Nate Pease - Banned

[Myriad Games]

On Sunday, December 10th, at the Beanie Exchange in West Springfield, MA, I witnessed inexcusable unsportsmanlike behavior.  Here is a summary of the events, as they occurred that day. 

During Round 1 round, Mr. Pease’s opponent called the judge when he discovered that his opponent did not have 60 cards in his deck.  Being as Mr. Pease usually plays 61 cards, this was not particularly odd, but I was glad his opponent felt comfortable calling the judge for a deck check.  The judge came over and counted the deck in question, noting that there were 61 cards.  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. Since we had 5 rounds of Swiss, if he lost the first game in the next round, he would most likely be out of contention.  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. Bottom line: make sure you prepare your decklist ahead of time and triple-check it.

During Round 2, Mr. Pease was seated just two seats down from my table playing against a Dragon player.  The Dragon player won the 1st game, and I realized that Mr. Pease was now 0-2 due to the aforementioned game loss for an illegal main decklist. My match in Round 2 went to time and drew, and I started in on Round 3 immediately thereafter.  After that match completed, I checked the standings to see how everyone was doing.  Mr. Pease was 2-1.  How does one go from being 0-2 to being 2-1?  Then I realized that he must have won the second two games in Round 2, without informing his opponent that he received a game loss for have an illegal decklist.  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, but Mr. Pease, a player who is not without some experience in this area, knowingly concealed this information from his opponent. 

I asked the judge if the decklist in question indeed had 54 cards on it when he checked it during Round 1.  He mumbled something and wandered back toward the decklists.  He pulled up the decklist, informed Dave, the store owner, of the situation, and they counted the decklist together.  The decklist still contained 54 cards.  Rather than disqualify Mr. Pease as a penalty for duplicity, the judge decided to give him the match loss for Round 3 to make up for the match loss he would have received in Round 2.  Mr. Pease was naturally unhappy with this, since it would put him out of contention.  He admitted that the judge had told him he needed to update his decklist and that he was aware of the error after Round 1.  He attempted to argue that since the judge had not informed him that he would receive a game loss, he could not retroactively apply the penalty.  This argument only served to inflame the situation.  The judge came up to me afterward and apologized for his error.  The pairings for Round 4 went up shortly thereafter.  During the following round, there was a heated altercation that only worsened the atmosphere.  During Round 4, Mr. Pease apparently called a friend of his on the phone to come to the store in order to argue with the judge on his behalf.  The dispute continued into Round 5.  There was literally a shouting match between the judge, Mr. Pease, Mr. Pease’s comrade, and Dave, the kindly owner of the Beanie Exchange.  The yelling distracted my opponent, James, since he was facing that direction during our match. 

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 instead remained on the premises, complaining while playing poker, for the remainder of the event.  Several people that were still at the tournament at that point declared that they would not be coming back for future events due to this occurrence.  While I was not so hasty to abandon The Beanie Exchange, I do recognize that I would be sorely pressed to justify coming to another tournament that I knew Mr. Nate Pease would be attending. 

For the situation recounted above, there are two particular penalties of interest within the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

153.  Unsporting Conduct—Severe

Definition
Severe unsporting conduct is defined as behavior that is disruptive to a player or players at a tournament, causes delays, and may include any form of physical contact or significant emotional distress.

Example:  A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a judge after the judge has made a final ruling.

Penalty
Unsporting Conduct—Severe
All Levels: Disqualification without prize

Philosophy
The head judge is the final authority on what constitutes unsporting conduct.

Mr. Pease was clearly guilty of Unsporting Conduct - Severe, by continuing to argue with the judge for nearly two hours (during Rounds 4 and 5), after the judge had rendered his final ruling, in a manner that was both belligerent and disruptive of the tournament. 
 
163.  Cheating—Fraud

Definition
A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information.
   
Penalty
Cheating—Fraud
All Levels: Disqualification without prize

Philosophy
There should be zero tolerance for this type of activity.

If Mr. Pease knew that he was playing with an illegal decklist and misrepresented relevant tournament information, including failing to notify his opponent that he had received a game loss, then he would be guilty of Cheating – Fraud.  The responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the tournament lies with both the judge and the players.

Suspension or banning is a stern solution to a serious problem and requires some contemplation.  It is not to be done lightly or without sufficient cause.  When used, it should be necessary to avoid future issues of the same sort. I have contemplated the situation ever since this unfortunate event.  This clear evidence of severe unsporting conduct, heavy suspicion of cheating, and an utter lack of remorse over his actions, along with previous instances of unsporting conduct at events is sufficient to warrant the banning of Mr. Nate Pease from all future Myriad Games tournaments. 

May all your opponents be kind, gracious, and polite, and may you never have to deal with unsporting behavior or cheating.  I know that I will endeavor to continue to comport myself in a professional manner while playing and hosting tournaments.  I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[iamfishman]

I can get very passionate about how much I hate cheaters and how much of one
Nate is.

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.

Fact: Nate was notified that the DCI has the following policy:
40.   REPEAT OFFENSES
The recommended penalty for the first offense is listed in the "Penalty" portion
of each infraction.  For the second offense of the same infraction, the next
highest penalty is recommended.  Note that this increase of penalty does not
take into consideration the penalties assigned to other RELs, but instead
follows the order of:

Caution—Warning—Game Loss—Match Loss—Disqualification

If a baseline penalty is a warning, the second offense should receive a game
loss, and the third offense should receive a match loss.  For example, at REL 1
a player's penalty for the first offense of Card Drawing—Looking at Extra Cards
would be a caution.  The player's penalty for a second offense would be the next
highest, which is a warning.  His or her third offense would result in a game
loss, fourth offense a match loss, and fifth offense would result in the
player's disqualification.

Disqualifications that are the result of accumulated infractions are not without
prize.

At lower RELs, judges may find it more appropriate, in the interest of
education, to repeat a level of penalty before escalating to the next level.

   Nate was informed that I would be consistent with this policy based on his
records, and all future offenses (especially decklist errors) may result in
penalties above and beyond those normally prescribed by the penalty guidelines.

Fact: At TMC Open 1: Nate Pease offered $40 in exchange for a concession from
his opponent during the last round of play.  This would be bad enough (and I’m
certainly not lessening the significance of this very serious infraction) but
what makes the issue unbelievable is that Nate NEVER even paid the person.  I
only find this out recently, unfortunately, or I could have done something then.

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.

Based on these facts alone, it is a wonder that Nate is even allowed in
tournaments, but when put in conjunction with the many times people have accused
him of cheating but unfortunately could not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt,
Nate will from this point forward, be banned from any event that I run.  This
includes TMD Open, TMC Open, and TML Open.

Nate’s action unfortunately may have hurt Dave’s business.  I very sincerely am
asking those of you out there two things:

1.) If you are a player who would play at the Beanie Exchange, please don’t let
this event keep you from going to the store for tournament.  We are very lucky
to have a great guy like Dave running events, and we should show him our
support.  Nate was the reason the event left a sour taste in your mouth, not
Dave or his establishment. 
2.) If you run events, consider also banning Nate Pease from your events.  Doing
so will send a very clear message to the Type 1 community that our format is NOT
one where cheaters are welcome.  Let’s work together and keep Vintage events
from turning into a breeding pool for corruption and deception.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Ray

[Demonic Attorney]

This thread was posted as a service to the community and as a forum to discuss this issue in a calm, rational, and adultlike manner.  Everyone planning to post in this thread should be advised that it will be watched very closely by the moderators and there will be ZERO TOLERANCE for baiting or flaming in this thread.

[Komatteru]

I have had no experiences, obviously, with this matter, but I have heard stories of this.

Two thoughts:
1) I am disppointed that someone would cheat in Vintage.  This is a format where we compete for fun and honor/respect.  There's no real money to be had here, and even the glory is limited to a couple of message boards with a few thousand people.  It's shameful that someone would blatantly take advantage of the trust the Vintage community has for each other--it is very rare that judges are called over to investigate such things.

2) I am very glad that action was taken.  Since we don't have the DCI to take care of this for us, it's good to see that TOs have taken this matter into their own hands, and are willing to ban players who knowingly cheat.

Star City Games should also be made aware of these events.  I have faith that SCG would also support a ban endorsed by Ray Robillard.

but when put in conjunction with the many times people have accused
him of cheating but unfortunately could not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt,

Actually, the DCI policy does not require such high scrutiny.  In fact, "reasonable doubt" takes the opposite effect when it comes to these matters.  If a judge thinks that a player is attempting to cheat, then an automatic DQ is warranted.  51% sure is the number you'll hear DCI judges mention from time to time.  If there's a reasonable suspicion that the player is cheating, the doubt that he is is irrelevant.  The reason for this is that it's so easy to cheat, and the DCI wants to send a clear message that they do not remotely tolerate cheating or shady behavior.

[Dxfiler]

Alright... I could literally post all day on this particular subject but I'm going to keep it as short as possible.

1) First and foremost- This thread, in my opinion, had absolutely ZERO business being in a public forum.  This is the first time I've ever seen a thread like this allowed openly, and regardless of the subject in question being innocent or guilty, it simply should not be posted publicly.  I understand the case is being made by not one, but two, extremely well known and respected TO's and they felt the need to bring this to the publics attention.  I still look at it as completely ousting someone who may or may not deserve it.  Even if he does deserve it, this isn't the way to go about it.

2) I've witnessed numerous things to believe Nate would do alot of what he's being accused of.  That doesn't mean I come onto a public forum and air it out in a giant thread dedicated to him.  I was not at the Beanie Tourney where the last straw apparently occured, but I've heard from numerous individuals whom I trust that the judging was subpar.   A giant reason I did not attend this tourney was because I felt something was going to go wrong.  I just had a bad feeling about it.  Let me state I support Dave and Beanie 100%, but this was their first tourney back being run by completely new people and if I'm going to travel 2 hours to play in this I want to have the feeling that nothing screwy happens.

3) It's blatantly apparent screwy things happened at this tourney.  It pains me to type that sentence.  Who was to blame is not really an issue in my mind, as I don't see clear cut evidence of Nate deserving these massive bans because the tourney was quite frankly run not up to par with past Beanies.  What if he actually didn't know he had a game loss?  The judge is actually supposed to inform both players.  How do we know for sure that Nate legitimately didn't realize or (just bear with me) forgot?  It is possible.  No one can say for sure in my opinion.  Would I put it past Nate to intentionally not inform his opponent?  No, I wouldn't.  At the Mana Clash we were drawing our opening 7 for game 1 and Brassman, who was judging, informed me that Nate had a game loss for misregistering.  I asked Nate why he didn't tell me...he said he forgot.  I wasn't 100% convinced by this, but I quickly got over it and played my match.  I was able to just move on because the judging was spot on.  The judge came over to double check that the game loss was in effect (this should be done EVERY TIME).  It's clear at the beanie's last tourney, the judging was not even close to spot on.  The regular judge wasn't there, and the new judge just didn't know alot of the procedures.  This is not bashing the judge, but it is conceivable that this entire mess with Nate would be non-existant if the tourney was run by someone who wasn't doing it for the first time.

4)  Retroactively applying the game loss definitely wasn't the way to go about this.  You interview him and figure out exactly what went wrong and where.  If he genuinely didn't realize he had a game loss or didn't think he was getting one, THAT'S NOT HIS FAULT.   Based on the info I have, and going by exactly what Dan typed, it sounded like the judge didn't inform nate of a game loss because he didn't know.  That's the judges fault, not nate.  Maybe the judge didn't want to give a game loss?  This isconceivable, although not justifiable from a judging standpoint.  If I were judging this, I would have given nate a game loss the following round because that is the correct penalty for the original infraction.  Yes, not giving him the game loss last round caused him to win a match he shouldn't have, but that was from the judge not knowing.  You simply apply the proper penalty the next available round... if you think Nate was not duplicitous in nature.  If I deemed that Nate was in fact being deceitful and knew about the game loss, I'd DQ his ass on the spot. 

5) The way the entire situation was handled at Beanie, I'm not surprised things got out of hand.  Based on the info I have on the tournament, I don't think Nate deserves this scrutiny.  This is not the Salem Witch Trials.  Some of what Ray posted as reasons to not admit him to a tourney don't even seem reasonable in my opinion.  So he screwes up on his decklists alot... that's not indicative of cheating.  It means he's sloppy and obviously needs someone to double check his list before he submits it.

6) I actually agree with Nate being banned from tournaments.  Yeah, after everything I posted above you'd think I'd be against it.  I'm not.  The final straw for me personally was the bribing scenario.  I know that went down because the kid who was bribed by Nate came up to me after top 8 and was nearly in tears.  He asked me to speak to Nate and try to get the $40 back.  I informed him that if this actually took place it was illegal on both ends and he should contact Ray.  Apprently he did.  When I heard of this incidentt, I figured Nate's days were numbered. 

In closing, I like Nate Peas, but his actions at many tournaments were definitely inexcuseable.  I'm not sure that Beanie was actually one of those tourneys, but either way I agree with the end result reached by Dan and Ray.  With that said, I 100% do NOT agree with this thread.  It's not the place to discuss this sort of thing.  This could have been done privately and word would have gotten out without a giant circus being created from this thread.  People actually concerened enough about Nate to not attend tourneys (me being one of them), would have found out through word of mouth and order would be restored.  This thread just sets a bar that shouldn't exist in my mind.  What's to stop anyone else from making a thread on someone who they deem to be inappropriate for the community.  What's to stop them from just saying anything for any number of different reasons?  What if personal bias gets in the way of your arguments?  I'm not saying Dan or Ray fall under any of that... I consider them both to be upstanding tourney organizers that the vintage community should feel VERY fortunate to have.  I just don't think they needed to make this thread.

If you allow threads like this to actually be created and not immediately taken down, it's the beginning of the end for the vintage community as we know it.

- Dave Feinstein

[Hi-Val]

With that said, I 100% do NOT agree with this thread.  It's not the place to discuss this sort of thing.  This could have been done privately and word would have gotten out without a giant circus being created from this thread.  People actually concerened enough about Nate to not attend tourneys (me being one of them), would have found out through word of mouth and order would be restored.

You make a very compelling argument for why this thread SHOULD exist. Is it better to have a transparent, open discussion about what happened, with Nate having a chance to publicly respond, or let the rumor mills and, as you said, "word of mouth" be the judge of the event? What's to stop word of mouth from turning into a giant game of Telephone? The moderation staff has discussed this and we are in agreement that this is proper for something of magnitude.

[Methuselahn]

If you allow threads like this to actually be created and not immediately taken down, it's the beginning of the end for the vintage community as we know it.

- Dave Feinstein

Oh man, the sky is falling chicken little.

It's not the place to discuss this sort of thing.  This could have been done privately and word would have gotten out without a giant circus being created from this thread.  People actually concerened enough about Nate to not attend tourneys (me being one of them), would have found out through word of mouth and order would be restored.  This thread just sets a bar that shouldn't exist in my mind.  What's to stop anyone else from making a thread on someone who they deem to be inappropriate for the community.  What's to stop them from just saying anything for any number of different reasons?  What if personal bias gets in the way of your arguments?

I'll just point out the obvious here that the internet is not a democracy.  The masses will not allow other banning threads like this one to regularly spawn because it's governed by a pre chosen set of moderators.  You post here, so you already have faith in the current set of moderation staff.  All of your "what if" questions can be answered by pointing to the moderation staff.

This is hardly a giant circus.  I fully endorse threads like this.  It's time to start ostracizing tier 1 douche-bags.  If you are a TO, a store owner, vintage player, or anybody that cares about vintage, it is your moral duty to cultivate the format's growth.  NOT posting this thread is to allow crap like what Nate apparently pulls to exist.  Threads like this should posted, probably after contacting the moderation staff (which likely happened anyway) in order to circumvent Vintage turning into Standard.  Even if this thread is a stain on the site, it will do more good than bad.  Further, if you are posting on this site regarding banning someone, then it is likely that you are a TO/store owner.  As such, you probably have no desire to incite flames or do anything that would hurt your store's pocketbook.

It means he's sloppy and obviously needs someone to double check his list before he submits it.

Apparently this condition of his has led to countless problems.  It's his responsibility to correct it.

[Toad]

A Tournament Organizer can refused access to one of its tournaments to a player. Nevertheless, the content of this thread is purely DCI material and Judge's behaviours shouldnt be discussed on public forums. If you want to ban the player from your own store, you are allowed to do so. If you want to blame the Judge for not applying the DCI policies on Cheating and Unsporting Conduct, feel free to report his behaviour to Andy Heckt who can investigate afterwards. But this shouldnt be discussed on an open forum, especially since the forum owners can be legally charged for the accusations you are posting.

[Komatteru]

I'm assuming that the tournament in question was unsanctioned.  I would suspect that makes everything that happened at it unreportable to the DCI, including the judging.  I mean, you wouldn't be able to report something like this if it happened with your casual group in your living room, and I doubt the DCI can really make a distinction between unsanctioned play at a store in the form of an organized tournament and any other unsanctioned play--without the sanctioning, I'd imagine that the DCI just doesn't have jurisdiction.  I do wonder if judges can be held accountable for things done in unsanctioned tournaments.

especially since the forum owners can be legally charged for the accusations you are posting.

I don't quite understand.  Would someone really file a lawsuit over a matter like this?  Even if we were talking about a sanctioned tournament, I can't really see WotC's legal team jumping in to do something about the discussion.  I could see the DCI perhaps taking action (reprimanding or taking action against posters for interfering with an investigation), but not lawyers.

[ELD]

As a new tournament organizer, I feel this thread is entirely appropriate and necessary.  This information must be public.  It serves as both a warning and a declaration to everyone.  This kind of behavior will not be tolerated.  The fun of Magic can be taken from us by cheaters.  I'm standing up with Dan and Ray to say that our players will not be deprived of the enjoyment of Vintage.  It is the offenders who will no longer be able to enjoy Vintage events.  I often say New England is the best place in the world for Type 1.  This is another affirmation of that belief.  It took guts to take this stand Dan.  You did the right thing.  Nate Pease is suspended from all ELD events from 1/27/07 to 1/27/08.  The only lifetime bans I have seen the DCI deal out are for assault. 

We do not have a DCI to protect us.  We have to handle this ourselves.  I feel what we're doing is in line with what Wizards does.  They make public their suspended players here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/suspended

They also discuss penalties and suspensions openly.  This serves to inform and warn the magic community.  Below are links to Wizards that deal with details on players being disqualified. 

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/worlds06/ddq
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgevent/worlds06/dq2

[Toad]

I don't quite understand.  Would someone really file a lawsuit over a matter like this?

Accusing someone on forums can be considered as slandering and the owners and administrators of the forums where such slandering occured can be charged, because they are responsible for the content of their own boards.

Also, if the event was unsanctionned, nothing forces Judges to respect the DCI Policies, since the tournament itself violates the DCI Policies anyways (self made proxies are illegal).

[Toad]

Im no expert in US laws, but in France forums owners can be charged for the first post of this thread. Something similar actually already occured in our MTG community.

[Meddling Mike]

Im no expert in US laws, but in France...

Well, fortunately Chris is, and with all the relevant parties being in America...

Not that what I say/think is really of consequence given that the staff has already made a decision regarding this thread, but I'd actually have to echo Dave's sentiments in this matter (and in the process disagree with a number of my friends/teammates) I realize there is no formal DCI structure, but to make a thread of this nature presents a substantial amount of damning evidence, and as Nate is still banned on these forums he really can't respond to the accusations being made.

In just about every other case that I can think of where somebody has called somebody a cheater on these forums there was almost always some sort of corrective action on behalf of the moderation staff and I must admit that I'm surprised to see that none was taken here.

I'm not putting myself out there as a character witness or what have you, but personally I like Nate and have never thought him to be specifically sketchy.

[kirdape3]

The idea appears to be to blackball Pease from any TMD-known tournament.  While I personally have no experience with the situation, if any of the accusations are true then the effort has at least the veneer of morality.

[ELD]

The DCI is the governing body for sanctioned Magic tournaments.  When someone acts as Nate has, then the DCI would respond with a suspension.  This would be made viewable on the Wizards site at the link I posted earlier.  They would also make a public account of the incident if it were at a large event, like a Grand Prix or PT.  My first post shows in depth details about DQ's that specific people received at worlds.  These people may not even get a suspension, and their name appears on Wizards website, which gets far more hits than TMD.  The fact that we do not have Wizards backing us forces TO's take action.  Removing repeat cheaters from the tournament scene makes the game better for everyone.  This is the only way to handle people who would otherwise continue to prey off the laid back scene of Vintage magic. 

While I personally have no experience with the situation, if any of the accusations are true then the effort has at least the veneer of morality.

This is not a moral issue.  This is simply TO's doing what is necessary to insure we get the level of fair play the community deserves.  It is no different than what the DCI does with similar situations. 

[Komatteru]

This is not a moral issue.  This is simply TO's doing what is necessary to insure we get the level of fair play the community deserves.  It is no different than what the DCI does with similar situations.

I concur.  The DCI would conduct an investigation about incidents such as this, and if they deemed it necessary, would not hesistate to spend a player they suspected of cheating, and TOs would be informed of that suspension by DCI reporter if that player tried to play again (using the same number).  We have no such system at our disposal, so this is the alternative.

[Outlaw]

I would like to post a few things from a completely neutral stand point.  I do not wish to cause a war or any such thing like that, I would like to just voice my opinion on a few things.


To my knowledge (I infact had an illegal decklist in one event 3x flooded strand instead of 3x polluted delta) when a player does enfact have an illegal decklist it is the judges responsibility to take said player aside and adjust the decklist so that no future penalty can occur.  With that being said, Nate was never taken aside (for decklist adjustment) and it wasnt even made clear that he was going to recieve a game loss for having a misregistered decklist.  The judge never gave him a game loss for a misregistered deck, and only mentioned briefly that he had an issue with registration.

Also to my knowledge, standings were printed and then manipulated before the round started to change the point value or match score of Nate.  Which can only mean that the so called "judge" went back into the tourney program and changed results (which I imagine can't possibly be legal by judging standards) and new standings or an announcement was never actually made.

My last point which is also to the best of my knowledge is that the "judge" of the event isn't infact a judge at all.  He made numerous misrulings throughout the day, such as:  Engineered explosives can hit an activated Mishra's factory, no part of cycling a card can be stifled, and various other smaller mis rulings.  The majority of the problem of that day was due to the judge not actually being a judge.

[Myriad Games]

Posts discussing whether or not Nate was guilty of Cheating - Fraud with regard to this specific decklist instance are not without merit, but not the focus of this issue.

Nate was banned due to his repeated unsporting conduct.

I concur that the core problems that occurred at the Beanie Exchange tournament on December 10th could have been averted through proper judging. Nate exacerbated the less-than-ideal situation through his severe unsporting conduct.

This action was not taken hastily or lightly. The easiest course of action would have been to do this quietly, as Dave suggests.  This was not easy, but it is necessary in order to properly enforce of the penalty for these severe, repeated infractions.

The DCI publicly announces major infractions both as a penalty and as a deterrent.  While unsanctioned tournaments do not need to be held to the DCI tournament rules, most professionally-run events are, and for good reason.  It allows all the players to know what to expect and helps to ensure a level playing field. 

The moderators were consulted prior to this post in order to make sure it was presented in an appropriate manner.

Nate has full opportunity to respond to this thread. Jacob has contacted Nate letting him know that if he has anything to say, he can PM it to Jacob who will post it on his behalf, provided that it adheres to the rules of the site.

[Godder]

Provided posts such as these are sufficiently accurate, I support them. We provide a mechanism for T.O.'s to market Vintage tournaments and we allow people to post messages and topics about trading/Ebay rip-offs, so I think providing a mechanism for T.O.'s (and others) to inform of us of cheats is well worth it. In particular, proxy events can't appeal to the DCI, so it's taking this route, or nothing.

As far as guidelines go, I feel that such a post obviously needs to be accurate (or it would be skirting libel as well as being grossly unfair), and it needs to report something that would lead to banning in sanctioned Magic. What is sufficient accuracy is a point for discussion, but reputable individuals and T.O.'s (as in more than 1) corroborating the story is an excellent start.

In this particular individual's case, Bribery and continued Unsporting Conduct would be sufficient to lead to a Banning, and there are more than one T.O. involved, so I can't blame T.O.'s for not wanting to allow this player anywhere near their events.

[Demonic Attorney]

I am posting this on behalf of an interested party.  His remarks are his own, and are not adopted my me, or the staff:

"I am the player that was offered and accepted the Bribe at The Mana Clash.  Although I'm almost certain I wasn't "in tears" over the mater, it added a sour taste to the tourament.  That is not to say it ruined it for me.  You see, Nate was very tired at the time, and I actually can see him forgetting, and he said he would pay me after the finals, but then left before I realized it.

Now, I would like to say, I should be just as blamed for this infraction.  I almost never play DCI events, and I honestly had forgotten about the no bribery rule, as this is common practice in other events I go to.  I didn't think I had a good enough record (in retrospect, I probably did) to make the finals, and he implied he needed the win (which in retrospect, he most definitly didn't).  However, ignorance of the rules is no excuse for their violation.  It was a huge mistake on my part, and I will being willing to pay in whatever way I must.

My opinion of Nate is not as bad as it has been made out to be.  I have had three seperate accounts with him.  The first was simply verbal, where he "dissed" me at a Mana Drain tourament.  It irked me somewhat, and annoyed me, but that's freedom of speech, and jerks can be jerks if they want.  The next was at Enfield, where, after dropping from the main tourament, I enetered the side event.  I won my first two matches, in the single elim tourament, and then awaited my 3rd pairing.  Nate approached me stating he was my opponant, and so we played our match, which he won.  He seemed happy enough, and I was content, so I went to collect my 2nd place prize when I was informed that I was never paired with him.  That was fine, so it turns out I got a bye into the finals.  So I'm waiting around, and I notice some games going on.  After some dissucssion, it turns out that Nate has made our unofficial match official, claiming my consent, and had entered into the finals.  I approached Scoops on this matter, and he corrected the situation extreemly adequatly.  Now, I don't want to be a jerk, and I would have even accepted our match if it had been the finals, because I just wanted the 2nd place prize, but Nate had annoyed me, so I forced him to play our finals match again, which I won, completely legitimatly.  He complained, and was eventually evicted from the store.  He annoyed me there, I adimit.  Then was our 5th round match at the Mana Clash.  When we sat down, he made it clear he needed a win.  So we went to check standings, and discussed a split.  I had forgotten about the "no bribery" rule.  Ray approached, and Nate said "lets just play it out", and sat down.  I was a bit confused, and then he began discussing a split.  We detrmained that it would be a 40-10 split, to whoever won.  He wanted to up the odds of his getting "gas money".  We played, and I won, 2-0.  He then asked for my concession, and me, trying to be amiable, and not suspecting I could make finals, agreed completely willingly.  He then went to the finals, saying he would pay me after.  I think I offhandedly mentioned it to Feinstein sometime later, perhaps during Team Trivia or something (Definitly not in tears, though.  I was having a great time, and not even Nate could have ruined it.  I have had my wallet and I-pod stollen before, 40 dollars isn't enough to push me to tears, and I want to make it clear that I was not traumatized or estranged by this event).  He commented on its illegality.  I suddenly realized this, and sought out Nate to aliviate this.  However, he had already left.  Ray was really trying to get out of there at this pint as well, and I didn't want to impose.  I figured that Nate had forgotten, so I made a post in someone tourny report to remind him.  I didn't want, or expect, this incident to play out like it did, and I felt kind of bad knowing that I had violated the DCI, but at this point it was like 5 A.M. or something.

Now, I want to make it clear, that Nate actually was NOT anything more than a bit arrogant, and a bit like a "jerk", at this tourament.  He had misregistered, but I'm not sure it was for the purpose of cheating, more out of sloth.  Our games were civilized, and he was graceful.  He wanted to go home at one point, trying to get me into the finals, but that doesnt' work, as Ray explained quite well.  I actually believe he just forgot.  I think that Nate may come off as a jerk, and may do some "sleezy" things, but I don't think he is a blatant cheater.  He almost never registers correctly, true, but I think that his arrogant attitude attributes to this.

I would like to say that, personally, I would NEVER wish any harm to happen to anyone, and even though I was a victim here, by most accounts, I don't really feel that much like one.  I almsot feel guilty, as it seems that for 40 dollars (that I really can do without, I mean 40 bucks really isnt THAT much in the long run), he has lost almost all of his vintage magic career.  That being said, I do think he probably deserves it.

I also feel that, at this specific event, from what I have heard, that his punishment was not neccessarilly justly delivered.  It is very much the judges fault, just as it is my fault in the bribery instance.  His reaction was unsportsmanlike, I agree, and unneccessary, but not neccessarilly harsh, but not unprovoked.

Magic is a game.  I think that a lot of us may have forgotten this.  I think this is why I love Ray's touraments so much.  They're serrious, but also very layed back, and I always have a lot of fun.  I don't think that anyone should abandon the Beenie Exchange, Ray, or anyone elses' touraments for a few spoiled sports.  Think about all the fun times youve had with Magic.  I think that Nate could be a good guy.  What I don't want is to initiate a war.  I think that Nate could use a few knocks down in his pride, and I think he could do with having a little fun when playing, but I'm not sure this will effect that.

All beng said and done, I can support the decission to ban Nate, simply due to overwheliming infractions, but I dont' feel good about it.  I can't blame anyone for banning him, but I feel wrong letting him accept it single handedly.  I want to open myself up to any punishment that is seen fit.  It's not right that I allow him to commit bribery, and then get off scott free.  It may seem like backwards logic, but I was very much at fault.

I also want to appologize to Nate, as well as everyone else.  I also want to make it clear that I don't want to make an enemy out of him, and I don't want to estrange him from Vintage.  He is a good player, and an asset to our community, albiet arrogant.  I hope that eventually he will see the error in his ways, clean up his act, and eventually be readmitted to all of your touraments.

My purpose here has been to illuminate the facts, and exress my opinion, as a "victim".  I really hope that this whole thing will eventually have a possitive outcome.  Nate has pushed a bit far, and overstepped his bounds.  He will pay for this, as you have made clear.  I support this punishment, and would like to open myself up to similar castigation, if deemed neccessary, but I hope it will be a lesson, to him and everyone else, Magic may be lucrative, and it may be serrious, but it is a game.  Have fun with it, be respectful and amiable, and Magic is so much more than a paycheck."

Thank you.  This is just an intial reaction, but I think that, as one of the more explicit "victims", I should provide some information

[Moxlotus]

Now I've never seen Nate so I don't have anything to directly comment about him.  I will say that I've seen people banned from stores for much less unsportsmanlike plays than what he did.

[iamfishman]

A couple of points I think people are completely missing(and again, I'm going to try to be very clinical and unbiased in what I say):

1.) Everyone out there saying "Libel-this" and "Slander-that" should read the post that Demonic Attorney wrote about how two things(Unprovable claims and damages) determine Libel.  Both Dan Yarrington and myself worked carefully at keeping our opinions out of our posts and stated only the facts.  Every thing Nate has been accused of is pure provable fact.  Additionally, as DA pointed out...there is no damage involved.  Nate is not a business whose stock we have just caused to crumble.  We are more like the grade-schoolers who said, "We don't have fun when you come over to our houses, so we don't want you coming over agian."  We have every right to make such a descion.

2.) 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!

3.) Let's say that Nate is legitimately just sloppy in compiling decklists or with the actual number of cards in his deck(which I highly doubt, but that is just my opinion...so let's not let it into the argument).  Should we simply allow him to be sloppy about it so that you may sit down against him with only 58 cards, allowing him a greater chance to open with Lotus, Ancestral, Will?  Intentional or unintentional, the playing field is not on the level, and this is a problem.  Now, multiple offenses here did not lead up to the banning.  (Although according to the DCI as many offenses as Nate has could work its way up to this.)  What many people don't realize is that this banning was based on THREE! other major offenses, one of which you may not have even realized.

- Nate asked for a concession in exchange for money, and then never paid the person
- Nate has had mutiple occurances of Unsportsman Like Conduct, ranging from mild to severe, with the most recent happening at this event
- And what you may not have stopped to think about: Nate KNEW his decklist was illegal, and seperate from any judge actions, did nothing to fix it. 

Now this last one sparked the whole, "Blame the Judge" debate.  When Nate was called aside, he was, unlike what Outlaw said, told that he had a decklist error.  I have to assume either the judge thought Nate was supposed to go change it himself, or maybe he didn't actually physically fix it with Nate since he didn't want anyone to see Nate and ask what was going on, and why he wasn't giving him a game loss.  In a sense, fair or not, he may have been doing a favor for Nate.  I am not going to comment on how the judge handled the situation.  Simply put, the judge is not the cause of the discussion here.  This is akin to a police officer observing someone shoot another person and just ignoring it.  Does this mean that the killer is allowed to go away scott free, simply because the officer did nothing about it?  Furthermore, does this mean that the killer should be considered innocent, and not have to worry about future repercussions if found by another officer?  Also, should the killer consider himself innocent and not see any problem with what he did?

I have a saying in my classroom that I use constantly.  The conversation my go like this:
Me: Joe, you are disrupting the class, please move to this seat in the front.
Joe: But, that's not fair...Susan is talking too.
Me: Other's actions don't make yours okay.

Simply put, Nate isn't a child.  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.

[vroman]

After great amount of thought, I declare Nate Pease is banned from all future Vroman's Apartment vintage events. dont darken my doorstep, you dirty cheat!

[Purple Hat]

For the situation recounted above, there are two particular penalties of interest within the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

153.  Unsporting Conduct—Severe

Definition
Severe unsporting conduct is defined as behavior that is disruptive to a player or players at a tournament, causes delays, and may include any form of physical contact or significant emotional distress.

Example:  A player argues in an excessive and belligerent manner with a judge after the judge has made a final ruling.

Penalty
Unsporting Conduct—Severe
All Levels: Disqualification without prize

Philosophy
The head judge is the final authority on what constitutes unsporting conduct.

Mr. Pease was clearly guilty of Unsporting Conduct - Severe, by continuing to argue with the judge for nearly two hours (during Rounds 4 and 5), after the judge had rendered his final ruling, in a manner that was both belligerent and disruptive of the tournament. 

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. 

That said it is entirely within your descretion and Ray's to remove someone from future events you run, and were I a TO I would certainly take that step with anyone I discovered had been guilty of bribery.  I haven't attended any of the Myriad games events, but I know Ray and I don't think he'd take these steps against anyone if he didn't think it was absolutely correct.  Beyond that I question just how forgetful someone can be.  How many times can you commit the same offense before you learn to not do it any more?

Hale

[LotusHead]

There was some discussion of "banning" players from Vintage Non-Sanctioned events in the spirit of self-policing/legitimizing our proxy envirionments.

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29214.0 is where that discussion was held.

It involved a Vintage Player who did nothing wrong, but his T2 teammate did at a Sanctioned Team Event, and the DCI banned the whole Team for 6-12 months. The innocent Vintage Player was banned (untill off DCI ShitList) only because he was on DCI ShitList.  I was stunned when it happened (Banning someone for something they didn't do?), but I completely support the head judge at this even (Eudemonia P9 Series) even though all infractions came from a completely different format (10 Proxy Vintage is WAY different than Limited Team Drafts...).

I support the "No Cheating Thing" and as long as we all respect whatever the DCI has for our Restricted List/Oracle Text, we must assume we give the DCI control over the rules of tournament play.  Even if they don't do anything for us (they can't: We play proxies). 

We pretend they do, and local TO's/Head Judges have to pretend we are a real format and self police our format.

That being said, I don't know Nate Pease, and vaguely remember the name from some list somewhere.  I no nothing about what happened.

I support the TO on their decision and am glad this is being discussed on TMD.

[Komatteru]

The innocent Vintate Player was banned (untill off DCI ShitList) only because he was on DCI ShitList.

An interesting point.  The DCI suspension list applies across all formats of sanctioned Magic, and Vintage has no way of enforcing that list.  We don't require DCI numbers, and we don't even require a player use his real name in a tournament ().  Even if we did, we'd have no real way of enforcing that requirement--a player wouldn't have to use his real DCI number. If he were suspended, he could simply get a new number, and use that to play in unsanctioned Vintage.  While attempting to evade a suspension via this method is highly against DCI policies, and results in a lengthened suspension (often to 5+ years) if discovered, there would be no repercussions we could take.  We could not, for instance, inform the DCI that the player was using a false number, and then they would lengthen his DCI suspension.  This is because a player is not guilty of DCI fraud until he actually attempts to play in a DCI tournament using a new DCI number in attempt to evade the suspension.

In fact, it wouldn't be difficult to conceal the new number from the DCI entirely.  The player could simply obtain a new membership card, and arrange with whoever gave him the card not to send in the registration portion of the card.  The number would never show up in Reporter*, but that wouldn't be too big of a red flag.  This would be impossible to pull with the DCI, as they would figure out pretty soon that there was a player who had been playing for months without having registration information on file, and would investigate.

*For those who aren't familiar with DCI reporter: basically, there's a database of DCI numbers that can be downloaded by TOs.  Then, to enter a player into a tournament, all they have to enter is the player's DCI number, and Reporter will load up the player's name, so the TOs don't have to type those in.  Furthermore, once a player has been entered for a tournament once, the name is stored (or can be stored, don't remember which) to the local program, so the TO doesn't even have to enter the number in the future.  He can simply pick the player out by name from a list of the regulars to save even more time and hassle.  The database is only updated finitely often, so players with new DCI numbers don't get added to the database for a little while.  If a TO entered the player's DCI number and Reporter didn't have a name matching it, either side could explain it as "I'm new to DCI play." (and if the player weren't known, or had played pretty much only Vintage, that would be an easy sell.)  If the player only plays at a couple of stores and becomes a regular, the TO will never find out that his DCI number is not registered.

10 Proxy Vintage is WAY different than Limited Team Drafts...

Disagree. If a player is cited, for say, drawing extra cards in team limited, what would make him not do that in Vintage?  The DCI doesn't make a distinction if an offense leads to a suspension--if you cheat or are disruptive in constructed, you don't get to play limited instead--so why should we?  Magic is Magic.  Proxy Vintage Magic is not a haven or an alternative for those deemed to have committed actions that warranted suspension from DCI play.

[LotusHead]

10 Proxy Vintage is WAY different than Limited Team Drafts...

Disagree. If a player is cited, for say, drawing extra cards in team limited,

What I meant is the format's player base in Sanctioned t2 stuff (especially Team Draft, almost FMN) is different than those who engace in T1 Vintage stuff.

My example of DCI influence in non-sanctioned stuff came from infractions from a player who might not even play Vintage, but his team mate did play Vintage. 

Our respect of DCI intent/enforcement  is what I am questioning/suggesting.

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

Whats his name on TMD?

Like I've been accussed of cheating before when I was innocent and it sucked.....so I believe that every person has the right to defend himself before being judged. The DCI also allows you to defend your case or appeal a decision they hand down to Andy Heckt.

Like it seems that the evidence is piled really high against Nate... and If i were to make a decision based on what I hear he would be guilty but she SHOULD at least get to say something before this bandwagon of bannings starts moving.

[Demonic Attorney]

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. 

[LotusHead]

Whats his name on TMD?

If this was directed at me, the player in question goes by NateDizzle (NorCal meta, different Nate) and our Level 2 Judge runs Eudemonia's P9 series entirely as if it were sanctioned, except we get our 10 proxies. 

The story goes like this.  Team Oakland did a sanctioned team sealed event.  One member cheated (brought an extra couple of broken cards or something, slid them into his pool). At some point, this dude got caught (I don't know his name), and the DCI Banhammer came down upon Team Oakland.  NateDizzle is on Team Oakland, and was not a cheater, but got banned for say, 6 months by DCI from Sanctioned tournaments. 

Imagine his suprise when he finally got to go to Eudemonia p9 Ancestral Recall tourney and our head judge DQ's him during registration.
Our judge Ryan Reynolds made the ballzy move to uphold everything DCI holds sacred, except he lets us play with our precious proxies.  This also includes deal making, splits, bribes, etc.  Nothing at all was personal against the player in question, and the player in question never did anything wrong.  He just had a fucked up teammate at a different T2 event.

Whats his name on TMD?

If this was about Nate Pease, I don't know the guy or his TMD name.



EDIT:

Disclaimer: I completely stand by the head judge's decision/standing (though it's not what I would have done). Cheating sucks more than ANYTHING in the world of GAMES. If unnamed member of Team Oakland Cheated, and he "takes down whole team" (for a year or whatnot), then that's what happens when you cheat. It just sucks that that person's opponents had to deal with it, and that person's teammates had to not get to play unsactioned 10-Proxy Vintage Magic for an Ancestral Recall.  And Nate DEFINATELY wanted to be here, smashing face with SS.  I don't think anyone in attendance would have minded Nate's presence despite the DCI BANNED LIST thing.  Ryan's decision to be hardcore, even in this UNSANCTIONED VINTAGE EVENT just hammers home how lame cheating is.  And when you cheat, especially on purpose, you may have to answer to someone who has the control, and the power to punish said events.

Disclaimer #2: This event was a blast, and any debate on Nate situation should be brought up elsewhere (as Nate wasn't even IN the event) by anyone who cares. (I care not about Sealed Deck Limited, but I stand by people who hate cheaters).

Highlight from previous thread for those that are too lazy... This would be that "elsewhere place" for discussion.