournament the way he feels it should be. dan has had a vendetta against nate since forever and he finally got his chance to do something about it in his small way. Congrats on that but you lost my support for your tournaments, not that you care about my $20 a month.

but banning me would make about as much sense as posting this fiasco in the full member forum on TMD where no one can actually respond to it.

So the adults can talk

Which brings me to another point. I've known ray for about a year now. For as long as I have known him, I have also been talked "down-to" by him, as though i was another one of his students. Yes, I am very young, but I kind of wish that if he'd ridicule and persecute me, he'd give me the respect he shows toward the rest of the vintage community.

So the adults can talk? Again, you cant compare me to a child and then persecute me like that. Are you implying that I have no say in this being only seventeen. I often get odd comments about how a kid so young does better than most players over twice my age.

Wait, wait. If I misregister a decklist, and the judge catches this and tells me to fix it, but does NOT give me a game loss, I am required to demand I recieve one anyway in order to be "honest?" What this guy did after the fact is pretty inexcusable but if a judge doesn't give me a GL for an infraction I'd do exactly what he did, count myself lucky and keep playing. I see no reason why I should demand I get a penalty. That's like demanding the cop that pulled you over give you the full ticket instead of a warning

I know nate, and I like him. I've never personally seen him do anything even close to what could be called cheating, and he has always been a stand-up player in our matches.

It's important to note that Dan banning Nate because of his poor sportsmanship, not cheating.

Would I have had the same reaction as Dan, I'm not sure. I wasn't there, and I get conflicting eyewitness reports from friends on both sides. I truly don't think Nate was being malicious, but then again his behavior wasn't "good".

I think this whole thing is unfortunate, and it's a shame that it had to come to this. While I understand why Dan and Ray would post their decisions, I can't help but be disappointed with random people writing in about something they weren't there to witness, especially when they do not personally know the person in question. Jared Carter

a few things stand out to me:

1) MyriadGames didn't really have any business getting involved to the extent he did. If he felt cheating was going on or something shady, he should have notified a judge and stayed out of it. He did notify the judge, but he then immersed himself in a situation in which he was not really involved. If he was just a player at the event, he should not be telling a judge (even a new judge) what to do. 2) In no account was Nate told he received a game loss going into round 2. Regardless of what the rules say should happen, if a judge doesn't tell a player, it doesn't happen. In this particular incident, combining #1 and #2, it seems most of the fault for this being blown out of proportion was with MyriadGames. Certainly Nate is not without fault. He was told to fix his decklist and did not. Him being given a game loss in round 3 seems perfectly fine since he was, once again, playing with a deck that did not match his decklist.

This post is appropriate for public viewing based on its intention. Was Nate upset when he saw it? Likely. But the purpose is greater, and one I think vintage players can appreicate. Don't you want to sit down at a table and know your opponent is playing by the same rules as you? Don't you want to know with greater certainty that your opponent doesn't have a marked Yawgmoth's Will, or 5 Force of Wills? The reason for this post is greater than Nate. It is to send a clear cut message that repeated offenses of infractions, whether intentional or unintentionaland,or an apathetic nod toward the rules has no place at a Vintage event. In short, Cheaters...you are not welcome!

Yes, Ray. Making an example out of me is entirely called for in order to send a message to the vintage community. This thread should have been kept to PM if that. If you want to make an example out of me, this would not be the first time.

He KNEW he was commiting infractions, and he continued doing them. The validity of what I was trying to do when I got out of corrupt competitive PTQ magic and into Vintage is completely undermined by Nate's Laissez-Fair attitude. THIS is the primary reason for Nate being banned from my events.

I thought I was getting banned for unsportsmanlike conduct? "Cheaters you are not welcome.". Now this does not make any sense. I thought I was not getting banned for cheating? straight up, I know you were looking for any excuse to ban me, and I guess now you have one.
 
In conclusion, I guess that Ray is right. That this thread is bigger than me. I guess I'm just the lucky target. From StarCity Champion and Vintage All-Star to outcast and martyr. If I have to be banned so you can send a message out to the vintage community, than so be it.

Nate Pease

[Moxlotus]

So the adults can talk? Again, you cant compare me to a child and then persecute me like that. Are you implying that I have no say in this being only seventeen. I often get odd comments about how a kid so young does better than most players over twice my age.
 

I said "so the adults can talk" as a response to a question on why this thread wasn't in the basic user community.  Adult does not mean people of a certain age.  It means people with a certain maturity level.  It was put in the closed community forum so random morons wouldn't be able to flame away.  Don't try to read into things that aren't there.

From what happened outside your store? So You're saying that for instance I was you, and you witnessed a guy at Starcitygames get DQed time after time You'd ban him on the spot solely because of his attitude AT ANOTHER tournament.

If a casino bans a person, good luck finding any casino in the area to go to.  An example I know first hand is if you tick off a dentist in town--you're not going to find one that will take you in that town.  Yes, people make rules for what happens outside of their buildings.  It is the way the world works.  I'm not trying to be like "haha 17 year old" because I'm only 20, but this sort of thing is common.

[Myriad Games]

I was unable to view Nate's full post from the link that DA posted.  Apparently it was removed, so I can only respond to Nate's comments posted here.

Nate was not banned from Myriad Games for cheating or for a single act of unsporting conduct, but for repeated infractions over more than a year at a variety of tournaments. This was not a vendetta nor was I imposing myself on another organizer's tournaments, as some have incorrectly implied.  Focusing on the details at this particular event, Nate's age, and/or the penalties for deck registration seem to be attempts to misdirect attention and gain sympathy. The major offense in this particular instance was Nate's reaction to the judge's ruling, which he has recognized as inappropriate.  Though he has apologized for his failure to accurately complete his deck sheet, he still has yet to apologize for his unsporting conduct.

I consider it to be every player's responsibility to assist the judge in ensuring a fair tournament. This includes notifying the judge of errors without being disrespectful or arguing with the judge. At no point during this tournament did I disrespect the judge or organizer (or any player for that matter).  Neither did I "immerse" myself in the situation. I asked a question about whether or not a penalty was issued in order to help ensure a fair event. The judge responded by issuing the penalty he felt was appropriate.  Nate argued with him and the judge upgraded the penalty.  Nate continued to argue with him, in an increasingly belligerent fashion, and with assistance from an individual entirely outside the tournament.  Beyond posing the question to the judge, I did not pursue the issue any further.  I allowed the judge to make the ruling he felt was appropriate after politely voicing my concerns. I continued to play in the tournament and did not enter into the argument between Nate, the judge, and associated parties.

[Purple Hat]

The major offense in this particular instance was Nate's reaction to the judge's ruling, which he has recognized as inappropriate.  Though he has apologized for his failure to accurately complete his deck sheet, he still has yet to apologize for his unsporting conduct.

I consider it to be every player's responsibility to assist the judge in ensuring a fair tournament. This includes notifying the judge of errors without being disrespectful or arguing with the judge. At no point during this tournament did I disrespect the judge or organizer (or any player for that matter).  Neither did I "immerse" myself in the situation. I asked a question about whether or not a penalty was issued in order to help ensure a fair event. The judge responded by issuing the penalty he felt was appropriate.  Nate argued with him and the judge upgraded the penalty.  Nate continued to argue with him, in an increasingly belligerent fashion, and with assistance from an individual entirely outside the tournament.  Beyond posing the question to the judge, I did not pursue the issue any further.  I allowed the judge to make the ruling he felt was appropriate after politely voicing my concerns. I continued to play in the tournament and did not enter into the argument between Nate, the judge, and associated parties.

you mean after you stepped in and got nate removed from the field following a valid final decision by the judge that you didn't agree with?  After that you didn't do anything?  oh....my mistake.  your conduct was entirely appropriate. 

Dude...you told a judge in an event you were PLAYING IN to change his call.  The somewhat mind-boggling facts that no one ever told this judge that his rulings, once made, are final and never to judge retroactively asside, it is ENTIRELY inappropriate for a player to step in after a judge has RULED ON AN ISSUE, and correct his ruling.  You can bitch about it later all you want, but if you expect a player not to be pissed that 2 or 3 rounds later he got notified that in fact, he actually got assessed a penalty other than what the judge told him because YOU, Mr. Yarrington, took it upon yourself to tell the judge to change his call.  How, exactly, does it ensure a fair event when rather than having a judge who is uninvolved in the tournament as the final authority on rules issues we have players joining in to cause rulings to be what the players think they should be?  Doesn't that border kinda heavily on the textbook definition of "conflict of interests"?  Your actions effected the outcome of a tournament you were an interested party in, you "respectfully" altered the outcome to suit your view on what should have happened.  You don't see a total lack of respect for the entire tournament, the judge and all of the other players who were in contention at this point and were effected by your decision?  What about the people that nate played in rounds 3 and 4 who he wouldn't have played otherwise?  They might have won against another opponent.  Hell, one of them might have even won the whole tournament.  By stepping in AFTER the ruling had been made, you've destroyed the integrity of the entire tournament.  I don't think "disrespectful" to the judge and the TO even begins to cover your actions.

@Nate: dude....there is essentially no excuse for not being able to count to 4.  you're 17 years old, if you can't count to 4 give up, go home.  The inability to fill in a deck reg sheet correctly requires this 1 skill.  that's it.  All you have to do is go through your deck and count how many coppies of each card you have.  Then check it over and make sure you did it right.  You have essentially unlimited time to do this problem.  If you need more time, show up earlier or prepare your decklist the night before.  Deck reg errors for constructed events are entirely avoidable and have nothing to do with algebra.

[Shock Wave]

The major offense in this particular instance was Nate's reaction to the judge's ruling, which he has recognized as inappropriate.  Though he has apologized for his failure to accurately complete his deck sheet, he still has yet to apologize for his unsporting conduct.

I consider it to be every player's responsibility to assist the judge in ensuring a fair tournament. This includes notifying the judge of errors without being disrespectful or arguing with the judge. At no point during this tournament did I disrespect the judge or organizer (or any player for that matter).  Neither did I "immerse" myself in the situation. I asked a question about whether or not a penalty was issued in order to help ensure a fair event. The judge responded by issuing the penalty he felt was appropriate.  Nate argued with him and the judge upgraded the penalty.  Nate continued to argue with him, in an increasingly belligerent fashion, and with assistance from an individual entirely outside the tournament.  Beyond posing the question to the judge, I did not pursue the issue any further.  I allowed the judge to make the ruling he felt was appropriate after politely voicing my concerns. I continued to play in the tournament and did not enter into the argument between Nate, the judge, and associated parties.

you mean after you stepped in and got nate removed from the field following a valid final decision by the judge that you didn't agree with?  After that you didn't do anything?  oh....my mistake.  your conduct was entirely appropriate. 

Dude...you told a judge in an event you were PLAYING IN to change his call.  The somewhat mind-boggling facts that no one ever told this judge that his rulings, once made, are final and never to judge retroactively asside, it is ENTIRELY inappropriate for a player to step in after a judge has RULED ON AN ISSUE, and correct his ruling.  You can bitch about it later all you want, but if you expect a player not to be pissed that 2 or 3 rounds later he got notified that in fact, he actually got assessed a penalty other than what the judge told him because YOU, Mr. Yarrington, took it upon yourself to tell the judge to change his call.  How, exactly, does it ensure a fair event when rather than having a judge who is uninvolved in the tournament as the final authority on rules issues we have players joining in to cause rulings to be what the players think they should be?  Doesn't that border kinda heavily on the textbook definition of "conflict of interests"?  Your actions effected the outcome of a tournament you were an interested party in, you "respectfully" altered the outcome to suit your view on what should have happened.  You don't see a total lack of respect for the entire tournament, the judge and all of the other players who were in contention at this point and were effected by your decision?  What about the people that nate played in rounds 3 and 4 who he wouldn't have played otherwise?  They might have won against another opponent.  Hell, one of them might have even won the whole tournament.  By stepping in AFTER the ruling had been made, you've destroyed the integrity of the entire tournament.  I don't think "disrespectful" to the judge and the TO even begins to cover your actions.

@Nate: dude....there is essentially no excuse for not being able to count to 4.  you're 17 years old, if you can't count to 4 give up, go home.  The inability to fill in a deck reg sheet correctly requires this 1 skill.  that's it.  All you have to do is go through your deck and count how many coppies of each card you have.  Then check it over and make sure you did it right.  You have essentially unlimited time to do this problem.  If you need more time, show up earlier or prepare your decklist the night before.  Deck reg errors for constructed events are entirely avoidable and have nothing to do with algebra.

I would like to echo the sentiments of this post. If the accounts of Mr.Pease are accurate (not specifically this one instance), then I agree that he is guilty of flagrant douche-baggery and I would certianly recommended TOs to disallow him from playing for an extended period of time. That being said, if I were in his position at this particular event, I would be flaming pissed as well. Obviously it is never appropriate to be disrespectful, but I would've made sure, as politely as possible, that all the relevant people at that venue were aware that Mr.Yarrington's seemingly altruistic behaviour is in fact one of the highest forms of tournament douche-baggery. I find it uncanny that Mr.Yarrington fails to see how/why his actions were extremely inappropriate.

[Dxfiler]

Dan Yarrington is taking a ridiculous amount of flack over this.  I wasn't there, so I don't know if he was or was not out of line, but consider this:

Whether or not he was out of line in questioning the judge, Dan clearly had good intentions.  If the judging is blatantly off, any inexperienced judge should be happy to get advice from someone who's been doing it right for years.  No, it wasn't Dan's tourney, and the head judges ruling is final... the problem with that is that head judges can be wrong.  There have been plenty of cases where the head judge has changed his ruling after realizing he was incorrect.  Last years Japanese Nationals are a perfect example of this.  The title of Japanese National champ was decided on a bad ruling, and after the title was awarded the judge went back and realized he was incorrect.  They actually went back to recreate the game with the right ruling actually in place. The end result was a different japanese national champion.

That's the most controversial and well known one I can think of, but I think it could defniitely be applied here.  Just like Nate, the recipient of the changed ruling was NOT happy.  He effectively lost the title since the game was replayed out and he did not win.  He ended up relinquishing his spot on the Japaense Nats team. 

Do I blame that individual for being upset?  No.  Do I blame the judge for wanting to not decide the title of his country's national champion on a bum ruling?  Also no.

The fact of the matter is bad rulings happen.  Some are so egreiously bad that they should absolutely be corrected if brought to the judges attention in time.  The judge  at Beanie clearly should have given Nate a game loss earlier in the tournament.  He did not.  The way in which the penalties were eventually applied were awkward, to the say the least.  I don't blame Nate for being upset, but the root of the problem started with Nate.  He dodged a penalty that snowballed into worse things.  Whether he knowingly dodged the penalty or not is moot.  The point is Nate knew that his infraction came with a standard penalty of a game loss, so when he eventually received a penalty for it he shouldn't have been casuing a riot.  Game losses for misregistering decks suck, but they happen, and they can be easily avoided.  This entire mess could have potentially been avoided if Nate just checked his deck.     

- Dave Feinstein

[LotusHead]

Quote from: iamfishman
Nate was banned due to his repeated unsporting conduct.

From what happened outside your store? So You're saying that for instance I was you, and you witnessed a guy at Starcitygames get DQed time after time You'd ban him on the spot solely because of his attitude AT ANOTHER tournament.

Sanctioned DCI Vintage tournies have the DCI to handle all this stuff.

We 10 Proxy Vintage players do NOT have the DCI to handle all of this stuff.

We are, however, Magic Fans and we love this format.  We have to self police.

Nate means nothing to people not in Nate's meta, but a criterion for banning someone from these non-sanctioned games is under discussion.  In my meta, a different Nate was "banned" but only for a time, from some other tournament, by the actions of an entirely different person.  Our meta banned this player.  It was harsh, but correct.

A "Time Limit" for banning is also correct.  If TMD can forgive banned players after a time, the Vintage Community can forgive after a time.

I haven't played T1 in 3 months (in a tourney setting), and don't expect to for another 2 months (my meta is seasonal...),
A six month or 1 year ban is better than forever ban.

[dicemanx]

In conclusion, I guess that Ray is right. That this thread is bigger than me. I guess I'm just the lucky target. From StarCity Champion and Vintage All-Star to outcast and martyr. If I have to be banned so you can send a message out to the vintage community, than so be it.

I'd imagine that if you wanted to reverse the decisions made against you, it is entirely in your power. Only you are accountable for your actions, and you have demonstrated that you have a pattern for repeating certain offenses which have led you to this (unfortunate) point. While we can dissect Mr. Yarrington's conduct and try and determine if it was appropriate or a case of douche-baggery, or whether the penalty levied against you was based on cheating or something else, it ultimately doesn't matter at this point. The only question is whether you want to try to own up to your errors and make things right, or whether you like to be some self professed "martyr" and be bitter about it as the above quote reflects. You have too much talent and aptitude for the game to give up like that.

[Vegeta2711]

Not knowing how to count to 4 and 60 after passing (or even failing) the 1st grade and the use of the word 'martyr' is a great way to completely eliminate any leniency or sympathy just on the count of general stupidity.

[Machinus]

StarCity Champion and Vintage All-Star

I think the point of this thread is that your success was not achieved legitimately, and that therefore those titles were not appropriate to begin with.

[LotusHead]

StarCity Champion and Vintage All-Star

I think the point of this thread is that your success was not achieved legitimately, and that therefore those titles were not appropriate to begin with.

I disagree.

I have had my decklist lacking, twice.
and faced an opponent or two with a decklist lacking.


When it was my fault, time #1, I had a SB meta slot that didn't get put to paper at the last moment.
D'oh!

Time #2, it was a NorCal Casual Shop Tourney for fun.  My -4 card list was discoverd before game three. I was given no penalty because: A) I was play ing Crushing Chamber, B) my list lacked 4 Cranial Platings and C) I was 0-2 at this point and I wasn't about to walk home with a Shop.
 I actually need one for my gay Welder deck Sideboard (Living Wish, you know...)


The other two infractions were from a T2 Scrub/Netdecker from VACAVILLE who misregistered, and I lost games 2/3. frown. (He lucksacked like a mo-fo. Strip, Tinker, Will, P.Angel, Force, Brainstorm, Lotus, Crypt, yo mama, etc...)

The other I am assuming happened, but I don't know the details.


Lucksacs can win tourneis with broken decks. Skill is involved, yes.
but Lucksackery happens.

I doin't think anyone has accused Nate of anything other than what was claimed in the original post. List Lackery, Judge Defiantry, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Geek Who Plays With Magical Cards but Does Not Need To Care What Hasbro Thinks of It.

Hasbro owns Magic, yes? Phew!!!

[Purple Hat]

Dan Yarrington is taking a ridiculous amount of flack over this.  I wasn't there, so I don't know if he was or was not out of line, but consider this:

Whether or not he was out of line in questioning the judge, Dan clearly had good intentions.  If the judging is blatantly off, any inexperienced judge should be happy to get advice from someone who's been doing it right for years.  No, it wasn't Dan's tourney, and the head judges ruling is final... the problem with that is that head judges can be wrong.  There have been plenty of cases where the head judge has changed his ruling after realizing he was incorrect.  Last years Japanese Nationals are a perfect example of this.  The title of Japanese National champ was decided on a bad ruling, and after the title was awarded the judge went back and realized he was incorrect.  They actually went back to recreate the game with the right ruling actually in place. The end result was a different japanese national champion.

That's the most controversial and well known one I can think of, but I think it could defniitely be applied here.  Just like Nate, the recipient of the changed ruling was NOT happy.  He effectively lost the title since the game was replayed out and he did not win.  He ended up relinquishing his spot on the Japaense Nats team. 

Do I blame that individual for being upset?  No.  Do I blame the judge for wanting to not decide the title of his country's national champion on a bum ruling?  Also no.

The fact of the matter is bad rulings happen.  Some are so egreiously bad that they should absolutely be corrected if brought to the judges attention in time.  The judge  at Beanie clearly should have given Nate a game loss earlier in the tournament.  He did not.  The way in which the penalties were eventually applied were awkward, to the say the least.  I don't blame Nate for being upset, but the root of the problem started with Nate.  He dodged a penalty that snowballed into worse things.  Whether he knowingly dodged the penalty or not is moot.  The point is Nate knew that his infraction came with a standard penalty of a game loss, so when he eventually received a penalty for it he shouldn't have been casuing a riot.  Game losses for misregistering decks suck, but they happen, and they can be easily avoided.  This entire mess could have potentially been avoided if Nate just checked his deck.     

- Dave Feinstein

I'd be fine with it if Dan had complained at the time, but it's like reviewing a call in the NFL.  If the next play has been run, or the next round played in this case, the ruling is over.  I also find it to be slightly suspicious that Dan just happened to notice that Nate lost his first game of round 2 and just happened to not tell the judge at the time when he knew that the mistake had been made.  It was only later when Dan "realized" that a game loss should have been given out in round 2 and "oh, by the way, I saw Nate lose game 1 of round 2 so that should be a match loss."  Wait....WHAT!?!?  This is not only an acceptable, but, in fact, a DESIREABLE way for players to act?  Players acting in this manner results in total anarchy.  Yes, the judge should have given Nate a game loss, and yes, there's no excuse for misregistering your deck, and yes, the judge shouldn't have changed the results, but none of that excuses the fact that Dan, a PLAYER, stepped in well after the fact and caused the judge to change his ruling, and none of that changes the fact that JUDGES AND NOT PLAYERS are responsible for the rulings in an event.  We all might complain that a judge ruled time walk misdirectable or that drawing off your blocked cutpurse and shuffling your hand results in "shuffle your hand into your deck and draw the number of cards you had before you drew" but it is not the place of players to 2 rounds later be like "JUDGE!!! my friend's opponent should have gotten a gameloss in round 2, and since he lost game 1 of that round should have lost that match and therefore my friend shouldn't have to deal with him."  Such behavior is so inappropriate that it makes me want to break out the Mike Tyson words, and no one wants to see that.

Hale

EDIT: also rereading the story about the Japanese Nationals it appears that the judge was able to reconstruct the original game state prior to the mistake and then have the players replay the match from that point on.  That's entirely different from this case as by the time Dan told the judge it was impossible to correct the tournament.  in this case resetting the tournament would have resulted in replaying rounds 3 and 4.  That's insane.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

The head judge, whether being sheldon marey or some random idiot (not insulting the judge in this thread) is ALWAYS RIGHT ALWAYS ALWAYS.

Even if he makes a call or decision you don't like, the basic principle of him always being right HAS to exist in order for the game/tournement to advance.

Being that I wasn't there I can't specifically judge/comment but i'd like to say this:

1. Players can take the judge ASIDE and tell him about their concerns about an error in gameplay, tournemet organization, or violations (for example someone was issued a warning or procedural error and the player notifes the judge that he had already recieved one earlier).

2.  The players can not discuss another player's recieved penalty to the judge, espeically after the judge has ruled.  Being that it is unsanctioned and the judge may be new if you caught him before he made his decision letting him know of DCI policy or whatever is fine but after the ruling comes down its over. This option also DOES NOT afford you the right to appeal to the head judge (or in this case discus as to why he should recieve the penalty). You only have the ability to give him the straight facts and let im decide on the punishment.


About him being banned at OTHER events, thats another story.  Like i've been falsely accused before, but if this is not the first time an incident occured the probability of him actually cheating increases. Vintage is unsanctioned so its responsibility of the TO's to ban people.  And nate, being sloppy doesn't no matter how old,young,smart,dumb you are is not an excuse.  If you can't follow the basic rules of tournement play then stick to casual games.

[Myriad Games]

Those who were not at this event will naturally have a more difficult time accurately assessing what happened since they did not bear witness to it themselves. I have carefully and honestly explained what occurred that day.  With regard to the discussion on judging, I agree that the head judge is the final authority in all events.  I notified the judge about the error.  I did not demand that he change his ruling.  I asked him if a standard penalty had been used in a previous round.  If the judge had clarified that he had not given Nate a game loss for his deck registration error, I would not have been happy, but I would not have berated him either.  He was the judge of this event, for better or worse.  I explained my concerns to him and let him make his own ruling.  If I was out of line in my conduct, the judge would certainly have informed me. He did not. He did in fact apologize for his error and made the decision himself on how to rectify it.  It was not the best implementation of the penalty, but it was his decision to make.  I would be happy to hear more from people who were actually at the tournament who can corroborate events as they occurred.  The contradictory account of my conduct as unbecoming comes from the player who was negatively impacted by a penalty that he earned himself for an error in deck registration.  Consider the source.

None of this changes the fact that Nate's frequent, consistent, unsporting conduct at a variety of events is the cause for his banned status, not suspicion of cheating, nor deck registration errors, nor any other infractions he may have committed.  This fact has not been disputed.

[Purple Hat]

Those who were not at this event will naturally have a more difficult time accurately assessing what happened since they did not bear witness to it themselves. I have carefully and honestly explained what occurred that day.  With regard to the discussion on judging, I agree that the head judge is the final authority in all events.  I notified the judge about the error.  I did not demand that he change his ruling.  I asked him if a standard penalty had been used in a previous round.  If the judge had clarified that he had not given Nate a game loss for his deck registration error, I would not have been happy, but I would not have berated him either.  He was the judge of this event, for better or worse.  I explained my concerns to him and let him make his own ruling.  If I was out of line in my conduct, the judge would certainly have informed me. He did not. He did in fact apologize for his error and made the decision himself on how to rectify it.  It was not the best implementation of the penalty, but it was his decision to make.  I would be happy to hear more from people who were actually at the tournament who can corroborate events as they occurred.  The contradictory account of my conduct as unbecoming comes from the player who was negatively impacted by a penalty that he earned himself for an error in deck registration.  Consider the source.

When, exactly, was I negatively impacted by a penalty that I earned myself for an error in my deck registration?  Your conduct was inappropriate REGARDLESS of Nate's actions, I characterized your conduct as such long before I ever heard nate's account, you can find my post to that effect on page 1, made a full day before Nate posted his account anywhere.  Note that Nate's post quotes the posts of other posters....are you seriously claiming that the assertion that your actions were inappropriate originated from Nate's post despite this somewhat damning evidence that it didn't?


Now let's consider the source of your claims that your actions were appropriate.  Since the source of those claimes appears to be....uh...you....I assume you can see my problem.  You started this thread thinking "I did this thing and it was right and this other guy was doing these things and they were wrong, and I punished him for it."  But now you're discovering that perhaps this isn't as black and white as you thought it was, and perhaps there is enough wrongdoing here to spread around to all involved parties, not only the "bad man" but also the "hero" of this story, namely you.

PLAYERS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE JUDGE'S RULINGS AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.  If you are unable to act in an appropriate manner as a PLAYER in a tournament, which, among other things means keeping your opinion of the judging to yourself once a ruling has been made, then perhaps you also should be banned from events until such a time as you are able to demonstrate the ability to act constructively in your role as a PLAYER rather than tearing down the structure of the event.  Everyone else agrees, as a condition for the tournament, that the judge will be the final authority on all rules issues throughout the course of the event.  The judge's decision HAS to be absolute for the purposes of the event, otherwise there can be no event. 


Asside from that, you cannot have it both ways:
EITHER the judge was aware of what was appropriate or he was not.  Assuming that the judge was aware of what the appropriate penalties for actions were and what appropriate judge-player interactions were, then Nate is clearly not guilty of Unsportsmanlike - Serious as the judge, well aware of what was appropriate, felt that Nate's conduct was acceptable, in which case your assertion that "Nate was clearly guilty of Unsportsmanlike - Serious and I am therefore banning him from my events" is clearly flawed, OR the judge was not able to make distinctions about the appropriateness of judge-player interactions and thus couldn't have been expected to inform you that your actions were inappropriate. 

EITHER the judge is the final authority on all decisions and it was thus inappropriate for you to step in after a decision had been made and tell him it was wrong (the final authority, by definition, cannot be wrong) OR the judge is not the final authority and it was your place to act as a higher authority and inform him that his decision was incorrect.  It simply cannot be both.

None of this changes the fact that Nate's frequent, consistent, unsporting conduct at a variety of events is the cause for his banned status, not suspicion of cheating, nor deck registration errors, nor any other infractions he may have committed.  This fact has not been disputed.

You are entirely within your rights to ban Nate from your tournaments, and this action is entirely appropriate for a TO who feels a player, for any reason, deserves to be banned.  We can say your reason isn't good enough (by the way I don't think it isn't, players also cannot be allowed to bribe other players) but it is your decision to make.  It is a shame that you are unable to allow the same consideration to the officials at tournaments you attend as a player.

I'd also like to point out the following quote from your original post:

Having just awarded three game losses the previous day for the same error – three people forgetting to write down a complete decklist – I had little sympathy.  This sort of error can be easily avoided by proper preparation before the event.  It is crucial that the penalty for this type of infraction be as severe as a game loss due to the potential for abuse through fraud.

While this is certainly relevant as to whether you would be sympathetic if Nate got a game loss why the hell does it matter at all what the penalty in your store is if someone commits an infraction if you are playing in a different store?  This is like you showing up at a 5 proxy tournament with a 10 proxy deck and getting called for it and then being like "well....at my events it's always 10 proxy" and feeling like:
A) this is, in some way a valid argument for allowing the use of 10 proxies in this tournament, and
B) it's entirely appropriate for you to make that argument.

Clearly in your tournaments, as in most, deck reg error = game loss.  In this tournament, however, you were not a decisionmaker, it was someone else's call, and you didn't agree with it.  Well...that sucks, but oddly enough the fact that you do it differently at your tournaments doesn't actually give you the right to step in an change someone else's event.

[Myriad Games]

To clarify, the contradictory personal account I refer to was Nate's, since he is the primary source cited by those who were not at the event themselves.  Naturally he would feel that my actions were inappropriate since they resulted in him receiving a penalty for an error that he admits to committing and not rectifying after the judge requested that he do so. Questioning a ruling is not the same as arguing against a ruling. I am sure that others that were present at the event will concur that my actions were appropriate and not disrespectful of the judge or the tournament.

As specified in my original post, I did not take this action lightly.  I feel it is entirely necessary to punish such repeated instances of unsporting conduct.  We agree that severe unsporting conduct at multiple events is reason enough for banning. The vast majority of players prefer to know that they are playing in an atmosphere that actively discourages unsporting behavior in order to ensure their enjoyment of a fair game.

With respect to those who object to the unspecified duration of Nate's banning, let me explain my reasoning.  I do not feel comfortable allowing Nate to play at our events until I see evidence that he has reformed his behavior.  Since he has not even expressed regret over his actions, only over the fact that he was caught, I do not feel it proper to simply put him in temporary suspension.  If and when Nate sincerely apologizes for his unsporting conduct, I will reconsider his banned status.

[Purple Hat]

How is it not arguing against a judge's ruling to question it after he's made a decision?  It doesn't matter that you did it politely, once he rules, that's final.  It shows a total lack of respect for judges rulings to question them after they've been made.  The fact that you question the ruling assumes that the judge's "final decision" may not, in fact, be final.  How you go about it doesn't matter.  Once the ruling is made it is out of line for players to continue to attempt to convince the judge, however politely, to change his ruling.  If I went to one of your events and you made a ruling about a game I wasn't involved in and 2 rounds later I walked over and said "Excuse me, Mr. Yarrington, sir, sorry to bother you, but it appears to me that you were mistaken here and I think you should change your ruling" that's still disrespectful of the judge's position as the final authority on rules issues.

additionally I have yet to cite Nate's account.  I've cited your account....is your account flawed in some significant way other than that you seem to feel that players have a responsibility to try and change a judge's mind after he's made a decision they don't like?  My issue has nothing to do with the politeness with which you do it.  The head judge at an event is responsible for making decisions on rules issues including, but not limited to, enforcement.  Once such a decision has been made it is ENTIRELY inappropriate for a player to step in and attempt to change his mind.  How does "I politely asked a question and informed the judge that he had made a mistake" argue that your actions were appropriate by this standard?

Nothing about how politely you phrased it changes the fact that you attempted to change the mind of the head judge of an event after the ruling had been made.  Do you have to pay extra to get the right to bend the rules of the tournament to fit your sense of propriety, or do they give you that for free?

[Moxlotus]

How is it not arguing against a judge's ruling to question it after he's made a decision?

I don't know about you, but I ask judges why they made rulings before while I was playing in tournaments.  I've even asked "you gave this person a game loss, but last week someone else did X and only got a warning--why?"  In all cases I've done that the judges clearly explained to me their thought process and explained the difference in rulings between the 2 weeks.  Asking questions !=arguing.

[Shock Wave]

How is it not arguing against a judge's ruling to question it after he's made a decision?

I don't know about you, but I ask judges why they made rulings before while I was playing in tournaments.  I've even asked "you gave this person a game loss, but last week someone else did X and only got a warning--why?"  In all cases I've done that the judges clearly explained to me their thought process and explained the difference in rulings between the 2 weeks.  Asking questions !=arguing.

Asking a question with the intention of convincing a judge to change his decision is absolutely wrong. Clearly, this was Mr.Yarrington's intention.

"Hey, Mr.Judge, are you *sure* that you made ruling X?"

This is NOT an appropriate question, especially towards a new judge, especially under circumstances where the state of the tournament/game cannot be properly reconstructed. If the TOs decided that having a newbie judge was appropriate, that's their problem. However, that does not mean that it is all of a sudden appropriate to overrule the judge's decisions when he/she is wrong, or that it is appropriate to try to influence a judge's decision so that they change their mind.

[Moxlotus]

How is it not arguing against a judge's ruling to question it after he's made a decision?

I don't know about you, but I ask judges why they made rulings before while I was playing in tournaments.  I've even asked "you gave this person a game loss, but last week someone else did X and only got a warning--why?"  In all cases I've done that the judges clearly explained to me their thought process and explained the difference in rulings between the 2 weeks.  Asking questions !=arguing.

Asking a question with the intention of convincing a judge to change his decision is absolutely wrong. Clearly, this was Mr.Yarrington's intention.

"Hey, Mr.Judge, are you *sure* that you made ruling X?"

This is NOT an appropriate question, especially towards a new judge, especially under circumstances where the state of the tournament/game cannot be properly reconstructed. If the TOs decided that having a newbie judge was appropriate, that's their problem. However, that does not mean that it is all of a sudden appropriate to overrule the judge's decisions when he/she is wrong, or that it is appropriate to try to influence a judge's decision so that they change their mind.

Oh, i completely agree.  I was responding to purple's post which had rewritten the following quote about 5 times in different ways:

The fact that you question the ruling assumes that the judge's "final decision" may not, in fact, be final.

Now I don't know exactly how Dan questioned the judge.  If it was "why didn't you give him a game loss for the deck misreg.  That's usually the standard penalty"--I see nothing wrong.  Its asking a question and I would expect an answer.  I've asked questiosn similar to this before.  I'm not questioning the judge's ruling in an attempt to change it--I'm simply asking a question to get information that might be useful in the future.  Even if the answer was "whoops, didn't realize that." as long as Dan didn't do anything else to insist upon correcton of said mistake I don't see what the big deal is.

[Myriad Games]

The difference between asking a question and arguing is significant.  Asking if a judge enforced a penalty or what a particular ruling was is entirely different than actively arguing with the judge. I posed the question in as direct and unbiased a way as I could muster.  I asked the question out of confusion as to why Nate had not received what is generally considered a standard penalty for a standard infraction.

[Purple Hat]

so....there's a big difference between asking a question like "what did you do with nate?" and asking a question like "normally nate would have gotten a game loss, why didn't he?"  the first question is actually unbiased and seeks information about the ruling.  the second implies that the judge owes you an explaination for his deviation from the normal routine of things.  questioning a decision and asking what a decision was are entirely different things.  What did you ask dan?

[iamfishman]

I will continue to try to remain unbiased in this discussion, especially with how heated it has become.

What I will say is that this thread has seemed to go off topic with a discussion of semantics between Hale and Dan.  This is not to say that the discussion they are having is not one that shouldn't be had, but it has gotten to the point where I believe it would be better served as one kept to pm.  Why? 

Even though Hale and Dan are on opposite sides of an argument, I worry that there might be things that have been said by people in this and the SCG thread that are simply inflamatory and based on assumption, in many cases between people who were not there.

I am NOT simply telling people who weren't there to shut up.  However, I think it should be noted that anyone who wasn't there shouldn't make statements with the certainty of fact, when in many cases I have read things that people stateted very matter-of-factly that were blatently wrong(speaking from someone who was there all the times the infractions by Nate occured.)

Accordingly, I don't expect Hale and Dan to see eye to eye, yet I certainly think if they could focus their conversation in a more appropriate (1 on 1) forum, then at least they could agree on what went down, of which Dan knows for sure, and Hale is trying to determine.

[Purple Hat]

I tend to agree with ray about the PM thing, sorry for sidetracking the conversation in this thread so much, it just seemed to me that there were more than enough inappropriate actions here to go around, and not all of them were being acknowledged

[Shock Wave]

I will continue to try to remain unbiased in this discussion, especially with how heated it has become.

What I will say is that this thread has seemed to go off topic with a discussion of semantics between Hale and Dan.  This is not to say that the discussion they are having is not one that shouldn't be had, but it has gotten to the point where I believe it would be better served as one kept to pm.  Why? 

Even though Hale and Dan are on opposite sides of an argument, I worry that there might be things that have been said by people in this and the SCG thread that are simply inflamatory and based on assumption, in many cases between people who were not there.

I am NOT simply telling people who weren't there to shut up.  However, I think it should be noted that anyone who wasn't there shouldn't make statements with the certainty of fact, when in many cases I have read things that people stateted very matter-of-factly that were blatently wrong(speaking from someone who was there all the times the infractions by Nate occured.)

Accordingly, I don't expect Hale and Dan to see eye to eye, yet I certainly think if they could focus their conversation in a more appropriate (1 on 1) forum, then at least they could agree on what went down, of which Dan knows for sure, and Hale is trying to determine.

I respectfully disagree. You can't open a thread with the intention of making the community aware of the banning of a certain individual, and then expect people to reserve their opinions on the events which led up to that player's dismissal.

Since this scenario seems to be the "final straw" that has resulted in Nate's banning, and since I believe that the decisions made by Mr.Yarrington were inappropriate and certainly relevant to the outcome of the situation, I don't think I am out of line in voicing my opinion.

[iamfishman]

I will continue to try to remain unbiased in this discussion, especially with how heated it has become.

What I will say is that this thread has seemed to go off topic with a discussion of semantics between Hale and Dan.  This is not to say that the discussion they are having is not one that shouldn't be had, but it has gotten to the point where I believe it would be better served as one kept to pm.  Why? 

Even though Hale and Dan are on opposite sides of an argument, I worry that there might be things that have been said by people in this and the SCG thread that are simply inflamatory and based on assumption, in many cases between people who were not there.

I am NOT simply telling people who weren't there to shut up.  However, I think it should be noted that anyone who wasn't there shouldn't make statements with the certainty of fact, when in many cases I have read things that people stateted very matter-of-factly that were blatently wrong(speaking from someone who was there all the times the infractions by Nate occured.)

Accordingly, I don't expect Hale and Dan to see eye to eye, yet I certainly think if they could focus their conversation in a more appropriate (1 on 1) forum, then at least they could agree on what went down, of which Dan knows for sure, and Hale is trying to determine.

I respectfully disagree. You can't open a thread with the intention of making the community aware of the banning of a certain individual, and then expect people to reserve their opinions on the events which led up to that player's dismissal.

Since this scenario seems to be the "final straw" that has resulted in Nate's banning, and since I believe that the decisions made by Mr.Yarrington were inappropriate and certainly relevant to the outcome of the situation, I don't think I am out of line in voicing my opinion.

Oh no...voice away...just make sure the facts are straight...that's all.

[Shock Wave]

The difference between asking a question and arguing is significant.  Asking if a judge enforced a penalty or what a particular ruling was is entirely different than actively arguing with the judge. I posed the question in as direct and unbiased a way as I could muster.  I asked the question out of confusion as to why Nate had not received what is generally considered a standard penalty for a standard infraction.

There's no way to determine what your intention was, regardless of whether or not the people questioning your intent were at the event or not. You can easily manipulate your question to suit your agenda. I'm not saying that this is what you did, but that's besides the point. If you feel that a judge's decision is incorrect, you should consult with the HJ and have him make a decision about what to do. If this is not possible, you should accept the judge's decision as final and leave any further discussion for after the event, especially in a scenario where the state of the game or the event is irreversible.

I have to ask you what the point of confronting the judge was, if at the time, you knew that it would be absolutely inappropriate to take any further action anyways? At that point in the tournament, what difference did it make if Nate had been given a game loss earlier in the event? It's not as if Nate should be penalized for the judge's deficiency. Instead, you asked a question where the answer had no benefit to the circumstances at hand and could only serve to complicate the situation further. You could've easily waited until after the event, especially since you knew that you were dealing with a new judge.

The problem with questioning a judge's decision, especially as a player in an event, is that there is an immediate conflict of interest. It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, it simply isn't your place to get involved. This is why we have judges in the first place. It's a pity that they are human and they screw up, but that's something they can hardly be blamed for. Trust me, I know all about that. However, it is never a player's place to get involved in resolving a problem unless the judge asks you for information.

Correct me if I am wrong:

You asked a judge a question regarding a ruling he had made. You were not entitled to an answer, and the answer to your question could, at best, serve to do nothing more than satisfy your "neutral" inquiry. In the worst cases scenario, it could've escalated the situation towards extremely undesirable circumstances.

Would you not agree that since your involvement indicates an immediate conflict of interest (even if you claim your intentions to be for the greater good), and since nothing beneficial could possibly have resulted as a result of your question, that it was inappropriate to ask it in the first place?