COC Errors/Contradictions/Ommissions

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
The following is displayed in the constructed events chat:
7:32 PM [sSET PRM R]Please note that tournament collusion, including joining a queue and not playing the matches or joining on two accounts, is against the Code of Conduct and will result in disciplinary action up to and including account termination.  But for those of you here to have fun... have fun!

however, this is inaccurate as this language is not actually included in the Code of Conduct:
www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x...

The closest thing is the following:

Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Bribing or offering any compensation in order to change the outcome.

  • Stalling, spamming, harassing, or behaving in any other unsportsmanlike manner that affects the game.



However, if the message in the constructed events chat is an interpretation of this quote from the CoC, then it is in direct contradiction of the comprehensive rules:
104.3a A player can concede the game at any time. A player who concedes leaves the game
immediately. He or she loses the game.

So is an individual allowed to join an event so that it fires and then concede in the first round without playing or not?
I believe they say that to prevent things like:

You and a buddy join a two player queue
One of you immediately concedes
The pair of you have effectively just bought a booster pack for 4 tix


This was done sometimes during the release of a new set to cheaply purchase the new packs using tix and it was a big no-no

My forever unfinished blog of the 2010 MTGO Community Cup: if you're ever bored...
I believe they say that to prevent things like:

You and a buddy join a two player queue
One of you immediately concedes
The pair of you have effectively just bought a booster pack for 4 tix


This was done sometimes during the release of a new set to cheaply purchase the new packs using tix and it was a big no-no



Ok, but it is being enforced on classic daily and premier events where players are now being suspended for join/dropping because they are interested in the health of the format.  And even so, why is it not they actually in the CoC?
I believe they say that to prevent things like:

You and a buddy join a two player queue
One of you immediately concedes
The pair of you have effectively just bought a booster pack for 4 tix


This was done sometimes during the release of a new set to cheaply purchase the new packs using tix and it was a big no-no



Ok, but it is being enforced on classic daily and premier events where players are now being suspended for join/dropping.  And even so, why is it not they actually in the CoC?



Joining/Dropping with a second account.  The player in question was already entered into the event with their main account and then joined/dropped with a second.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
I believe they say that to prevent things like:

You and a buddy join a two player queue
One of you immediately concedes
The pair of you have effectively just bought a booster pack for 4 tix


This was done sometimes during the release of a new set to cheaply purchase the new packs using tix and it was a big no-no



Ok, but it is being enforced on classic daily and premier events where players are now being suspended for join/dropping.  And even so, why is it not they actually in the CoC?



Joining/Dropping with a second account.  The player in question was already entered into the event with their main account and then joined/dropped with a second.



So, again, where in the CoC is this actually forbidden?  You didn't address the issue, just referred to the same quote, which contradicts the comp rules.

And if the quote applies to daily events, and not just 2mans as MTG-K suggested, why is it not displayed in the scheduled events room?


So, again, where in the CoC is this actually forbidden?  You didn't address the issue, just referred to the same quote, which contradicts the comp rules.

And if the quote applies to daily events, and not just 2mans as MTG-K suggested, why is it not displayed in the scheduled events room?



Where did I refer to a quote?  I just provided more details to a situation that you brought up but didn't fully explain.

The player in question was entered into a classic tournament that was 1 player short of the minimum to fire.  That player then used an alternate account to join the event and dropped on the alternate account as soon as the event started.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
I believe they say that to prevent things like:

You and a buddy join a two player queue
One of you immediately concedes
The pair of you have effectively just bought a booster pack for 4 tix


This was done sometimes during the release of a new set to cheaply purchase the new packs using tix and it was a big no-no



Ok, but it is being enforced on classic daily and premier events where players are now being suspended for join/dropping.  And even so, why is it not they actually in the CoC?



Joining/Dropping with a second account.  The player in question was already entered into the event with their main account and then joined/dropped with a second.



So, again, where in the CoC is this actually forbidden?  You didn't address the issue, just referred to the same quote, which contradicts the comp rules.

And if the quote applies to daily events, and not just 2mans as MTG-K suggested, why is it not displayed in the scheduled events room?



Join/dropping with a second account is NOT forbidded by the CoC...READ the CoC...the only way you could think it was against the CoC was by reading the quote from the constructed events chat, which is in and of itself contradictory to the comp rules.


Join/dropping with a second account is NOT forbidded by the CoC...READ the CoC...the only way you could think it was against the CoC was by reading the quote from the constructed events chat, which is in and of itself contradictory to the comp rules.




I've made no claim either way on that. 
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
Joining ANY event with multiple accounts and joining just to drop to a friend are both considered CoC violations under 13. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. Always has been.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
Joining ANY event with multiple accounts and joining just to drop to a friend are both considered CoC violations under 13. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. Always has been.



So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.

How can we follow the CoC if it's not stated, seriously?
It is not obvious, nor common sense what is acceptable since mtg in and of itself does not follow the common rules of "sportsmanship".  In paper mtg, there is nothing in any document that disallows either of the following:
-Concede a match outright for the sole purpose that the another person places higher.
This is not allowable in most competitive events, but happens commonly in mtg.  I mean, can you imagine what would have happened if the Colts outright forfeited today against the Jaguars?  They certainly had motive to.
Additionally, though rarely seen, the following is not prohibited and does happen:
-Purchase a bye in a sanctioned event if the tournament organizer allows it.

So again I ask where is this policy bubba, that you state "always has been the case" stated?

So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.

How can we follow the CoC if it's not stated, seriously?
It is not obvious, nor common sense what is acceptable since mtg in and of itself does not follow the common rules of "sportsmanship".  In paper mtg, there is nothing in any document that disallows either of the following:
-Concede a match outright for the sole purpose that the another person places higher.
This is not allowable in most competitive events, but happens commonly in mtg.  I mean, can you imagine what would have happened if the Colts outright forfeited today against the Jaguars?  They certainly had motive to.
Additionally, though rarely seen, the following is not prohibited and does happen:
-Purchase a bye in a sanctioned event if the tournament organizer allows it.

So again I ask where is this policy bubba, that you state "always has been the case" stated?


First off, there are really no limits to what CoC section 13 encompasses. It's left purposely vague so it can be applied to any unwanted behavior. It's unreasonable to expect Wizards to limit their powers to react. It's an aboslute impossibility for Wizards to list every behavior that is illegal in the CoC, since the potential number of illegal activities approaches infinity.

Also, it's okay to concede a match to a friend so he/she places higher, it's just not okay to join an event with that premeditated action in mind. At least that's my understanding of it.

The first time I recall suspensions happening for multiple accounts was probably 2004 or 2005 (maybe 2003) when one guy was entering five or six accounts into a league and manipulating his standings. I also recall there being a queue that never fired around the same time, and one guy would enter 8 accounts into the queue and then grab up all the prizes. It was a constructed queue and at that time the value of prizes paid out exceded the total entry fee.

I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you

So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.

How can we follow the CoC if it's not stated, seriously?
It is not obvious, nor common sense what is acceptable since mtg in and of itself does not follow the common rules of "sportsmanship".  In paper mtg, there is nothing in any document that disallows either of the following:
-Concede a match outright for the sole purpose that the another person places higher.
This is not allowable in most competitive events, but happens commonly in mtg.  I mean, can you imagine what would have happened if the Colts outright forfeited today against the Jaguars?  They certainly had motive to.
Additionally, though rarely seen, the following is not prohibited and does happen:
-Purchase a bye in a sanctioned event if the tournament organizer allows it.

So again I ask where is this policy bubba, that you state "always has been the case" stated?


First off, there are really no limits to what CoC section 13 encompasses. It's left purposely vague so it can be applied to any unwanted behavior. It's unreasonable to expect Wizards to limit their powers to react. It's an aboslute impossibility for Wizards to list every behavior that is illegal in the CoC, since the potential number of illegal activities approaches infinity.

Also, it's okay to concede a match to a friend so he/she places higher, it's just not okay to join an event with that premeditated action in mind. At least that's my understanding of it.

The first time I recall suspensions happening for multiple accounts was probably 2004 or 2005 (maybe 2003) when one guy was entering five or six accounts into a league and manipulating his standings. I also recall there being a queue that never fired around the same time, and one guy would enter 8 accounts into the queue and then grab up all the prizes. It was a constructed queue and at that time the value of prizes paid out exceded the total entry fee.




It is also left purposefully specific with examples...so if example behavior has been demonstrated regularly before, there is no reason to exclude it. 

Look, if you want to argue that "join/dropping with multiple accounts" violates 13 of CoC, then it is logical to accept that joining any event in any premeditated join/drop violates 13 of the CoC, because they have exactly the same effect on the event outcome, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to...
Therefore, you would never be able to join/drop an event for any reason, which leads to a direct contradiction of the comp rules, so it is not a logical application of 13.

Additionally, do you really think that this is how WOTC wants to communicate with customers?  We are Big Brother and we decide arbitrarily on how laws are enforced?  That seems silly.

I'm not trying to rules lawyer anyone here, I'm being serious...if wotc is mad that I want to pay them $6 extra just so an event fires, I think they should at least be clear about it, not be lazy and actually WRITE it into the CoC if they say it is a violation.  I mean c'mon, what LGS doesn't say yes if you say you'll cover the entry fee for the minimum needed to run a tourny.

Additionally, do you really think that this is how WOTC wants to communicate with customers?  We are Big Brother and we decide arbitrarily on how laws are enforced?  That seems silly.


No, I don't think that's what WotC wants. However it's impossible to codify every possible variation on a rule infraction for something as complex as an online multiplayer game. Any system of reward/punishment that involves human interpretation of events is going to be flawed to a certain degree and unfortunately people get burned.

It would be helpful if Wizards had more examples in their CoC, since there are a number of activities that Wizards never considered when the CoC was written that have later been determined to be rules violations.

And generally speaking, if a person's intentions are innocent and no harm was done by their actions, then I don't think a penalty is warrented. Unfortunately, I don't run the universe.

I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you

Look, if you want to argue that "join/dropping with multiple accounts" violates 13 of CoC, then it is logical to accept that joining any event in any premeditated join/drop violates 13 of the CoC, because they have exactly the same effect on the event outcome, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to...
Therefore, you would never be able to join/drop an event for any reason, which leads to a direct contradiction of the comp rules, so it is not a logical application of 13.



They're two different things.  If you're one of the players in the event, you could benefit from someone in round 1 getting a free bye.

If you're not in the event it doesn't effect you directly, you're not gaining any kind of advantage.

If you're going to allow it, where do you draw the line?   Take xtofyr's example above, where a player rushed an 8-man queue with 8 accounts because the prizes were worth more than the entry fee.  With an invite to a championship being on the line that's entirely possible with this event too.

I get that you love classic, and you see this behaviour as desirable because it got an event to fire that probably wouldn't have otherwise, but when you get caught breaking the rules you've got to live with the consequences, even if your intentions were pure.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge

Look, if you want to argue that "join/dropping with multiple accounts" violates 13 of CoC, then it is logical to accept that joining any event in any premeditated join/drop violates 13 of the CoC, because they have exactly the same effect on the event outcome, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to...
Therefore, you would never be able to join/drop an event for any reason, which leads to a direct contradiction of the comp rules, so it is not a logical application of 13.



They're two different things.  If you're one of the players in the event, you could benefit from someone in round 1 getting a free bye.

If you're not in the event it doesn't effect you directly, you're not gaining any kind of advantage.

If you're going to allow it, where do you draw the line?   Take xtofyr's example above, where a player rushed an 8-man queue with 8 accounts because the prizes were worth more than the entry fee.  With an invite to a championship being on the line that's entirely possible with this event too.

I get that you love classic, and you see this behaviour as desirable because it got an event to fire that probably wouldn't have otherwise, but when you get caught breaking the rules you've got to live with the consequences, even if your intentions were pure.



But the point is I'm trying to figure out what rule was broken...it is in no way clear.  It can't be rule 13 of the CoC, because if so, that rule is self-contradictory to the comp rules, so what rule is it?

It is very simple for wotc to state a rule to this effect...and other, more senior members of the forums have stated that this issue has arisen before, so why is it not addressed?

I agree, the line needs to be drawn somewhere...BUT WOTC HAS NOT TOLD US WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN
There are two different scenarios here.

The first is pretty clear and absolute: you cannot enter two accounts in an event. Ever.

The second is a little greyer, but here's what it comes down to: if people enter an event with the expectation that no competitive Magic playing will actual occur in the event, it is a violation. Dropping to a friend you happened to be paired against, or even joining and dropping an event you have free entry into in order to get the cards doesn't count because there is still plenty of other Magic being played, and the prize winners will have played Magic to earn their prizes. All known incidents of people actually being banned for this behavior has involved immediate concessions of all matches in the event. There was no Magic being played at all.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
There are two different scenarios here.

The first is pretty clear and absolute: you cannot enter two accounts in an event. Ever.

The second is a little greyer, but here's what it comes down to: if people enter an event with the expectation that no competitive Magic playing will actual occur in the event, it is a violation. Dropping to a friend you happened to be paired against, or even joining and dropping an event you have free entry into in order to get the cards doesn't count because there is still plenty of other Magic being played, and the prize winners will have played Magic to earn their prizes. All known incidents of people actually being banned for this behavior has involved immediate concessions of all matches in the event. There was no Magic being played at all.



Again, I urge you...where is this stated...you are a very senior member of the community, you are accustomed to rules and traditions that many of us are not...I honestly do not understand...if I am a paper mtg player and read the ToS and CoC...why is the enforcement of such documents not a logical syllogism.


Again, I urge you...where is this stated...you are a very senior member of the community, you are accustomed to rules and traditions that many of us are not...I honestly do not understand...if I am a paper mtg player and read the ToS and CoC...why is the enforcement of such documents not a logical syllogism.



You're not allowed to have 1 player occupy 2 seats in a paper tournament either.  I realize that it does happen and many TOs allow it, but in doing so they're breaking the rules too.

It's not allowed in paper and it's not allowed online.

EDIT:  to prove a point, that planeswalker points thing that came out originally had attendance levels counted for how many points something was worth.  So, if I go to an FNM with free entry can I enter myself 100 times so that  it's worth more points?

No, absolutely I can't do that because it's against the rules of the game. 
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge


Again, I urge you...where is this stated...you are a very senior member of the community, you are accustomed to rules and traditions that many of us are not...I honestly do not understand...if I am a paper mtg player and read the ToS and CoC...why is the enforcement of such documents not a logical syllogism.



You're not allowed to have 1 player occupy 2 seats in a paper tournament either.  I realize that it does happen and many TOs allow it, but in doing so they're breaking the rules too.

It's not allowed in paper and it's not allowed online. 


This is a fallacious argument since you aren't allowed 2 DCI numbers in paper, but are allowed multiple MTGO accounts....

As I have stated before, you are allowed to "purchase" a bye in a sanctioned event in paper if the TO allows it.


Seriously people, it is simple, wotc provides documents that we accept as terms of use, those documents should be maintained carefullly...this is a case where wotc just is being lazy.  CS refers to "collusion" as the explicit reason that the account is suspended, yet the term "collusion" appears neither in the TOS or COS, does CS even read these documents?

BTW, I am not the one directly affected by this...but I'm getting seriously annoyed.

This is a fallacious argument since you aren't allowed 2 DCI numbers in paper, but are allowed multiple MTGO accounts....

As I have stated before, you are allowed to "purchase" a bye in a sanctioned event in paper if the TO allows it.


Seriously people, it is simple, wotc provides documents that we accept as terms of use, those documents should be maintained carefullly...this is a case where wotc just is being lazy.  CS refers to "collusion" as the explicit reason that the account is suspended, yet the term "collusion" appears neither in the TOS or COS, does CS even read these documents?

BTW, I am not the one directly affected by this...but I'm getting seriously annoyed.



Where is it written that you're not allowed to have 2 DCI numbers in paper?
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge

This is a fallacious argument since you aren't allowed 2 DCI numbers in paper, but are allowed multiple MTGO accounts....

As I have stated before, you are allowed to "purchase" a bye in a sanctioned event in paper if the TO allows it.


Seriously people, it is simple, wotc provides documents that we accept as terms of use, those documents should be maintained carefullly...this is a case where wotc just is being lazy.  CS refers to "collusion" as the explicit reason that the account is suspended, yet the term "collusion" appears neither in the TOS or COS, does CS even read these documents?

BTW, I am not the one directly affected by this...but I'm getting seriously annoyed.



Where is it written that you're not allowed to have 2 DCI numbers in paper?


i will gradually eek up with more and more reliable sources as I find them

forums.starcitygames.com/showthread.php?...

This is a fallacious argument since you aren't allowed 2 DCI numbers in paper, but are allowed multiple MTGO accounts....

As I have stated before, you are allowed to "purchase" a bye in a sanctioned event in paper if the TO allows it.


Seriously people, it is simple, wotc provides documents that we accept as terms of use, those documents should be maintained carefullly...this is a case where wotc just is being lazy.  CS refers to "collusion" as the explicit reason that the account is suspended, yet the term "collusion" appears neither in the TOS or COS, does CS even read these documents?

BTW, I am not the one directly affected by this...but I'm getting seriously annoyed.



Where is it written that you're not allowed to have 2 DCI numbers in paper?


Please, everyone...present this argument to me...i will gradually eek up with more and more reliable sources.

forums.starcitygames.com/showthread.php?...



That's not the TOS or the COC, or the DCI floor rules, or even a WotC site. That's a post on a message board owned by a third-party.  That's not an officially written down rule.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
And the coup de gras, from the MTR:
1.5 DCI Membership Number
Tournament participants must provide their DCI membership number to the Scorekeeper during registration. Players without a DCI membership number must request one from the Tournament Organizer. There is no cost associated with joining the DCI, but members are only allowed one DCI membership number. Results containing temporary player numbers, temporary player names, or placeholders may not be reported to the DCI.

Look, I like you BatDwarf, and don't want to fight about this...sometimes you have to recognize a losing battle.
And the coup de gras, from the MTR:
1.5 DCI Membership Number
Tournament participants must provide their DCI membership number to the Scorekeeper during registration. Players without a DCI membership number must request one from the Tournament Organizer. There is no cost associated with joining the DCI, but members are only allowed one DCI membership number. Results containing temporary player numbers, temporary player names, or placeholders may not be reported to the DCI.

Look, I like you BatDwarf, and don't want to fight about this...sometimes you have to recognize a losing battle.



Awesome.  Now, can you show me where it states that you're not allowed to enter the tournament twice with the same DCI number?
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
And the coup de gras, from the MTR:
1.5 DCI Membership Number
Tournament participants must provide their DCI membership number to the Scorekeeper during registration. Players without a DCI membership number must request one from the Tournament Organizer. There is no cost associated with joining the DCI, but members are only allowed one DCI membership number. Results containing temporary player numbers, temporary player names, or placeholders may not be reported to the DCI.

Look, I like you BatDwarf, and don't want to fight about this...sometimes you have to recognize a losing battle.



Awesome.  Now, can you show me where it states that you're not allowed to enter the tournament twice with the same DCI number?



so you think that you CAN register twice for the same event under the same DCI number? So how would that preclude you from registering for a tournament with 2 mtgo accounts?

Awesome.  Now, can you show me where it states that you're not allowed to enter the tournament twice with the same DCI number?

I couldn't find this explicitly stated, but there are safeguards in place to prevent this for paper events. I don't believe that the WotC tournament software will alow the Tournament Organizer to enter the same DCI# twice. And, the TO won't be able to report tournament results that included the same DCI# listed twice. I'm sure if they somehow managed to do so, WotC would invalidate the event and seriously consider whether or not to ban the TO and/or player.

One of these days, Wizards will link all accounts owned by the same person* and automatically prevent someone from entering an event with two different accounts.

*There are a few ways they can determine two accounts are linked together. And, if they are wrong, you and the other fellow would probably have to prove it to them somehow.
However, if the message in the constructed events chat is an interpretation of this quote from the CoC, then it is in direct contradiction of the comprehensive rules:

What do the comprehensive rules have to do with MtGO? I mean, a lot that's in there applies to online play, but not all of it (go ahead and try to shuffle your opponent's deck). It doesn't matter whether or not there's something that directly contradicts the comprehensive rules or tournament rules. The MtGO rules aren't nearly as well documented as those for paper. It can be a rough transition from paper to online play.
bactgudz, I agree with you that more specific examples should be cited in the CoC. I don't see any reason for anyone to disagree on that specific point since there are several issues that have come up repeatedly regarding rules players weren't aware of (this is one of them).

Surely, though, you can see why Wizards has a rule of one account per player per event? I'm not a proponent of black and white rules enforcement, but it's definitely easier to manage things that way when dealing with a large group of people.

I'm curious... was the player in question reported by another player or did he blatantly advertise what he was doing? Or was there some other way Wizards discovered his action? It seems like for this specific situation it's something that could be pulled off rather stealthily. 
I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you
bactgudz, I agree with you that more specific examples should be cited in the CoC. I don't see any reason for anyone to disagree on that specific point since there are several issues that have come up repeatedly regarding rules players weren't aware of (this is one of them).

Surely, though, you can see why Wizards has a rule of one account per player per event? I'm not a proponent of black and white rules enforcement, but it's definitely easier to manage things that way when dealing with a large group of people.

I'm curious... was the player in question reported by another player or did he blatantly advertise what he was doing? Or was there some other way Wizards discovered his action? It seems like for this specific situation it's something that could be pulled off rather stealthily. 



I can certainly understand if Wizards wants to enforce a rule of one account per player per event.  I could also understand why they would NOT want to enforce this rule.  I also understand that I sign a ToS which references a CoC and that is what I am held accountable to when I play mtgo. I furthermore assume that mtgo attempts to uphold as much of the comprehensive rules of mtg as possible.

I assume that by reading these documents and using simple logic when it comes to matters of judgement I should be able to use the product I am paying for.  So if there is a rule which is being enforced and is not stated in these documents that is not a logical sequitor from these documents, I am concerned.  That is why this thread is titled CoC ommission.

To answer your other question, it is suspected that the player in question was reported by another player who held a personal grudge; since the latter player has openly admitted to having extracted revenge on a you tube video.
However it's impossible to codify every possible variation on a rule infraction for something as complex as an online multiplayer game. Any system of reward/punishment that involves human interpretation of events is going to be flawed to a certain degree and unfortunately people get burned.


It's left purposely vague so it can be applied to any unwanted behavior. It's unreasonable to expect Wizards to limit their powers to react. It's an aboslute impossibility for Wizards to list every behavior that is illegal in the CoC, since the potential number of illegal activities approaches infinity.


It is also left purposefully specific with examples...so if example behavior has been demonstrated regularly before, there is no reason to exclude it. 


I don't understand why we've strayed from this, which is the real answer to the question. The rule is intentionally vague. Having examples listed does not negate the fact that the rule has a broad reach. Expecting every possible CoC violation listed negates the point of having the rule be vague, and it is explicitly stated that the examples are NOT an exhaustive list. Could multi-joining an event be listed, since it is such a clear and obviously violation? Sure. Should it be? Maybe. Does it have to be? No. If anyone has a question on whether something violates the CoC, they should ask an ORC. They may not get everything right about the game, but they are really good on what is a CoC violation.

As far as paper analogues, WotC recently handed out DCI suspensions and sued a TO and others at a game store for exactly the kind of behavior we're talking about here. They were setting up fake events in order to get promo cards. Others have been banned in the past for doing the same to boost ratings.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert
Because Bubba, it is not clear how this is a violation of the code of conduct...you keep saying it's a violation, and stated earlier that it relates to part 13 of the CoC but fail to address the following:

Joining ANY event with multiple accounts and joining just to drop to a friend are both considered CoC violations under 13. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. Always has been.



So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.



If 13 is what applies in this instance, then I should not be able to join an event and drop for any reason on a single account; since in the context of 13 these are the same....yet again this would contradict the comp rules.

And again these aren't "obvious" violations...it is perfectly acceptable to drop to at any time in paper mtg, even after just registering...and it is certainly acceptable to pay a TO the minimum enrty fee he requires to run a tournament just so it happens.  We are talking about joining an event and not participating in it, dropping at the first allowable instance.

So I'm asking right now, can I join a PE with just one account that I know I want to drop from in the first round?  Can I join a release queue with one account just to get the promo avatar and see my sealed pool and drop in the first round?  These have the same effect on event outcome as join/dropping with a second account, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to.
The MtGO rules aren't nearly as well documented as those for paper...

So what is and is not applicable? and why is there not a clear distinction...

I can only speculate why this is: MtGO hasn't matured to the point where Wizards feels this area needs improvement. There are clear policy/procedure differences between paper and online drafts that really bug me as well.
I fail to see why the questions I'm asking are unreasonable...

I don't find them unreasonable.
The whole point is that the mtgo rule is NOT well documented in this instance/

I agree with you with one exception: in-game proclamations (such as the constructed events chat) kind-of, sort-of, counts as a rule. In this particular case, the justification they state for the rule is stretching things.

Because Bubba, it is not clear how this is a violation of the code of conduct...you keep saying it's a violation, and stated earlier that it relates to part 13 of the CoC but fail to address the following:

Joining ANY event with multiple accounts and joining just to drop to a friend are both considered CoC violations under 13. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. Always has been.



So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.



If 13 is what applies in this instance, then I should not be able to join an event and drop for any reason on a single account; since in the context of 13 these are the same....yet again this would contradict the comp rules.

And again these aren't "obvious" violations...it is perfectly acceptable to drop to at any time in paper mtg, even after just registering...and it is certainly acceptable to pay a TO the minimum enrty fee he requires to run a tournament just so it happens.  We are talking about joining an event and not participating in it, dropping at the first allowable instance.

So I'm asking right now, can I join a PE with just one account that I know I want to drop from in the first round?  Can I join a release queue with one account just to get the promo avatar and see my sealed pool and drop in the first round?  These have the same effect on event outcome as join/dropping with a second account, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to.

When you have a vague rule, you have only a few things you can do:
Interpretit.  This is done at your own risk, as you may think differently than WotC
Ask the ruling body on a case by case basis - WotC customer service or an ORC
Go off of precedent - This is what the forum folk are giving you: instances in the past where we know how WotC rules regarding this policy


There is no sense in arguing with anybody, especially on the boards.  People here are only trying to help by letting you know the precedent of these rules.  No one here is, in any way, in control of this rule or has the power to get it changed.  Discussing it may sway WotC's opinion, but I doubt that.  If anything, this is just a customer service issue that probably shouldn't be discussed here.  The person who did this (perhaps it was you...) should probably just contact customer service and point to the evidence of the motive of revenge and see if WotC would do anything (likely not).

My forever unfinished blog of the 2010 MTGO Community Cup: if you're ever bored...
Because Bubba, it is not clear how this is a violation of the code of conduct...you keep saying it's a violation, and stated earlier that it relates to part 13 of the CoC but fail to address the following:

Joining ANY event with multiple accounts and joining just to drop to a friend are both considered CoC violations under 13. Do not attempt to artificially alter the outcome of a Magic Online league, sanctioned event, or game. Always has been.



So the limits are multiple accounts and to drop to a friend?  But join/dropping for any other reason is ok?  There is no difference here in the extent to which any event's outcome may or may not have been "artificially altered"; whatever that means.

Yet this policy is stated in exactly 0 places? and dropping to a friend even contradicts the comp rules.



If 13 is what applies in this instance, then I should not be able to join an event and drop for any reason on a single account; since in the context of 13 these are the same....yet again this would contradict the comp rules.

And again these aren't "obvious" violations...it is perfectly acceptable to drop to at any time in paper mtg, even after just registering...and it is certainly acceptable to pay a TO the minimum enrty fee he requires to run a tournament just so it happens.  We are talking about joining an event and not participating in it, dropping at the first allowable instance.

So I'm asking right now, can I join a PE with just one account that I know I want to drop from in the first round?  Can I join a release queue with one account just to get the promo avatar and see my sealed pool and drop in the first round?  These have the same effect on event outcome as join/dropping with a second account, which is all that 13 of the CoC refers to.


I don't understand why you refuse to recognize the difference between join/dropping an event with dozens of other people vs. arranging an entire event where everyone drops just to turn the entry into prizes. Would it help if we point out this is also a form of collusion in addition to being event fraud?

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert

If 13 is what applies in this instance, then I should not be able to join an event and drop for any reason on a single account; since in the context of 13 these are the same....yet again this would contradict the comp rules.


I guess it comes down to how you interpret "artificially alter the outcome". A player who, during the course of an event, chooses to concede is much different from a player who enters the event with the intention to concede, under my understanding of 13. It's not uncommon that the difference between breaking a law and not breaking a law is determined solely by a person's intention. So it goes with 13.

So, if you join an event and see your card pool and figure why bother, that's fine. However if your intention is to drop fromt the event prior to joining it, then that's not fine (per Wizards, not per me).

I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you

I don't understand why you refuse to recognize the difference between join/dropping an event with dozens of other people vs. arranging an entire event where everyone drops just to turn the entry into prizes. Would it help if we point out this is also a form of collusion in addition to being event fraud?



I do recognize the difference, and the suspension was handed down for " join/dropping an event with dozens of other people"...so it appears that wotc does not recognize the difference.


I don't understand why you refuse to recognize the difference between join/dropping an event with dozens of other people vs. arranging an entire event where everyone drops just to turn the entry into prizes. Would it help if we point out this is also a form of collusion in addition to being event fraud?



I do recognize the difference, and the suspension was handed down for " join/dropping an event with dozens of other people"...so it appears that wotc does not recognize the difference.



I thought the issue was one player that entered an event with multiple accounts.  AFAIK, Wizards isn't banning anyone for simply joining an event and then dropping from it unless there's something else involved like collusion. Maybe stick with what actually happened rather than creating strawmans? Just sayin'....
I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you

I thought the issue was one player that entered an event with multiple accounts. Maybe stick with what actually happened rather than creating strawmans. AFAIK, Wizards isn't banning anyone for simply joining an event and then dropping from it unless there's something else involved like collusion.


It is not a strawman...
A player was in a DE that was at 15 people and was about to expire.  That player join/dropped with an additional account so that the event would fire.

This is not a violation of the CoC as written any more than join/dropping with a single account is.


This is not a violation of the CoC as written any more than join/dropping with a single account is.


Okay, I see your point. I haven't seen anyone argue, though, that joining with multiple accounts should not be listed in the CoC -- I think it probably should be since this isn't the first time someone was caught up by this. Just because everything isn't specifically listed doesn't mean that Wizards shouldn't act when they perceive some sort of abuse occurring. Unfortunately, in this case, there's already a large body of precedence for joining with multiple accounts to seriously abuse the integrity of the event system. I can see Wizards point of view that the level of potential abuse is serious enough to have a zero tolerance. Though, it would be nice if Wizards didn't allow themselves to be triagulated into being the bad guy by some immature tattle tale with an axe to grind.

I can't spare a moment for the dog faced boy I won't lend another hand to the worm girl of Hanoi Don't deplete my oxygen for the guy who's turning blue But ask me, and I'll do anything for you
You know I like the guy who did it he's a good guy, but seriously you had to know that's not right.  I mean you guys can complain about not knowing where the line is or w/e but ultimately come on.  It's only gonna work so many times until he plays himself and then it's a legit ban in your eyes.  But seriously just because it's not expressly stated in the CoC, doesn't mean it's not a legit suspension.  Furthermore it's right ****ing there whenever you enter a room.  Does that mean you can ignore it.  It's also right ****ing there in the mocs pages.  Sorry (content removed) but this ban is 100% legit.