Keeping Vintage Tournaments Fair and Thriving- Tournament Organizers’ Solidarity

[iamfishman]

Keeping Vintage Tournaments Fair and Thriving
Tournament Organizers’ Solidarity in the Face of Adversity

I am writing the following from the Myriad Games event taking place today.  During Round 3, I received a call from my Mom while sideboarding and in my distracted state, I sideboarded in 5 cards and forgot to sideboard any cards out.  My opponent and I were not more than 1-2 turns into the game when I realized what I had done.  Immediately, I informed my opponent of what I had done and that the result would be a game loss for me.  My honesty cost me the match.  This occurrence got me questioning how often a situation happens where the offending player is not so honest.  My time on the PTQ circuit exposed me to a high degree of cheating, which eventually caused my departure from more competitive formats for Vintage.  I have always feared that as Vintage grows, eventually similar things may happen to the format I love so much. 

Accordngly, the focus of this thread is to discuss a potentially volatile topic. I ask all participants in this discussion to maintain the highest level of decorum.

It is an unfortunate reality of competitive play that certain players are tempted to gain an unfair advantage through action or inaction. Cheating, unsporting conduct, and disruptive behavior are detrimental to both the legitimacy of the tournament and the long-term health of the community. This type of behavior cannot be tolerated if the community wishes to ensure that tournaments continue to survive and thrive. In sanctioned play, the DCI has an established set of penalties and a system for suspending and banning players when necessary. Most unsanctioned events utilize the DCI’s system of running events and applying penalties. Since there is no single organization to track accumulated penalties from events over time or enforce suspension or banning, it falls to tournament organizers to show solidarity and present a unified front in defense of a fair tournament environment. In order to maintain a fair, consistent tournament environment, we must enforce penalties uniformly across the spectrum of unsanctioned events.

The community aspect of Vintage is a significant factor in this discussion.  In no other format is there one place like The Mana Drain, which serves as a central hub of communication.  One strength of this tightly knit community and its primary community site is the ability for players and tournament organizers to come together and discuss issues such as tournament integrity.  In a similar fashion to the way committees of people with different backgrounds have been used in the business world to address important issues, those who feel strongly about Vintage have a responsibility to address anything which threatens the integrity of our format.

Seeing as I am part of the tournament organizer community, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of disruptive players who engage in unfair behavior. One disruptive player will drive away other players who disagree with their behavior. A tournament environment must be fair and fun for players to want to attend more tournaments. If a player detracts from that environment, then they pose a threat to the entire player base which in turn poses a threat to the entire format. Players who agree to abide by a set of rules will not want to attend an event where they know that certain individuals will not be held responsible for their actions. It is the responsibility of players to act in a sporting and friendly manner if they wish to support and grow the community. It is the responsibility of tournament organizers to ensure that players who repeatedly undermine and endanger the stability of the community are removed from tournaments until they can learn to behave in a fair and sporting fashion.

For this reason, I implore all players to collaborate to demand a fair and enjoyable tournament experience. I beseech all tournament organizers to work together, taking into account the previous and potential conduct of players who will divide and destabilize the community.  What I am suggesting is not a stripping away of tournament organizers' individuality in how they should run their events.  Instead, I believe that tournament organizers who do not take a common stance on major issues only hinder the growth of the format and establish an environment where the importance of integrity becomes minimized.

Thank you.

Raymond Robillard

[LordHomerCat]

Obviously the strong focus on Community makes Vintage unique among formats.  The entirely player-run aspect (minus Gencon) and basically TMD-as-the-mothership ideas are completely different from every other format, and as such require special considerations from the members of that community.  I don't think many people will disagree that TO's have a responsibility to maintain order at their events, much as organizers in other formats.  I'm just not sure exactly what you are asking for Ray.  Your experience doesn't seem to stem from being upset at a specific player's actions or some offense you believe would be a Suspension under regular DCI policy.  I mean, sure, it would be great for TO's to band to together and play nice (like Myriad with many other Northeastern tournaments), but I don't see any evidence to the contrary, nor do I see a lot of complaints of players who are wrecking the format we all love.  There was the incident a few months back, but that seems to have worked out well with you allowing that player to play at your last Waterbury and everything going swimmingly.  I'm just not completely clear on your inspiration or your goals for that matter, other than saying "We should all get along", which I'm sure everyone will agree with.

[Zherbus]

A few years ago, I proposed TMD-based Vintage circuit.

It would have allowed things such as:

- A rating system and player database (either detailed like DCI or just has T8 points).
- A way to universally ban disruptive players.
- A way to set a precident for a universal standard of proxies (proxy quality and quantity).
- A way to gather information (see Dr. Sylvan's and my old articles) to feed on a quarterly basis to the powers at the DCI.
- A way for TO's to hold events without stepping on each others toes.
- A quality assurance by having standards on what kind of TO's can be part of the circuit (fair prize structure, rulings, decent play area, activity within the community).

I was scoffed at and dismissed. I was also dismissed on starting the first proxy events and creating TheManaDrain.com.

Say the word Ray, and I'll dig up the work I did on that initiative and we can establish this. Hell, if I have Ray Robillard, ELD, and Dan Yarrington on board, I'll be plenty happy to get this going.

[T00L]

That sounds like a very cool idea Zherbus I especially like the idea of a ratings system like the DCI

[The Atog Lord]

A DCI-Style ratings system would be really hard to implement and maintain. Data would need to be given in chronological order, and entering one person's win/loss incorrectly could result in everyone's rating being thrown off.

Having a top eight - based system would be much easier to implement, and one's t8-rating could be calculated easily by anyone looking at tournament results. Having the ratings system would make it be near impossible for the average person to calculate his own rating.

[Zherbus]

From an administration stand point a t8 system, with points by event size, would be easy to maintain. Also, it keeps the bookkeeping off the TO's as they just need to report 1-8 places.

[The Atog Lord]

With the t8 system, Z, I think this is an excellent idea.

[nataz]

From a hypothetical standpoint.

- A rating system and player database (either detailed like DCI or just has T8 points).

This I think is a cool idea. Anyone remember Type I "Pro Points" from Dr. S?

- A way to universally ban disruptive players.

This I think is a mistake. We are not the DCI, heck, half the time we don't even have a full compliment of certified judges. I honestly don't really have enough trust in the community to do this right. I'm not even sure I trust the DCI to do this right, but at least they have a lot more experience with it. I'd want to see a much higher judging standard then what we currently have before I'd be comfortable with this.

- A way to set a precident for a universal standard of proxies (proxy quality and quantity).

Quality and style, yes. Quantity no. Good arguments can be made for any number 0 - infiny, and I'd rather be inclusive rather then exclusive. However, something along the lines of SCG Guidelines for proxies isn't a terrible idea simply because it ensures readable proxies.

- A way to gather information (see Dr. Sylvan's and my old articles) to feed on a quarterly basis to the powers at the DCI.

This is the best part in my opinion. Yay for real feedback and data.

- A way for TO's to hold events without stepping on each others toes.

Not sure how this would work. There are only so many good dates that you can use. While communication is key, I'm not sure a strictly organized structure would really work. Depends on how many TO's participate, and how strongly they feel about X date. On the plus side, it would be nice to have something like 6 months planned out in advance.

- A quality assurance by having standards on what kind of TO's can be part of the circuit (fair prize structure, rulings, decent play area, activity within the community).

Again, this seems tough. What is "fair"? Why should activity in the community count, or better perhaps, what kind of activity in the community are you looking for. Rulings? Play area?

P.S.
I'm pretty sure that Dave should be in on this too, at least for NE. By all accounts his event was amazing, and he already has a post up for his next one.   

so a quickie recap

-Pro Points: Yes
-Ban: No
-Proxies: Yes on quality style
-Yes on Data
-Maybe on circut dates
-No on "quality control"

-include Dave: yes

Keeping things simple is a good way to get people involved.

[TheBrassMan]

The idea of having heavy communication and cooperation between TOs is great.  I can particularly understand where Ray would support this, having played vintage during the Robillard/Stokinger wars.  Cooperation leads to tournament dates not overlapping, and fun things like ELDs proxies being used and TMD Open byes being given out at other events.  Further, the idea of any sort of rating system (Phil "Dr. Sylvan" Stanton had one set up a while back) is of course hugely appealing to any competitive player.  A ratings system, even without any privileges attached, adds a huge incentive to keep attending events, and keep doing well.  That may be a great topic for another thread.  Ray's post was not about this.

I'm going to be as straightforward as possible, as I feel ambiguity here will cloud the issue.  I can only assume this thread is in direct reference to Nate Pease, and if I'm totally wrong, inform me.  For anyone not familiar with the issue, Nate Pease was DQ'd from a tournament around 8 months ago (this date is an approximation, I'm not sure exactly how long ago).  Nate was a controversial player, and having recieved warnings before, Ray Robillard decided to ban him from his tournaments.  Shortly after Dan Yarrington and Eric Dupuis decided to do the same (though if I remember correctly, Eric's ban had the timeframe of DCI suspension for similar offenses).  Nate Pease was a teammate of mine, and took home quite a bit of power for our team, but if a tournament organizer feels that letting him play would be bad for the community, I have to respect the wishes of that organizer.  Much more recently (a few weeks ago), Dave Feinstein held a mox tournament in which Nate Pease played, and split for first.  All of these things I assume to be fact.  If I'm wrong about anything in this paragraph, please point it out, this next part is just my opinion.

If Ray thinks that Nate, or any player is bad for the community, he has every right to ban him from *his* event.  The same, of course, applies to Dan and Eric, and the same applies to Dave.  There are any number of reasons why Dave could find a ban unfair.  It could be too harsh a penalty for the act, it could have required more notice/warning, he could have been falsely accused, or Nate could simply have already served his time (I believe the DCI saves > 6 month suspensions for extreme cases, assault, and repeat offenders after previous suspensions).  I'm not saying any of these are the case, but I'm saying that the fact that any of these *could* be the case gives Dave the right to make up his own mind.  If you want to put together a database of warnings that people receive from an event, that would be a great way to help inform people to make their *own* decisions on how to run the tournament they're putting up the time and money for.  Even in that case, there are caveats.  We don't have the judge infrastructure the DCI does.  We don't have certification or accountability for bad calls.  I think informing the community about potential cheaters/floor rules violaters is a fine idea, but I'm scared about the possible consequences of a "TO Coalition". 

Since Ray didn't suggest a specific course of action (and because I happen to know he's an all-around great guy), I'm not decrying anything in his post.  However, I think we should be very very careful before we set up any sort of machinery that could result in TOs being bullied into running their events a certain way.  If the community at large disagrees with the way a TO operates, they won't attend the event.

If my singling people out by name was inappropriate, I apologize, but I feel it was the only way to cut directly to the heart of the matter.

[Myriad Games]

I wholeheartedly support the ideas being put forth in by Ray and Zherbus here. Count me in.    I think that while implementation of these improvements must be done properly to avoid potential issues, such a system would drastically improve the quality of the community overall. The obvious, immediate, and long-term benefits of such a program far outweigh the costs if such steps are not taken.

[LotusHead]

I am writing the following from the Myriad Games event taking place today.  During Round 3, I received a call from my Mom while sideboarding and in my distracted state, I sideboarded in 5 cards and forgot to sideboard any cards out.  My opponent and I were not more than 1-2 turns into the game when I realized what I had done.  Immediately, I informed my opponent of what I had done and that the result would be a game loss for me.  My honesty cost me the match. 

In all honesty, after sideboarding, many players "pile shuffle their decks" say, 6 piles of 10 (assuming a 60 card deck) to break up cards, and count the deck at the same time. Also, many player specifically count the cards in their sideboard to make sure it's 15 exactly every time.  This is a doublechecking measure that you didn't make a mistake.

I would say this is in a similar vein as casting Ancestral Recall into Chalice for 1 without realizing Chalice for 1 is out there, thus losing the Ancestral (or other vital card) and losing the match within the normal rules of the game.

Gotta play tight.

As far as "cheating" and "Bad sportsmanship/behavior", that is another question entirely.

During Season 2 of Eudemonia, a player was banned for 6 months or so because his "T2" teammate got caught cheating at some sanctioned event.  The judge stood by the "This tourney will be run exactly like a Sanctioned Event, except you can play with 10 Proxies".  That Ideal should be the standard.

(in this case, the Vintage Player was entirely innocent in the matter, but DCI says "Ban the Team", for example, so the Vintage player couln't play non-sanctioned T1 for a spell.

As far as "Honesty" is concerned, another concern is the "is the game state irreperable or not?" issue. I am no judge, but these are phrases I have heard in many a game state (some with me sucking up game losses for my mistakes AND my honesty about them. (I drew 2 of my 7 opening hand and saw a SB card game 1. I told my opponent right then and ther, and I got a match lose for presenting an illegal deck. I took it like a man).

I applaud any action to make Proxy Vintage "more authentic", but people have to own up to their own mistakes. We treat each match as special (except in the x-3 bracket). Rules are rules.

Now, rules lawyering, thats something else.

I have a fairly good reputation for being "honest" and fair out here, and honest as I am, I still fuck up sometimes (Trike in Main. doh! I had 1 Trike Main, 2 SB, one of the SB trikes seeemed mainboard. In this case, Asian Antiquities Trike is MB, 2 English Foil Trikes are SB, they all looked the same to me, and I didn't do my double checking routines! I fucked up. I get game loss)

As for "Mom called, got distracted", I had "No Caffeine, got distracted" or somesuch as my answer more than once.

Honest people pay a price in Vintage. I hope your crusade is to make sure cheaters pay their price, and not just let honest fuckups go free. (that includes me...)

[pyr0ma5ta]

A fine idea, and one that will make our beloved format more "official" and give it more weight in WoTC's situation room.  And who better to bear the coalition relic than the TO's?

Standards for proxy quality and quantity are a good idea, especially quality, as inconsistent standards are confusing and annoying.  The limit should be set at 10 or 15 with the possibility of being raised as needed, as well as the possibility of a TO to declare his own event "extra proxy" which would mean exactly what it sounds like.

A DCI-reporter system would require significant programming (as anyone who has experience with the DCI Reporter program knows) as well as a dedicated online server.  I don't know that anyone would be willing/able to put in that kind of time/effort/material, so the T8 points system looks like a much better idea.  That could be done on just a master thread in the Community Forums.

Organization of t8 data, in forms that the DCI can analyze for b/r updates and use to judge the health of the format, is a great idea.  Sometimes I get the feeling that the bigshots are a little out of the loop in Renton, WA, and this would be a great way to keep them informed.  The question remains: where will all the results go, and who will compile them?  A suggestion that comes off the top of my head is to have SCG expand their database to not just SCG and Waterbury events, but all major Vintage events, as they do for Standard/Extended.  Then Smennen or someone who wanted to step up to the challenge could do a 3-monthly article on the t8 data, for all to see.

Finally, the sticky question of banning/suspension.  As it stands now, every TO has the right and priviledge to remove and ban anyone from their events for any reason, whether it be unsporting or disruptive behavior, rules infractions, or outright cheating.  The DCI has very specific floor rules and penalties associated with their violations.  By and large, Vintage events have attempted to hold true to these floor rules (illegal deck/sideboard = game loss, extra card after mulligan = forced mulligan, looking at extra cards = warning, etc etc).  This is as should be, and it is my opinion that the DCI rules should be upheld to a T, even at "unsanctioned" events like ours, in order to give them as much formality and credence as any sanctioned event.  Therefore, I believe that warnings/cautions/bannings at Vintage events should be recorded, enforced, and even reported to the DCI (as they are interested in rules infractions, even in non-sanctioned events, as was the case in one Mike Long).  The TO's and judges shall therefore be considered God at their events, and given the full power of the DCI floor rules to enforce any skulduggery that may ensue.

[Demonic Attorney]

Stickied because the thread addresses a number of important community issues.

Also, to address one point already touched on in this thread, and one that I'm confident will resurface later in the discussion.  Dan and Ray started this thread not to coerce other Tournament Organizers into running tournaments the way they want them to, but as an appeal to the TMD player base at large to judge for themselves what standards are appropriate for events they pay to attend.  TO's are independent economic entities and have the right to run events they way they see fit; it is not the place of one TO to judge another one.

However, they way I see it, this is not what Dan and Ray are trying to do.  Instead, they are raising an important issue on TMD so that the players, the ones who do have the power to establish standards of quality for tournaments, can make an informed decision when they vote with their wallets.  The ultimate decision rests where it always has, with the Vintage community at large.  Dan and Ray are within their rights not just as TO's but as members of the TMD community in bringing their case before the players. 

Also, in case it needs to be said, this thread deals with a controversial subject and will only be useful if the discussion proceeds in a calm, rational, and adultlike manner.  Accordingly, there will be ZERO TOLERANCE for baiting, flaming, or trolling in this thread. 

[Meddling Mike]

I think this thread is just a carefully masked attempt to further stick it to Nate Pease and by extension Dave Feinstein for allowing Nate to attend his tournaments. Who else could this be about but Nate? Every other TO in New England got behind Ray's indefinte ban of Nate from tournaments and recently Nate attended Dave's first tournament and suddenly this thread shows up. As Brassman pointed out, Nate has already sat out for longer than the DCI's recommended penalty for his alleged offenses and probably for all the suspected offenses people think Nate is guilty of. Dave made a perfectly reasonable decision with regards to allowing Nate attending his tournaments, the tournament went smoothly and Nate didn't cause any problems or incidents, suggesting perhaps he has learned to "behave in a fair and sporting fashion". Maybe if Nate had actually been caught cheating a week ago and Dave chose to completely ignore this fact this argument that TO's who don't conform on this matter are dangerous for the format would hold more weight, but that's not the case and suggesting that this "threatens the integrity of our format" seems ridiculous to me.

I truly appreciate what Dan and Ray contribute to the New England Vintage magic community and the responsibility they feel to protect it, but I feel this has gone too far.

[Implacable]

This thread is a great idea.  For all of us who have never met Nate Pease, and couldn't care less about him, this thread is not about him.  It's about a system for standardizing tournaments and keeping track of accomplishments, while also promoting a fair and fun community experience for everybody.  Isn't that someone that everyone can support?  I know I do.

[Vegeta2711]

This thread is a great idea.  For all of us who have never met Nate Pease, and couldn't care less about him, this thread is not about him.  It's about a system for standardizing tournaments and keeping track of accomplishments, while also promoting a fair and fun community experience for everybody.  Isn't that someone that everyone can support?  I know I do.

That's actually not what this thread is about. Read the first post again, Ray doesn't actually mention any of that.
Here's what Ray's post is:
Ancedote about possible shady stuff and how he screwed up, but because he was honest he took punishment for it. i.e. penalizing people
Talks about cheating and punishments. i.e. penalizing people
Says TO's should be united on giving out punishments and enforcing them at all events. i.e. penalizing people at all events

Brassy and Lydon bring up Nate Pease, because really that's the one public cheating issue everyone knows about and it's easy to infer that Ray is basically referencing that without bringing it up considering he just wrote a whole page about penalizing people and holding them accountable and the situation with Dave.

Basically just read Brassy's post if you need to see what the thread was going to be about before the ratings stuff came up.

[Harlequin]

Just as a point of nit-pickery - I think the "Quality of Proxies" can safely be loosened up.  Alot of times you'll see something that says proxies must include all realavent game text.  This to me feels more like punishment for playing proxies than anything else.  Here are two examples:

Example 1.
The following text was in sharpy on a welding jar with the name scribbled out with the following text...

B.Lotus
Sac: 3 mana.

I was given an offical warning from a passer-by judge because #1 it didn't have the full card text and #2 the wording on the  proxy implied that it could be sac'ed while it was tapped.

Example 2.
text on a plains card, with a sharpy pink boarder with plains scribbled out.

Libarary of Alexandria

I kid you not, this card had full 'Alexandria' spelled out and everything, but no game text.  In this example, a buddy of mine was told that he had to carry around the errata text for LoA and present it to his opponent whenever the card was shown to his opponent. 

In the lotus example, I could see the spirit of the warning ... but seriously.  Sure if the card were more obscure full name and exact cost for the effect (if printed) could be important, but in lotuses case it seems like a judge just flexing muscle.  In the second example, this is just plain punishment.  If my oppoennt can play with japanese cards, there's no reason that I have to write full game text on the proxy.  It's my understanding that at any point in the round, any player can call a judge and as for an errata on any card in magic.  So what is the point of dis-allowing proxies w/o full text?  Cheating?  Think of how risky that would be.  Let's say my opponent asks me "What does Library do" and I was like "It taps for 1 colorless, or it taps to draw a card if you have more cards in your hand than your opponent."  If anyone overhears that - my ass is getting DQed so fast.  So any attempt to 'cheat' by lieing about proxy text is just silly.  And any possible rules-based questions that arrise (like if my opponent wants to know if my DSC's ability is a replacement or a trigger) --- would be handled no differant than if my Proxy of DSC was a Japanese DSC.  Am I write?

[Klep]

And any possible rules-based questions that arrise (like if my opponent wants to know if my DSC's ability is a replacement or a trigger) --- would be handled no differant than if my Proxy of DSC was a Japanese DSC.  Am I write?

No.  With a Japanese DSC, it is clear to your opponent that he has to ask what the card does, because he cannot read it at all.  If there is text on the card in English (barring obvious text alterations like blacking out certain words), your opponent has a reasonable expectation that that text is what the card does.  If the text on the card is inaccurate, you are giving your opponent a misleading impression of the game state.  That is unacceptable.  If you are playing with proxies, you have an obligation to make it as clear as possible what the card you are proxying does.  You cannot do that with shortcuts.  You either need to have all relevant game text on the card (preferably the exact oracle text), or with you to show your opponent.  Anything else is approaching cheating.

EDIT: Remember, playing with proxies is a privilege granted to you by willing TO's, not a right.  If you want to play with cards you don't own, I'm afraid you're going to have to do a little work.

[iamfishman]

This thread is a great idea.  For all of us who have never met Nate Pease, and couldn't care less about him, this thread is not about him.  It's about a system for standardizing tournaments and keeping track of accomplishments, while also promoting a fair and fun community experience for everybody.  Isn't that someone that everyone can support?  I know I do.

That's actually not what this thread is about. Read the first post again, Ray doesn't actually mention any of that.
Here's what Ray's post is:
Ancedote about possible shady stuff and how he screwed up, but because he was honest he took punishment for it. i.e. penalizing people
Talks about cheating and punishments. i.e. penalizing people
Says TO's should be united on giving out punishments and enforcing them at all events. i.e. penalizing people at all events

Brassy and Lydon bring up Nate Pease, because really that's the one public cheating issue everyone knows about and it's easy to infer that Ray is basically referencing that without bringing it up considering he just wrote a whole page about penalizing people and holding them accountable and the situation with Dave.

Basically just read Brassy's post if you need to see what the thread was going to be about before the ratings stuff came up.

I appreciate the attempts to interpret what I was saying in my initial post. The post was intentionally ambiguous for reasons I will clarify momentarily.

Those who suggest that this thread was created to address the presence of Nate at Dave's tournament are only partially correct. They are right in the sense that having a system established to deal with issues such as Nate's ban from tournaments was one of many implications of this thread. The difficulty in making progress in this issue, however, is that people are not thinking broadly enough.

The situation with Nate, and my personal opinion on him being allowed to play at Dave's event, is just one of many items that sparked this thread (another being the story I began with). Two more include a recent misplay due to an unclear proxy and an instance of collusion I recently encountered. All these recent events have made me realize that part of the future of Vintage rests in the future of Vintage tournaments. Since a positive tournament experience will encourage players to continue playing Vintage, and the opposite is also true, it makes logical sense to work together on issues of interest to tournament organizers and players alike. This cooperation, however, requires a certain degree of consistency.

Allow me to address the Nate issue before moving on. (And let me start this thought by saying that accusations of whether Nate is a cheater should not enter into discussion in this thread and distract from what I am really trying to say.) I feel that discussion of this issue is relevant to the the topic of successful tournaments helping keep players in Vintage. It is true that no individual can force Dave to ban someone from his events. This is his, and only his, decision to make. What does worry me, though, is the effect a decision to allow Nate will have on his player base. I know that I refuse to pay money to play in a tournament where I feel cheating may be taking place. Furthermore, Dan Yarrington and many others have taken a similar stance on the issue. For me, this simply means one less event. I can think of others who are not willing to travel as far, however, for whom this may mean they will no longer be able to play Vintage on a regular basis. A significant decline of the player base might not be far behind.

Even with this issue in my mind, I did not mention the Nate situation in my initial post for two reasons. First, this thread is not just about him. The issues with Nate are simply one example of the degenerative effects of disruptive behavior. These issues are part of the past and the present. I am considering many aspects of the past, present, and future. With this just being an isolated incident, I inquire: what would be the accepted ideology with regard to all similar situations in the future? Second, in addition to discussion of misconduct in future tournaments, this thread has also taken on a life of its own, in discussing other ways (rating systems, proxy standards, etc.) that tournaments can provide players with the most enjoyable atmosphere possible to ensure they continue playing Vintage.

There are many issues at hand, of which serious discussion can only yield better tournaments. As a major tournament organizer I am very interested in your responses to anything brought up in this thread, but specifically I would like to address three issues:

Issue 1: What would be the norm for proxies that would accomplish several things?
1.) Allow players all the mental cues necessary to play the game at their top ability level without having to keep mental track of the fact that the picture of Llanowar Dead they keep looking at isn't going to attack them, but rather is a Sphere of Resistance.
2.) Minimize, or ideally eliminate, the possibility of misrepresentation or deception to gain an advantage that can be accomplished by using proxies.
3.) Clarify what cards, if any, should be considered "understood" to a vintage player, and what cards should have their full text spelled out. For example, how much work must be put into a Black Lotus proxy? How about an Island of Wak-Wak proxy?

Issue 2: What can tournament organizers due to allow for tracking of statistics, whether it be a rating system, or a recording of top 8 lists?

Issue 3: And, of course, what can be done to hold players accountable for their actions in Vintage tournaments? Would tournament organizers who take a consistent approach against those who have shown strong evidence of cheating be sending a clear message about this kind of behavior, or would this stifle the personal choice of a tournament organizer? Will the tournament experience be better if tournament organizers cooperate more?

I invite you to join me in a mature, civil discussion of any/all of these topics in this thread.

[Klep]

A preemptive caution to all: do NOT turn this thread into a debate about Nate Pease or Dave Feinstein.

[Myriad Games]

I've been giving this topic some more thought and I'd like to weigh in on some of the specifics.

I envision a board dedicated to this area, with locked topics for each section - more a consolidated reference point than a discussion part of the forums. It would be located in either the tournament boards or in the Rules & Regulations section. Any or all of the ideas we've been discussing could be implemented as TMD Guidelines to complement (not replace) the DCI Tournament Rules. By participating in the Tournament Announcement and Tournament Report portions of TMD, tournament organizers would agree to adhere to these guidelines.

Player Ratings
This is a great idea, whether based simply on Top 8 information or including other tournament breakdowns where available. I prefer to have at least a list of the players who participated in an event and the deck type each was playing. That type of list doesn't take long to create after any given event that uses decklists, and the information could go a long way toward providing relevant metagame data on a broad scale. This type of list or database could be implemented in a variety of ways, but we definitely have the means to put this into effect promptly.

Tournament Summary This would be a simple list of events summarizing the location, organizer, number of players, Top 8, and possibly metagame breakdown. This could be gleaned from suitable tournament reports and most of this information is already being reported. Having it consolidated into an easily comparable format would be beneficial to keeping an eye on the development of the tournament community.

Quarterly Metagame Summary Articles
Using the statistics combed from the tournament summary database, these would be an engaging and interesting way to track the progress of the format.

Penalty Thread / Database
While it would be ideal to have a consolidated database of every penalty issued at every event, I concur with nataz that this may not be feasible given the disparities in rules enforcement across the board. It would be very feasible, however, to have a consolidated thread of significant penalties incurred at events (including any disqualifications). This would aid in the consideration of repeated offenses over time.

List of Suspended Players
We should use the Suspended DCI Members list as a model. This is an integral part of responsibility and accountability in preserving the integrity of unsanctioned events and keeping enforcement on par with DCI Penalty Guidelines. Suspensions on the current DCI suspension list range from 6 months to 50 years, depending on the offense. Hopefully this list will remain as short as possible, as suspension should be used only for those players who repeatedly engage in unscrupulous activity.

Proxy Guidelines
I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to proxies. I think the SCG guidelines are a good starting point for proxies. Players should prepare their proxies well in advance with all the details on the card. Time spent preparing proxies will pay off for players since they can use those proxies repeatedly.

Tournament Organizer and Scheduling Primer
This primer would include guidelines for TOs with regard to quality of venue including recommendations for organizing and running an event. Most of these would simply be summaries of the pre-existing TO materials available from the DCI along with links to the most recent documents.  Guidelines for scheduling tournaments would include utilizing the TMD calendar to avoid overlapping with other tournaments in that region. This is as simple as agreeing to post all relevant events on the TMD calendar (which posts to the Tournament Announcement forum automatically) and checking this centralized scheduling source ahead of time to avoid overlap in any given region.

I look forward to this continued discussion evolving into implementation of these improvements and the resultant strengthening of the entire community.

[ELD]

I have really wanted to reply to this thread since it started, but I haven't had the time to make a full response.  I'm up to my eyes in the making of Imperial Seal proxies, so it doesn't look like I'll have time to do so soon either.  I agree with the thoughts put forward by Dan and Ray.  I would be happy to discuss these ideas with other TO's to determine the best way to move forward. 

[Bill Copes]

So, let's say the majority of what is discussed in this thread is implemented and successful (player ratings, tournament circuit unification, rad proxies, a sanctioned penalty system, etc), would we as a community want to sort of become our own sanctioning body by cutting the DCI nonsense out of the equation  -- do what makes sense for vintage, instead of waiting for the DCI to make (or not make) the changes that we need made.  Such decisions could be made democratically by the whole community, via polls. Perhaps we could also elect a board of vintage representatives that could meet and help govern the system.

Just an idea.  Probably weak and flawed, yes.  But there is a potential to create something on a grand scale.

Forgive me if this is straying off topic, but I view the TO's as the leaders of the format and the pillars that hold the community together.  If they're controlling the structure of tournaments, then perhaps the yet to be formed TO committee could aid in controlling other aspects of the format as well.

[LotusHead]

Forgive me if this is straying off topic, but I view the TO's as the leaders of the format and the pillars that hold the community together.  If they're controlling the structure of tournaments, then perhaps the yet to be formed TO committee could aid in controlling other aspects of the format as well.

Unfortunately, some TO's have nothing to do with TMD.

For example, the Eudemonia Folks don't follow TMD. They run a store.  The Judge, while an excellent judge, is a T2/Extended kinda guy who doesn't follow T1 at all outside of the tourneys he judges at.  This judge does everything DCI by the book, except we get our 10 proxies.  If you are on the DCI shit list, you can't play in his tournies.

[Implacable]

Never, ever, should the Type 1 community enforce its own B&R list.  Ever.  The mob mentality ubiquitous across the Internet is no weaker here, in our intellectual bastion, than anywhere else.  The DCI may be too deliberate, but that is better than the alternative.  Furthermore, we will fundamentally disenfranchise ourselves in the Magic community.

[Myriad Games]

I agree that any sort of additional guidelines for the Vintage tournament community should serve as a supplement to the DCI guidelines, not a replacement. It's better if Magic tournament rules remain as consistent as possible. While it's never come up for our tournaments, we would enforce DCI suspensions in our unsanctioned events as well. All we're suggesting is that an addendum suspension list be created for those that would potentially fall through the cracks since proxy events are unsanctioned. Unsanctioned events should never become a haven for those who are suspended from sanctioned events. If tournament organizers simply follow the DCI Tournament Rules (as I think all serious tournaments should), they can simply use the guidelines and suggestions from TMD as a way to reinforce and supplement their pre-existing event organization.

I think any sort of committee that would be charged with creating or maintaining these tournament guidelines should be comprised of active tournament organizers and moderated by the TMD staff as usual. This initiative should serve as a platform for the members with a vested interest in seeing tournaments survive and thrive since we all have a great interest in the long-term health of this community.

[nataz]

Don't mean to single you out Dan, however...

How does this

Penalty Thread / Database
While it would be ideal to have a consolidated database of every penalty issued at every event, I concur with nataz that this may not be feasible given the disparities in rules enforcement across the board. It would be very feasible, however, to have a consolidated thread of significant penalties incurred at events (including any disqualifications). This would aid in the consideration of repeated offenses over time.

and this

I agree that any sort of additional guidelines for the Vintage tournament community should serve as a supplement to the DCI guidelines, not a replacement

work when at your events you have different REL levels for different infractions. I'm specificaly looking at the REL 3 for sportsmanship/behavior vs. REL 1 rules infractions. While I support and respect the theory behind it, isn't that a modification of DCI floor rules? In other words, you lend more weight to certain infractions, which then conflict with any kind of regional/national database of rules infractions. Also, do we really want all of our events run at REL 1? The whole idea of penalties being somehow certified into a public database when we don't even have real judges at our event seems like a truly terrible idea. Think of it this way.

Suppose player A is DQ'd from a store using non-traditional/inaccurate judging.  Player A is now in a public database showing that he/she has been DQ'd. In a normal event, there could have been an appeal to a head judge, but suppose there is no head judge, suppose there is only a TO. Is a TO automaticaly qualified to rule on the decision if they don't have a background in judging?

I think if you really want to improve participation by getting rid of cheaters and bad behavior what you need to do is offer better and more qualified judges at your events, not create some kind of community database.

[Harlequin]

Going back to proxies: My point is, I see absolutly no differance between a non-english card, and a proxy without full text.  

Now, clearity is one thing, and I personally don't like when people use fine-tip markers or ball point pen to put the full text on a dark card.  It wold be more valueable to me to see a huge thick block "ISLAND OF WAK WAK" than have the name AND full text of the card printed in a smaller font. I would much rather see the 'main' rule be something like: "The name of proxied card must be printed in at least 1/4 inch type, and must be offset in color and contrast from the print of the card" rather than a rule that says anything without full text is unacceptable.  If that's the rule, then I would assume non-english cards would be unacceptable for the same reason.

[The Atog Lord]

It is my nature to see flaws in any plan, so I'll do that here. Having good coordination between TOs is an excellent idea. Having a standardized system to record top-8s and a ratings system based on this is also a great idea. However, as Nataz is pointing out, putting together enforcement with a universal "ban list" is a potential source of some hefty problems.

Dan, I love your events, but they aren't really DCI-formatted. You have different penalty levels for different sorts of infractions, and you play best-of-5 finals. These things are both perfectly fine on their own and I won't complain about them at all. However, they do mean that your event is not the closest possible approximation of a DCI event. (Yes, a few dci events might be best-of-5, but only the really high level REL5 type events I think).

Moreover, I fear witch hunts and errant TOs. I trust all of you guys who have posted here. However, there will always be the potential for abuse and incoming TOs might bring further problems. The DCI has a large process to handle discipline -- we would not be able to be so rigorous. If we did have such a system, we would need to take great care with it; it would be a potential source of some very large issues.

[nataz]

Going back to proxies: My point is, I see absolutly no differance between a non-english card, and a proxy without full text. 

Artwork. Thats why you can play non-english cards, supposedly the artwork is the most important part of the card. Not saying I agree or disagree, just saying. Thats what kills us with proxies, for a myriad of reasons there is no good way to reproduce the artwork.