Nate Pease - Banned

[Myriad Games]

Thank you for the continued discussion, Richard. I am discussing this exact matter with Hale via PM. I will post a brief summary here. If you wish to continue this branch of the discussion via PM, I will be happy to.

As previously stated, I agree that it is inappropriate to argue with a judge's final ruling. I do not consider questioning a judge's ruling inappropriate, as long as it is done in a respectful manner, without entering into an extended argument over the ruling. If the judge replies with "that's my final ruling" then the discussion is over.  The phrase "final ruling" alone indicates room for discussion or correction in the light of additional information - otherwise it would just be any judge's ruling, not a "final ruling".  I asked the question of the judge and he changed his previous ruling.  I did not argue with a ruling that he had issued, let alone a final ruling.

Many other players at the event (not just those that I came with) were confused as to why Nate would not receive a game loss for a misregistered deck, since that's such a standard penalty.  This confusion on our part was the reason that I queried.  Knowing that this tournament will not be awarding penalties according to the usual guidelines is certainly relevant information and worthy of a simple question. I could not control the judge's reaction to my question in enacting the penalty later in the tournament, any more than I could control Nate's unsporting conduct in response to that ruling, or the judge's further reaction by giving him a second game loss and entering the penalty incorrectly.  If this were my tournament, I could and would have, but it was not and it was not my place to take that role at this event. I was simply asking so that both myself and the other concerned players would be clear on the judge's ruling.

I understand that my intentions are being questioned here and that they are difficult to ascertain without knowing me personally. I am not a vindictive person, and I do not take pleasure in having to take such measures to ensure fair play. I would much rather players did not engage in unsporting conduct to begin with.

Nate's unsporting conduct and previous instances of cheating have not been challenged as unreasonable grounds for banning, more the instances of this particular event.  This indicates to me that the community in general agrees with the decisions of both Ray and I in banning Nate from our events as a necessary penalty for his past inappropriate behavior, including but limited to this instance.

I hope I have been clear in this discussion so far, and I will continue to help elucidate as best I can to make sure the community knows the reasoning behind this unfortunate banning.

Thank you again for your feedback.

Happy Holidays!

[Shock Wave]

Thank you for the continued discussion, Richard. I am discussing this exact matter with Hale via PM. I will post a brief summary here. If you wish to continue this branch of the discussion via PM, I will be happy to.

I'm happy to continue discussing this publicly, considering that the topic of discussion is relevant to the banning of a player within the community.

Many other players at the event (not just those that I came with) were confused as to why Nate would not receive a game loss for a misregistered deck, since that's such a standard penalty.  This confusion on our part was the reason that I queried.  Knowing that this tournament will not be awarding penalties according to the usual guidelines is certainly relevant information and worthy of a simple question.

The players can be as "confused" as they want. If a judge makes a mistake, that doesn't imply that he is in cahoots with other players or that he will continue to alter the rules of the game at his liberty. Judges make mistakes over "standard penalties/rulings" all the time. It sucks, but that comes with the territory of being a human judge. Mistakes happen. The fact that you were "confused" doesn't give you the right to inquire about why the judge made a particular ruling. He doesn't owe you an explanation, and given the fact that you are a player in the event, it is a conflict of interest for you to involve yourself in any way whatsoever in regards to his ruling.

I doubt you were "confused" about why Nate had his penalty applied when it was no longer appropriate to do so. That doesn't seem to be within standard judge protocol, but I doubt you were kicking up any fuss over that bit.

I could not control the judge's reaction to my question in enacting the penalty later in the tournament, any more than I could control Nate's unsporting conduct in response to that ruling, or the judge's further reaction by giving him a second game loss and entering the penalty incorrectly.  If this were my tournament, I could and would have, but it was not and it was not my place to take that role at this event. I was simply asking so that both myself and the other concerned players would be clear on the judge's ruling.

Unfortunately, the judge's decision was made long before you started seeking clarification. The judge does not owe you or anyone else an explanation, even if he is wrong. If he is wrong, life goes on.

I am not a vindictive person, and I do not take pleasure in having to take such measures to ensure fair play. I would much rather players did not engage in unsporting conduct to begin with.

I would much rather not have to deal with cheaters as well, but that doesn't mean that it is fair to bend the rules in order to punish a player that you assume is cheating, regardless of his track record. Since it is in doubt that Mr.Pease cheated at all in this situation, it is all the more disturbing that the situation concluded how it did.

Nate's unsporting conduct and previous instances of cheating have not been challenged as unreasonable grounds for banning, more the instances of this particular event.  This indicates to me that the community in general agrees with the decisions of both Ray and I in banning Nate from our events as a necessary penalty for his past inappropriate behavior, including but limited to this instance.

My issue is not with the fact that Mr.Pease has been banned, but rather with the situation that led to his banning. He was NOT treated fairly according to how the situation has been described. There's little doubt in my mind that Mr.Pease was given special attention because of his previous transgressions, and that to me is a serious problem.

Fact:

- The judge made a final decision on how Mr.Pease's infraction would be handled.
- Mr.Yarrington decided this was not adequate, and "inquired" with the judge as to why he made a particular ruling.
- The judge, being new, caved to Mr.Yarrington's inquiry and tried to amend his mistake by making an even more egregious error.

I'm not going to say that it is a fact that if Mr.Yarrington had stayed out of the fray that this situation would never have transpired, but it seems very likely. It seems very likely that the event would have moved forward with Mr.Pease still having been involved. That's obviously not what people wanted to see, but this is how it should have concluded, given the judge's untainted opinion.

I hate to sound like a lawyer for Mr.Pease, because I really loathe cheaters, and there is clear evidence in previous scenarios of his guilt. However, this situation just reeks of botched protocol on many fronts, and to isolate Mr.Pease (in this specific situation) is absolutely unjust.

[Myriad Games]

My issue is not with the fact that Mr.Pease has been banned, but rather with the situation that led to his banning. He was NOT treated fairly according to how the situation has been described. There's little doubt in my mind that Mr.Pease was given special attention because of his previous transgressions, and that to me is a serious problem.

Thank you for the clarification that he banning of Nate Pease is not being disputed.

With regard to giving special attention due to previous infractions: this is absolutely essential when considering a penalty situation. This is why penalties are tracked by the DCI. If someone commits the same infraction multiple times, it is considered a greater offense. While we do not have access to a similar database that the DCI provides, we do know of previous infractions from other events in this case. The fact that these infractions continue when the player could correct them is a serious problem.

- The judge made a final decision on how Mr.Pease's infraction would be handled.
- Mr.Yarrington decided this was not adequate, and "inquired" with the judge as to why he made a particular ruling.

Herein lies a major difference between what you are concluding through secondhand accounts and what actually occurred at the event. I did not ask the judge why he made a particular ruling. I asked him if he enforced a standard penalty for a deck registration error. I did not ask him for a reason or question his judgment; I simply asked for clarification of his ruling.

[Shock Wave]

With regard to giving special attention due to previous infractions: this is absolutely essential when considering a penalty situation. This is why penalties are tracked by the DCI. If someone commits the same infraction multiple times, it is considered a greater offense. While we do not have access to a similar database that the DCI provides, we do know of previous infractions from other events in this case. The fact that these infractions continue when the player could correct them is a serious problem.

By "special attention", I meant that in this case, the special attention given to Mr.Pease involved rewinding the state of the tournament in a manner that was not only unfair to Mr.Pease but to other players in the tournament as well. The judge's decision was made, and finalized far beyond an acceptable time frame for reversing his decision.

It's fair to watch a player who is known for committing rules infractions especially closely, but it is not fair to disregard the rules in order to punish him for a mistake that cannot even be confirmed as deliberate cheating.

Herein lies a major difference between what you are concluding through secondhand accounts and what actually occurred at the event. I did not ask the judge why he made a particular ruling. I asked him if he enforced a standard penalty for a deck registration error. I did not ask him for a reason or question his judgment; I simply asked for clarification of his ruling.

So what exactly were you intending to clarify? You knew that he did not enforce the standard penalty because of the results of Mr.Pease's matches. It was clear to you that the judge had made a decision, and whether or not you agree with it is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not it actually was the right ruling is irrelevant, and whether or not you feel you are entitled to a justification is irrelevant. The decision was made, and that's all the "clarification" you should have required.

[Demonic Attorney]

This post is added on behalf of another player who witnessed the disputed events.  Everyone else, PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME PMS OF YOUR OPINIONS AND ASK ME TO POST THEM IN THIS THREAD FOR YOU UNLESS YOU 1) HAVE A DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST IN THIS ISSUE (i.e. Nate, Dan, Ray) OR 2) WERE THERE IN PERSON AND CAN ADD A FIRSTHAND PERSPECTIVE.  Thank you.

To Demonic Attorney/TMD community,

I did not want to post to this thread, and I honestly did not think I was going to have to do so until after I read and re-read some members attitudes and tones towards Dan and Ray on this issue.  I am certainly not a full member of the Mana Drain, nor am I a competitive player on the vintage scene.  I am a casual player who happened to attend the Beanie Exchange tournament with a few friends to enjoy another day of magic.   

Please note that I am not here to argue or disagree with anything that has been posted so far on this thread. I respect the opinions of those who have posted for and against the recent ban of Mr. Pease. I wish to share my first hand experience on what happened that day, and hopefully shed some light on some confusing issues. 

Since I was the player who actually called the deck check on Nate, I figured I would give my reasons as to why, and allow you to view my thought process...

1. He had 61 cards when I pile shuffled his deck before our second match.

2. I had never played him before.

3. I thought having 61 cards was strange (I still do, but understand now that its his "thing" as in he does it frequently).

I called the Judge. Instead of the judge, the owner who was playing in the tourney came over. I asked for a deck check, and the owner asked why I wanted his deck checked. I responded that he did not have 60 cards. (I realize now that must have been weird to hear for Nate, but he understood why I asked in the first place). The judge asked Nate how many cards were on his deck list. Nate said 61. The judge then counted his deck, found 61 cards, and asked us to resume play. We did. 

Note: the owner never checked his decklist to confirm this. I was slightly offended by this, seeing as though I had requested his deck be checked. However, I will admit to my noobish mistakes when I make them, and I ignored this and moved on. Unaware of how this may affect the future, I had no foresight to ask the owner to review his decklist to make sure 61 cards were notated. Needless to say, I do not understand or grasp all of the rules of a Magic tournament. The only tourneys I have run are FNM and Arena, which do NOT require decklists. 

Nate and I finished our match. Please note, Nate was a gracious opponent during our match, and we talked a bit afterwards, in which I apologized for having to call the judge, but he interrupted me and told me he understood why I did it, 61 cards is a bit strange.  I handed in our slip, and continued to watch a few games still in progress. 

Now the interesting part...

While watching this other match, I overhear the judge tell Nate that his decklist is in fact incorrect.  The judge did not hide this fact. Nate told the Judge he would fix it, and the judge nodded and walked away.

What?

(Note: I have played vintage in 2 different venues. Myriad and ELD's tourney. Both of them awarded a game loss to a misregistered decklist.)

(This is my opinion- not factual events)

At this point, I wonder if the judge will enforce the penalty or not.  If the judge enforces the penalty, I would think Nate’s 2nd round opponent is 1-0, going to game 2.  If the judge does not enforce the penalty, there is a major issue unresolved.  I have a major issue with this, one that has not been mentioned to this point: If Nate is a “regular” at this store, is this a form of collusion?  Nate knows the judge personally, so how is this a fair and sound judgment?  Speculation is not the way I want to take this discussion, and my own experience, but would any of you wonder at least for one second: WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON? Only the day before I had to call Judge during my match with Stefan during the Myriad Games tourney. Oliver B answered, and although we may be friendly and chat from time to time, he did not bend the rules into my favor. 

I do not need to restate the events after this. Dan Yarrington has explained them in detail.  I am not going to argue what I believe are non-points of discussion about player to judge behavior.

However, I still have a few personal issues and problems that need to be addressed by the Mana Drain community and the owner of the Beanie Exchange.  During round 3, while losing to Food Chain Goblins, I overheard some racist and incredible insensitive remarks directed at a young Asian male who was also playing in the tourney.  I was not sitting close to the people spouting these remarks, nor the person receiving this barrage of insults.  If I was close enough to hear this, so were the judge, the owner, and every player in that room.  Repeating what was said is not necessary for the actions to be judged at this time.  These actions did not cease after the round, and continued into round 4. As was already mentioned, Nate was one of the people spouting this nonsense.  The young male, who had received these taunts was visibly upset and questioned Dan as how he would handle this situation in his own establishment.

I regret two things, one of which was not standing up for this teenager who was bullied, and second for not demanding the storeowner take some kind of action.  Looking back, this would be the sort of thing an adult would have done, and I apologize to Sam for not doing so.  There are other players who also owe Sam an apology, but it is not my place to point them out.  We are talking about specific reasons why a player would be banned from a business establishment, and in specific we are talking about Nate.

The other explosion of testosterone occurred when Mr. Pease was punished for his continued apathy towards fixing his decklist.  When the storeowner had told him he now had 2 game losses due to his lack of correction, the proverbial excrement hit the fan. Two males who had not played in the tournament, along with Nate, began to verbally degrade and attack both the judge and the storeowner with a mix of insults and bullying remarks. It intensified to a point where I did not believe the tournament could continue unless all three were removed from the store. This did not happen, and many players were left with the uncomfortable process of playing through the yelling match.  In fact I remember Arik becoming upset to the point where he asked one of the young men to stop trying to insult and bully the judge. 

Regardless of what you wish to argue from this point forward, I wanted to add my own experience from that day. 

Nate has received his ban for extremely unsporting conduct. That conduct has now been explained in detail by more than 3 accounts of people who were there.  From this point forward, I cannot affect anyone else’s decisions, but I have made a few of my own…

   1. I will not attend or play in tourney in which any of the players who berated and bullied the storeowner will be part of.  If this restricts my play to only 1-2 stores or venues, so be it.  I am more concerned with game play than with winning super cardboard power. (See Two-Headed Giant of Foriys)
   2. I will not attend another tournament at the Beanie Exchange unless I know there is a standing rule against racist and insensitive remarks, and the players who spouted the nonsense in the first place are on a 1 strike rule. The storeowner may have had a bad night, but allowing that type of disgusting behavior is just terrible. Since the players mentioned above are ‘regulars’ there, I doubt I will ever attend another tournament at that establishment.  That stinks.
   3. I will ask and or challenge any judge on a ruling from this point out, if I believe it is wrong or in any manner an act of collusion.  However, I will follow Dan’s lead and do it respectfully, and only if I understand all the rules involved.  If not, I will seek out the opinion of someone who does and ask them first before bothering the judge.

 

Dan, Ray, and ELD all have their own rights as well.  They take a lot of time out of their schedule to allow us to play cardboard crack.  I understand arguing the ethics of how some actions were taken, but I do not believe we can argue the ban at this point.  I cannot comment on Nate’s past, nor am I able to comment on his alleged cheating.  I can only point out that the reasons he was banned were fully justified by what happened in that one day. 
 

I appreciate your time in reading this, and hopefully this will help some of the people who were not in attendance understand why drastic measures were taken.  This behavior is deplorable, and cannot be tolerated.   

If you have an issue with my post, please feel free to contact me though PM.  I have tried to show which parts of this are my opinions and which parts are undisputed facts from that day.  My user name is Mike_Bergeron  which also happens to be my real name.  I could not think of a cool nickname like everyone else. 

(please excuse spelling/grammer at work and in a rush)

[Demonic Attorney]

Hello, my name is Arik Pogrebinsky.  I was at the tournament at the Beanie
Exchange during which the incident involving Nate Peas occured that led to
his eventual banning from TMD and Myriad Games.  You may have noticed that
in Mike Bergeron's account he said that I went up to the store owner and
asked them to stop fighting.  Here is an account of what occured, that
should help people understand why Dan and Ray felt justified in Banning Nate
from their store / tournament.


Events:

During the final swiss round Dan and his opponent were playing, and they
were in the last match for that round.  A small group of people including
myself began to watch the match at the far end of the store by the entrance.
 At the other end of the store a very heated discussion was taking place
between Nate, the store owner, and some other guy, (by description a rather
large boy whose name I don't know but who was not part of the tournament, so
I actually have no idea why he was there.)

Nate was yelling loudly at the store owner about the judge call that was
made.  The store owner was listening to the complaints, and the other "large
boy whose name I do not know" was also fighting in Nate's favor.  Now their
bickering / yelling was becoming quite intense, and was clearly starting to
disrupt the match in progress between Dan and his opponent.

When the judge walked by me, I told him to tell the store owner to kick out
Nate, becuase he was disrupting the match.  The judge walked over to Nate,
the large boy, and the store owner.  At this point I was out of ear shot.
Immidietly we see the judge storm back, kick the box of Beanie Babies, and
then storm out of the store not to return to judge the rest of the match.
This had made quite a scene and as you can imagine, when you are in the
middle of a game that determines whether or not you get into top 8, its
quite disruptive.

The 3 of them (Nate, large boy, store owner) kept in fighting, and the
yelling became louder and louder.  At this point I personally had had
enough, so I walked over to them, politely explained that there was a match
going on, and that their screaming was incredibly disruptive.  The large boy
said "we don't care" so I walked back to the game.  A few moments later I
repeated my action only to be told to mind my own business.


Personal Reaction to said events:

First, I should make it very clear that I have no intention of returning to
that store for the following reasons.  The store owner did not kick out Nate
Peas, and he made no effort to try and make the situation reasonable for the
other players.  This kind of disdain for his customers is unacceptable to
me.  I have played at TMD, Myriad Games, Wizard's Duel, BattleGrounds, and
ELD in Wareham, and YMG, and have NEVER experienced such disdain (maybe at
Wizard's Duel).  I was utterly shocked at the lack of respect the players
received.  I was equally shocked at how long the fighting was allowed to
continue.  And furthermore I could not believe that after a customer had
complained (me) nothing was done to resolve the issue.

Allow me to reiterate my point so there is no confusion.  Nate was causing a
ruckus.  The store owner did nothing to stop it.  Even after complaints were
obviously made still nothing was done.


While this discussion is becoming very philosophical it seems, I would like
to point out that it is simply about acting like a decent human, that is
being respectful and reasonable.  Nate Peas was the antithesis of those
qualities that night at the Beanie Exchange.  It is no wonder that he is now
banned by two incredibly popular TOs, whom I consider to be very respectful
and reasonable people.  I congratulate them for standing against the ill
will and scorn that people like Nate bring to Magic.

[Demonic Attorney]

I have made a concerted effort to avoid inserting my personal opinions or beliefs into this thread, because I thought it more important for the people who have a direct personal interest in this issue to have their say before I have mine.  Because that's happened at this point and because I think this the focus of the thread has meandered away from the central issue a little (but not in a problematic way in terms of the rules), I want to add the following:

I believe that, based on the evidence adduced in this thread, banning Nate for life over this is disproportionate to his offense.  The scale of punishment in Nate's case went from warnings, to game losses, to a lifetime ban from multiple venues.  This does not provide a sufficient degree of fair warning to Nate about the consequences of his actions, nor does it provide him with an adequate opportunity to improve himself before permanent sanctions are imposed. 

Even if one assumes that all the accusations made against Nate in this thread are true, and that he is guilty of habitually ignoring deck registration requirements, bribery, cheating, and severe unsportsmanlike conduct, I still think that a lifetime ban based on those offenses is not warranted.  Many people have referenced the DCI rules as an analogy to this case; I'm no expert on DCI sanctions, but I can't remember a case in which someone was permanently banned for any of the above offenses, as long as assault was not involved.  Furthermore, I am not aware of any DCI penalty continuum that goes:  Warning -> Game Loss -> Lifetime Ban.  It's simply not fair to players to impose a permanent punishment on them, without first clearly showing them how serious their infractions are, and giving them many chances to reform. 

Nate was given neither of these things.  Yes, his track record in Vintage is replete with suspicious activity, multiple repetitions of the same offense, and at times even egregiously inappropriate behavior.  Yes, it shouldn't take much for someone to know that things like Bribery and having a shouting match with a judge are not acceptable havior.  And yes, Nate has engaged in a pattern of rule-breaking behavior over a period of months or even years, repeatedly disregarding lesser sanctions.  But that's the operative phrase-- lesser sanctions.  No reasonable person could expect to receive a lifetime ban for misconduct when they had received no punishment that even approached a comparable level of severity in the past.

Furthermore, I think a lifetime ban in this case is inconsistent with the reasons we have for punishing players who misbehave in the first place.  Punishment should serve three purposes:  Deterrence, Vindication, and Rehabilitation.  Dan and Ray have certainly tailored their punishment to serve the purposes of the first two justifications.  A lifetime ban will certainly deter Nate, and will likely deter other players in the future from doing the things Nate has done.  Also, a lifetime ban probably vindicates anyone who has lost anything as a result of Nate's infractions, or feels aggrieved by his behavior.  However, I think their choice of punishment falls short with respect to the third purpose.  If Nate is banned for life, his conduct can't improve.  Therefore, I propose an alternative punishment that will fit all three of the above purposes.

For the offenses of Bribery, Cheating, Unsporting Conduct- Severe, and other assorted procedural infractions, Nate Pease should be suspended from all tournaments advertised on TMD for a period of two (2) years, commencing as of the date this thread was posted, and ending on a date 2 years afterwards.  First, this punishment will deter Nate from reoffending both while suspended for this considerable timeframe, and later when he is reinstated; no one who wants to participate in tournament Vintage would risk a harsher penalty after being suspended for two years.  If Nate does take such a risk, any subsequent penalty would probably last until Vintage goes out of style.  Second, this punishment adequately vindicates the interests of those who were harmed by Nate's misconduct.  I am aware of no one who was permanently harmed by Nate's actions, and therefore imposing a permanent saction is excessive relative to the harm vindicated by punishment.  Also, some people who have posted in this thread or PM'ed me who were present at the Beanie Exchange and harmed by Nate's behavior have gone on record saying that a lifetime ban is excessive.  If even the victims themselves speak up on behalf of the offender, that is a good indication that the punishment imposed is excessive.  Third, this penalty serves rehabilitative purposes by communicating to Nate that his misconduct will not be tolerated by the Vintage community and carries severe penalties.  It also provides Nate with the opportunity to improve, once the duration of his suspension has expired.

In Vintage, as in law, and as in life, punishment should be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve its aims.  To do otherwise would be to engage in petty, unprincipled vengeance against those who stray from the ideals we hold for ourselves.  In the Vintage community, we also create the additional risk of alienating portions of our player base, which this format needs to survive.  In this case, it's just one errant player, but I'd rather not open the door to cutting people out of this community as anything other than an absolute last resort.  We all depend on each other to keep the format and the community itself together, and we should never be quick to spurn that kind of support.  For these reasons, I believe a lifetime ban on Nate Pease for the above stated offenses is disproportionate to his offense, excessive, and inappropriate.  It should be reversed, and a more appropriate penalty substituted.

[BigChuck]

As someone who's helped Ray out running Waterbury's on more the one occasion, I'd just like to point out that running it isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world, and if Ray wants to get rid of someone who is consistently making things more difficult for him to run the event smoothly, no one should be complaining. Those who know Ray know that he isn't running the tournaments because they are wildly profitable to him (they aren't), he runs them as a service to the community. I don't know Nate Pease, so I won't claim to judge him based on the facts presented in this thread, rather I'll choose to judge him on the fact that everyone who has been to Waterbury can attest that Ray goes out of his way to be fair to everyone and if he has deemed Nate's acts to warrant not allowing him back at his tournaments, I'm in full support of his decision.

[dicemanx]

I believe a lifetime ban on Nate Pease for the above stated offenses is disproportionate to his offense, excessive, and inappropriate.

I'm under the impression that this "lifetime" ban will be in effect for a duration of Nate's choosing. Unless I'm mistaken, there hasn't been some point of no return crossed just yet, and Nate can have this ban lifted through some effort on his part. The message seems to be "shape up, or you're not welcome at my events", which is reasonable if all of the allegations are true.

[Jacob Orlove]

I was at the tournament at the Beanie
Exchange during which the incident involving Nate Peas occured that led to
his eventual banning from TMD and Myriad Games.

Point of clarification: Nate isn't actually banned from TMD. He had some password trouble, though.

[Myriad Games]

I'd like to thank everyone again for your feedback in this thread including DA's thoughtful and thorough analysis of the applied penalties.

For the offenses of Bribery, Cheating, Unsporting Conduct- Severe, and other assorted procedural infractions, Nate Pease should be suspended from all tournaments advertised on TMD for a period of two (2) years, commencing as of the date this thread was posted, and ending on a date 2 years afterwards.

I agree that this period of time is reasonable, provided that Nate is suspended from all tournaments advertised on TMD.  Such a broad application of the penalty would be as similar to a DCI suspension as possible for the Vintage community and reflects the severity of Nate's offenses. Since this thread began on December 15th, 2006, Nate's suspension will terminate at the end of 2008.

In order to improve, Nate must take responsibility for his offenses and sincerely apologize to the entire community.
I consider Nate's sincere, public apology here on TMD as a prerequisite for terminating his suspension.

[Demonic Attorney]

I want to thank myriadgames for their kind words.  I try to intervene whenever I see a situation that might lead to an unfair result when a better alternative is available.

More to the point, I want to clarify that the TMD staff has neither the authority nor the inclination to require any TO on the site to ban Nate or anyone else from their tournaments.  Tournament Organizers are independent economic entities and are free to do what they see fit with their own tournaments.  That having been said, as a longtime member of the Vintage community and a leading figure on TMD, I want to personally encourage all TO's to voluntarily observe the penalty imposed on Nate Pease.  The community's ability to police itself and demand good sportsmanship from its members depends on there being a united front on issues like this.

Lastly, I agree that a public acknowledgement of fault and apology is a reasonable demand for this kind of offense.

[Razvan]

Just one quick point I would like to make. People, Dave Feinstein being among them, seem to champion the idea that once you make a judge ruling, if you find it to be incorrect, you should go back and change it, and restore the game.

That is, in my opinion, an absolutely terrible idea. Once a decision has been made, and the game has continued, the decision stands, no matter how terrible it was. That's the rule for absolutely any sport whatsoever. You can stop the game, you can stop EVERY game, you can review, revise, question, interview, whatever, but once the decision was done, and the game continues, it is DONE. No going back.

I cannot give a comment on Nate or Dan or anyone in this thread, as the general time line and proceedings confuse me a little, so it might be a bit OT, but still relevant.

edit: bah, I didn't notice the date of 3 weeks ago. Sorry about the ressurection.

[Dxfiler]

Just one quick point I would like to make. People, Dave Feinstein being among them, seem to champion the idea that once you make a judge ruling, if you find it to be incorrect, you should go back and change it, and restore the game.

Bah! Why did you namedrop me with something I didnt state :p  I don't "champion" the idea of overturning incorrect rulings.   As I stated earlier in this thread...

"SOME are so egreiously bad that they should absolutely be corrected if brought to the judges attention in time."
 
I listed Japan Nats 05 as my example and I'll stick to that.  Some does not mean all.

That is, in my opinion, an absolutely terrible idea. Once a decision has been made, and the game has continued, the decision stands, no matter how terrible it was. That's the rule for absolutely any sport whatsoever. You can stop the game, you can stop EVERY game, you can review, revise, question, interview, whatever, but once the decision was done, and the game continues, it is DONE. No going back.

This is probably opening a can of worms, but magic isn't a 'sport.'  It just isn't, let's not make any illusions about it.  It's recognized worldwide as a hobby, despite Wizards intentions otherwise.  Since magic isn't considered a 'sport' in the traditional sense, it has to look out for its own interests.  Terrible rulings have been corrected at the highest levels over and over again in the interest of making the game look legitimate.  On the flip side, questionable rulings have stood for the purpose of not disrupting the importance/relevance of the event.  Look no further than Moreno Vs. Star Wars kid PT (forgot the location) semifinals for that example.  Moreno made multiple procedural errors during game 5 (including drawing extra cards) in a level 5 event, and didn't even get a game loss.  Had this been during the swiss, there's no doubt in my mind he'd be getting at least a game loss.   Bottom line: Wizards looks out for itself, they have no other choice. 

This isn't just me ranting, I can actually tie this into Nate's situation :p  The vintage community is pretty much forced to look out for themselves as well.  They don't have Wizards support in the grand scheme of things, so it's pretty much up to TO's/Judges/The players themselves to watch out for one another.  The fact that Nate didn't get a game loss earlier was so egreiously wrong that Dan felt compelled to say something.  Notice he didn't demand anything be changed, he just pointed out the standard pentaly.  As far as I can tell, it was a polite and reasonable objection...regardless if he had any bias towards Nate.  The objection was noted and things snowballed from there.  You can say that once a ruling stands that's all she wrote, but that attitude quite frankly hurts vintage.  If something is wrong a Vintage tourney and it stands, people become aware and that hurts the credibility that we all strive for in this format.  Vintage thrives on the word of mouth and the community.  If there's a problem ruling that was made, by all means it should at least be discussed (not necessarily overturned) for the betterment of others.

That logic was basically applied to the creation of this thread.  It was agreed upon by certain players/TO's that there was a potential problem with another known member of the vintage community.  Rather than hide that fact, it was brought to the attention of the vintage community.  Now I personally don't agree with how that happened (as said many times over :p), but I understand why this thread was made and respect the decision.  That same respect should be applied towards Nate's penalty eventually being applied to him in that tournament.  Yes a judge's decision was changed later in the tournament, and no you don't have to agree with the aftermath caused by that.  Just understand that the TO at Beanie Exchange decided to take charge of that situation for the sake of his store and the vintage community.  I can respect that.

- Dave Feinstein

[Razvan]

Bah! Why did you namedrop me with something I didnt state :p  I don't "champion" the idea of overturning incorrect rulings.   As I stated earlier in this thread...

"SOME are so egreiously bad that they should absolutely be corrected if brought to the judges attention in time."
 
I listed Japan Nats 05 as my example and I'll stick to that.  Some does not mean all.

I tried to find some of the quotes, but yours posts are so enormous, it's difficult.

However, you are correct. You didn't say all, but I also didn't imply you meant all. So let's restrict our discussion to any.

This is probably opening a can of worms, but magic isn't a 'sport.'  It just isn't, let's not make any illusions about it.  It's recognized worldwide as a hobby, despite Wizards intentions otherwise.  Since magic isn't considered a 'sport' in the traditional sense, it has to look out for its own interests.

True, but both are games, of sorts.

Terrible rulings have been corrected at the highest levels over and over again in the interest of making the game look legitimate.  On the flip side, questionable rulings have stood for the purpose of not disrupting the importance/relevance of the event.  Look no further than Moreno Vs. Star Wars kid PT (forgot the location) semifinals for that example.  Moreno made multiple procedural errors during game 5 (including drawing extra cards) in a level 5 event, and didn't even get a game loss.  Had this been during the swiss, there's no doubt in my mind he'd be getting at least a game loss.   Bottom line: Wizards looks out for itself, they have no other choice.

True, but that's not the point. I also don't have your repository of knowledge about any such official events, but in the above example, they didn't really change any rulings, they just didn't make any. That's a different ballgame.

The burden here lies with the two players, and the judge. The judge makes a ruling, and say one of the players is unhappy, and thus requests the head judge, who has the final and incontroversial decision. That's acceptable. The penalties, extensions, and such, should be applied. But to make a ruling, let the game go on, heck, maybe let it even go to the next round, and then change it... this can impact the entire tournament.

The fact that Nate didn't get a game loss earlier was so egreiously wrong that Dan felt compelled to say something.  Notice he didn't demand anything be changed, he just pointed out the standard pentaly.  As far as I can tell, it was a polite and reasonable objection...regardless if he had any bias towards Nate.

Well, in this case, I have two problems.

First, if Dan is playing, why is he doing anything as far as judging goes? Is this not a terrible conflict of interest? Some could even say he might be scared to face Nate in a playoff game, no?

Secondly, the judge made the mistake in this case. Taking points from a player and giving them to another, after another round has started, can have a terrible effect on the final results.

It might change a single match-up, or it might change all match-ups. It could even result in a completely different top-8.

The objection was noted and things snowballed from there.  You can say that once a ruling stands that's all she wrote, but that attitude quite frankly hurts vintage.  If something is wrong a Vintage tourney and it stands, people become aware and that hurts the credibility that we all strive for in this format.

If you are worried about credibility, then reversing decisions will hurt it far more.

The problem is that the judges there are working, not playing. They are getting paid for this. It is expected that they will take this seriously, and by the book. There's always a certain ammount of flexibility and the responsability turns from "making the perfectly correct decision" to "making the best possible decision you are capable of". This is what's known as people making mistakes, and shouldn't always be hanged for it.

Furthermore, this person was the head judge. A LOT more responsability lies with him. One would expect him to always make the correct decision.

But reversing the decision after play continued (and apparently, at least one round ended), is absolutely wretched, from even a rookie judge. It has happened. Learn from it.

Vintage thrives on the word of mouth and the community.  If there's a problem ruling that was made, by all means it should at least be discussed (not necessarily overturned) for the betterment of others.

Discussed is fine. Announced is fine.

Such as, say person X does an infraction, and he gets warned, and later on, turns out that a game loss was appropriate. The judge should announce this issue, and warn everyone that infraction X will result in a game loss. This will still cause "well, he only got warned for X, I got a game loss", but at least the defense is that people did get warned en masse.

That logic was basically applied to the creation of this thread.  It was agreed upon by certain players/TO's that there was a potential problem with another known member of the vintage community.  Rather than hide that fact, it was brought to the attention of the vintage community.  Now I personally don't agree with how that happened (as said many times over :p), but I understand why this thread was made and respect the decision.  That same respect should be applied towards Nate's penalty eventually being applied to him in that tournament.  Yes a judge's decision was changed later in the tournament, and no you don't have to agree with the aftermath caused by that.  Just understand that the TO at Beanie Exchange decided to take charge of that situation for the sake of his store and the vintage community.  I can respect that.

I have absolutely no opinion on the nate case, as I don't know enough about RELs and rulings to comment whether a game loss or warning, or whatever was appropriate.

The TO was fully in his rights to ban him from the store if he believed nate poses a danger to other people. Less so if it's to the enjoyment of other people.

But I can absolutely understand why he had a problem with reversing the decision afterwards.

[Moxlotus]

The TO was fully in his rights to ban him from the store if he believed nate poses a danger to other people. Less so if it's to the enjoyment of other people.

A TO has the right to ban anyone from their store for any reason they want.  Someone driving off other customers is a pretty damn good reason.

First, if Dan is playing, why is he doing anything as far as judging goes? Is this not a terrible conflict of interest? Some could even say he might be scared to face Nate in a playoff game, no?

Advising (and from what has been said--he didnt even advise, he just asked why a ruling was made) the judge on what to do in future situations helps the judge learn how to be a better judge.  Or else the same incorrect ruling can be made again and again.