Wakefield, Is That You?

210 posts / 0 new
Last post
In Jamie Wakefield's new article here (it's on Star City Premium) he fully admits to pulling a Taigo. Good job.

"I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round." "

This does leave me with a bit of a dillema. Where as Taigo Chan was simply some guy who wrote a bad tournament report, Wakefield is a legend. I personally believe this is the worst offense you can pull online, as it invalidates any possible integrity the game might have.

Consequently there are two options:
A) Turn in the best writer the game has ever seen.
B) Ignore it.

Of course, I'm choosing C. Post it on the boards where someone with authority will see it, while simulatenously keeping a clear conscious.

Yeah, I am truly the king of morality.
It cant be legal to "pinch hit" for another user in PE/Draft/League tournaments?

Can it?

I summon the Wizo with a strange looking hamburger from Brooklyn. :D
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is purely optional. Improvise (a solution), Adapt (to current situation), Overcome (any obstacle in your way) -- been working for the USMC since 1776.
Sooo, are the pros, legends etc for hire? my rating is low and i want to increase it a bit or it is just favours to friends?

(I wonder if i have posted the same in the Tiago thread)

So how will be the questions fomr now on?
Tiago/Joshie is that you?

or

is this Tiago or Joshie?

or

So how will be the questions fomr now on?
Tiago/Joshie is that you?

Soon, we will have a slew of Jamie Chan movies ;)

As for the OP's question, reg, you wuss! Rules are rules, for everyone. I don't even see the relevance of him being a "legend" and one of the best writers ever. Actually, if anything it makes it worse if he does it as opposed to some random Tiago type, since he should set the example.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Soon, we will have a slew of Jamie Chan movies ;)

As for the OP's question, reg, you wuss! Rules are rules, for everyone. I don't even see the relevance of him being a "legend" and one of the best writers ever. Actually, if anything it makes it worse if he does it as opposed to some random Tiago type, since he should set the example.

Reminds me of the old Pace Picante sauce TV Commercials:

"New York City???"

"Get a rope".
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is purely optional. Improvise (a solution), Adapt (to current situation), Overcome (any obstacle in your way) -- been working for the USMC since 1776.
Reminds me of the old Pace Picante sauce TV Commercials:

"New York City???"

"Get a rope".

Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.

Meaning that the guy who cheated will be hung by rope (punished).

Do not let a person break the law just because they are "elite". If a common man cannot speed, nor should the man in the Ferrari, Lexus or Bentley.
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is purely optional. Improvise (a solution), Adapt (to current situation), Overcome (any obstacle in your way) -- been working for the USMC since 1776.
Meaning that the guy who cheated will be hung by rope (punished).

Do not let a person break the law just because they are "elite". If a common man cannot speed, nor should the man in the Ferrari, Lexus or Bentley.

Actually, "nor should the president be able to" is a better way to put it.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Meaning that the guy who cheated will be hung by rope (punished).

Do not let a person break the law just because they are "elite". If a common man cannot speed, nor should the man in the Ferrari, Lexus or Bentley.

again the money issue.

Meaning that the guy who cheated will be hung by rope (punished).

Do not let a person break the law just because they are "elite". If a common man cannot speed, nor should the mayor, pope, famous actor, the son of the president, etc .

Fixed
IMO Its the status in society and not how much money he has



Edit: Nushae beat me to it
IMO Its the status in society and not how much money he has

Thing is, many americans see no difference between the two... In most american eyes "success = wealth".

Edit: Nushae beat me to it

Get used to it... due to a train-strike in the Netherlands our company is at about 10% capacity so I'm glued to the boards
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Soon, we will have a slew of Jamie Chan movies ;)

As for the OP's question, reg, you wuss! Rules are rules, for everyone. I don't even see the relevance of him being a "legend" and one of the best writers ever. Actually, if anything it makes it worse if he does it as opposed to some random Tiago type, since he should set the example.

Very true, problem is that I have more respect for Wakefield than anyone else in Magic.

When I bought his book, I realized that writing about Magic can mean more than just stats and percentages, it, as sappy as this may seem, can also be about the person.

Wakefield has the gift of making you care. Eisel writes about the time he lost to a runner-runner flush to some fool play Q5 suited, I don't care. Wakefield writes about walking his dog, and I actually read it. Very few people can do that.

Again, since I'm spineless, I posted it here, I figured someone would do my dirty work for me.
..
When I bought his book,....

I guess this is an indication of dedication and love for mtg
I guess this is an indication of dedication and love for mtg

You may laugh, but, at the rate the price for that book is increasing, I'm going to be able to retire off of it.

I may be a dork, but, now, I'm a dork with an expensive book.
Very true, problem is that I have more respect for Wakefield than anyone else in Magic.

When I bought his book, I realized that writing about Magic can mean more than just stats and percentages, it, as sappy as this may seem, can also be about the person.

Wakefield has the gift of making you care. Eisel writes about the time he lost to a runner-runner flush to some fool play Q5 suited, I don't care. Wakefield writes about walking his dog, and I actually read it. Very few people can do that.

Again, since I'm spineless, I posted it here, I figured someone would do my dirty work for me.

Can someone PM the info on his book and if its worth it for an MTGO'r to subscribe to BB or SCG?
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is purely optional. Improvise (a solution), Adapt (to current situation), Overcome (any obstacle in your way) -- been working for the USMC since 1776.
You may laugh, but, at the rate the price for that book is increasing, I'm going to be able to retire off of it.

I may be a dork, but, now, I'm a dork with an expensive book.

I dont laugh, it was a true comment, i just didnt know there were such books or that people would delve so much in mtg, I mean I think about is as a nice complex game with fans all over the world with a collectability value.

Come to think of it with all the huge prizes in paper it shouldnt be surprising books for strategies are printed
Meaning that the guy who cheated will be hung by rope (punished).

Do not let a person break the law just because they are "elite". If a common man cannot speed, nor should the man in the Ferrari, Lexus or Bentley.

As an aside, a while back in this country, a rich person caught speeding in a BMW had his lawyer argue in court that it was not 'dangerous driving' (which the police had charged him with as he was so far over the limit) as the car was well designed to handle such speeds safely, and indeed it had.

He got off.


Back to the subject in hand, I say report. Which I guess is what has been done ;) .

What this makes me wonder is this: is the habit of having someone else play games actually quite widespread, but only pros feel able to discuss it?
I mean both times it has come up in writing, it's never regarded by the writer as any kind of deal.

This casual mentioning makes me feel this must be not only widespread, but in certain circles, assumed behaviour.
Person A should finish their own events they enter as a player.

Others do not have people pinch-hit for them - thus the playing field would not be fair.

Its hard to verify - but if caught - something must be done.
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is purely optional. Improvise (a solution), Adapt (to current situation), Overcome (any obstacle in your way) -- been working for the USMC since 1776.
I did pinch-hit for a friend once when he was unable to connect to Magic Online for unknown reason. At the time I thought about it a bit and determined that the advantage he gains by having me there to pinch-hit is miniscule and not worth fretting. A player without pinch-hitters available will lose whenever they find themselves in that situation and a player with pinch-hitters available will win 50% or so when they find themselves in that situation, but it happens infrequently enough that I think the disadvantage granted is worth (to Magic Online) the increased sense of community. It's not really any different from the advantage someone with a strong internet connection has over someone with a weak one anyway. And having reliable broadband isn't an advantage anyone with a wonky 56k is in a reasonable postion to argue should be eliminated.

So I got to wondering, aside from being against the rules, what is inherently wrong with pinch hitting?

The situations where your opponent(s) are negatively affected by pinch-hitting are the following:

1) When your account would not have finished the event otherwise.
2) When your account would have played differently otherwise, and you has been scouted.
3) When your account would have played more poorly otherwise.

I want to talk about these one at a time.

1) When your account would not have finished the event otherwise.

This could be due to poor scheduling of time, or due to technical difficulties. As I already outlined, I believe this is almost irrelevant when it's technical. And most people don't join events they can't finish, so I think it's nearly irrelevant with regards to scheduling as well. Most of the pinch hitting isn't in situations where your account would not have finished otherwise and where your account would have been in the tournament to begin with. Having pinch hitters really only decreases the chance that other people get a bye by a miniscule amount.

2) When your account would have played more poorly otherwise.

The situation here is that it is known that you sideboard card X in for matchup Y, but your replacement may not do that and your opponent who has carefully scouted you then has misinformation on you. Again, I think this happens infrequently enough to not produce a noticeable advantage for people with pinch-hitters.

3) When your account would have played more poorly otherwise.

Now the question must be, why would the account have played more poorly otherwise? Is it because your pinch-hitter is a better player than you? That's not exactly relevant--unless, of course, your pinch hitter was previously in the same event--because people don't have an inherent right to play against bad players. Is it because you're sick and your pinch hitter isn't? Same issue. Is it for any reason other than "because you just played 6 rounds of Magic and your pinch-hitter didn't?" Then I find it to be irrelevant. But if your pinch hitter will play better than you because he's fresh and you're fatigued specifically from Magic play, then you have gained a significant unfair advantage.

So my conclusion is that pinch-hitting has hardly any effect unless the pinch-hitter is much better than you and was previously in the same event, or if the pinch hitter will play better than you because he is fresh and you are fatigued. And there is already a rule against playing in the same event multiple times.

So the only purpose to a "no pinch-hitting" rule is really to avoid giving people with friends the no-fatigue-from-Magic advantage. Is THAT worth having the rule for? Maybe. I personally think allowing people to switch around would really make Magic Online feel more like a community, and I think that's worth sacrificing the skill of being able to concentrate for 6 hours on end. But that's a judgment call that isn't mine to make.
That's not exactly relevant [...] because people don't have an inherent right to play against bad players.

But that's not what it is about. In any competition, the central thought is that your achievements must be due to your OWN efforts. Having someone else do your competing for you is, in general, cheating.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
Ok fill me in, who is Taigo, who is Joshie?
What they did is clearly a violation of the rules of Magic Online. Just like you can't have a bot play for you, you can't have anyone else play for you. We had a thread recently where someone mentioned something similar to this in an article.
They should be setting a better example for people who read their articles.
This is not to say that they don't do it anymore, as that would probably be pretty hard to determine, but don't be fool enough to publicize the fact that you are breaking the rules and/or put a disclaimer that such actions are not allowed in the article.
if you make them fix the search function i will find the huge Tiago Chan (not Taigo) thread were we and Tiago at the end discussed the fact that he made a report in public and casually mentioned that he continued one of his friends' game.

Joshi I guess is a clone of Tiago but only someone with access to this site can give us more details

I gather also that wakefield is a big name.
Who needs search when you can sort by number of replies

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=379952

All i need now is instructions on how to create a link properly.... hope this worked
Who needs search when you can sort by number of replies

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=379952

All i need now is instructions on how to create a link properly.... hope this worked

Well there goes my plan for putting pressure to fix the search (excuses)

the link works
I gather also that wakefield is a big name.

Jamie Wakefield, probably best known for his 26/62 deckbuilding philosophy and his love for "fatties". He is the one who proclaimed the Verdant Force "the best fatty ever".
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
In Jamie Wakefield's new article here (it's on Star City Premium) he fully admits to pulling a Taigo. Good job.

"I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round." "

This does leave me with a bit of a dillema. Where as Taigo Chan was simply some guy who wrote a bad tournament report, Wakefield is a legend. I personally believe this is the worst offense you can pull online, as it invalidates any possible integrity the game might have.

Consequently there are two options:
A) Turn in the best writer the game has ever seen.
B) Ignore it.

Of course, I'm choosing C. Post it on the boards where someone with authority will see it, while simulatenously keeping a clear conscious.

Yeah, I am truly the king of morality.

I can't read the article because I am not a fancy schmancy member, blah! Any way someone could copy/paste the article, or is that a big legal no-no?
Thing is, many americans see no difference between the two... In most american eyes "success = wealth".



Get used to it... due to a train-strike in the Netherlands our company is at about 10% capacity so I'm glued to the boards

I don't know where this sense of people that have money in America can get away with anything came from... That only happens in California. :D
if you make them fix the search function i will find the huge Tiago Chan (not Taigo) thread were we and Tiago at the end discussed the fact that he made a report in public and casually mentioned that he continued one of his friends' game.

Joshi I guess is a clone of Tiago but only someone with access to this site can give us more details

I gather also that wakefield is a big name.

You can use google to search these forums, can't you? Just change the domain to... uh... here's where I fail as being helpful, since I cannot remember the domain. :P

Who else knows it?
In response to the question about what is said in the article, It mentions frequently the practice of one player using another's account e.g. "I go mow the lawn and Joshie plays his version of Green Beats on my account." and " I tell him to enter an 8-man tournament with it. He does, and wins it."
and further : "I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round.""

Just providing information.

In my opinion the general practice of playing on another's account should be frowned upon, however, I can also see times when it would be very frustrating and i would for example allow my wife to start a game for me (or more likely just apologise to an opponent and click on "no mulligan" if i'm likely to time out and am due back very shortly.
For those of you who are premier Starcity members, here is the link to the article in question: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/9900.html

For those of you who are not premier members, here is a quote from a highly entertaining article (it is worth becoming a premier Starcity member just to read the Jamie Wakefield articles):

"I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round."

Joshie loses the next two rounds to mistakes and inebriation and various other external universal forces we can scarcely control."

Before you go up in arms reading this, let me bring it in context. Jamie's purpose was to test a deck designed by Joshie Green that seemed to do well when logically it shouldn't. The purpose was not to win the PE or to boost rating or anything such, but to see if Joshie's deck was decent. Is it a violation of the MTGO law to do so? Yes, but given the circumstances and intent, I would call it the equivalent of speeding 5 mph over the limit. The punishment should be no more than a warning.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, the offense is a serious one. I was wrong to classify it as the equivalent of speeding 5 mph over the limit. And I understand why the non-challant way Jamie mentions it has infuriated some MTGO people. I just do not want to drive one of the best MTG columnists out of MTGO.
I usually play as RogueDesigner.
.....
Just providing information.

In my opinion the general practice of playing on another's account should be frowned upon, however, I can also see times when it would be very frustrating and i would for example allow my wife to start a game for me (or more likely just apologise to an opponent and click on "no mulligan" if i'm likely to time out and am due back very shortly.

I am only guessing but i would say that any of your opponents would prefer to have your wife as opponnent instead of you ;)
SCG is not relevant to me anymore. They went premium and I went out the door. I do not go there or to BB.

I cannot read the article so I have to take your word for it. Your word is good with me :D . I was a semi-fan of Mr. Wakefield as secret force is a favorite deck and I like playing stompy. But I am now not a fan of someone casually interferes in a one on one match.

Jamie should be the advocate of mano a mano magic. Obviously MOL is an inferior form of magic because it doesn't rate the repect that a paper tournament would. This has zero to do with whether a player is better/worse/same. It has everything to do with the nature of this game.

Magic competition is about taking my best deck againt yours. This is the part that makes me mad actually. Interfering. Cheating. Helping. Call it what you will but it is indeed not magic and it truly makes me wonder about the kind of player that plays magic online. I play it because I like the ability to play when I want. And be smart enough to not play when i cannot, this includes not putting my friends in a position where they have to take over for me.

More sarcasm coming...

I wonder if Jamie asked his opponent if it was okay that he sit in for his buddy at a tournament. Maybe he called Wizards and cleared it with them first. How about the DCI, I am sure an exception could be made for the famous Wakefield. He probably PM'ed Scott Larabee in game.

No, I am sure he did none of those. If he did please let me know. I realize that I am taking liberties with what he did not do, but I am sure that none of these were done. He did none of these because he would have been told that that kind of conduct is considered *ahem* cheating.

Famous or not he obviously has no respect for MOL or the other players that are not his buddies sooo....

I am going to stop now as I believe I have made my point clear!
I can't read the article because I am not a fancy schmancy member, blah! Any way someone could copy/paste the article, or is that a big legal no-no?

likely to be a big legal no-no, i've copied a few pertinent lines though.
I am only guessing but i would say that any of your opponents would prefer to have your wife as opponnent instead of you ;)

I think you might be right in almost all cases ;)
For those of you who are premier Starcity members, here is the link to the article in question: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/9900.html

For those of you who are not premier members, here is a quote from a highly entertaining article (it is worth becoming a premier Starcity member just to read the Jamie Wakefield articles):

"I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round."

Joshie loses the next two rounds to mistakes and inebriation and various other external universal forces we can scarcely control."

Before you go up in arms reading this, let me bring it in context. Jamie's purpose was to test a deck designed by Joshie Green that seemed to do well when logically it shouldn't. The purpose was not to win the PE or to boost rating or anything such, but to see if Joshie's deck was decent. Is it a violation of the MTGO law to do so? Yes, but given the circumstances and intent, I would call it the equivalent of speeding 5 mph over the limit. The punishment should be no more than a warning.

I would put it more like casually running someone over becasue you were just test driving a car.
Can I test decks in a paper tournaments? Yep
Can I have someone else test said decks in a tournament? Yep
Can I take over for someone else testing a deck design after the fourth round? No
Does playing online make this right? I obviously say no but Jamie seems to feel that this is not only acceptable but should be encouraged with his writing.
In response to the question about what is said in the article, It mentions frequently the practice of one player using another's account e.g. "I go mow the lawn and Joshie plays his version of Green Beats on my account." and " I tell him to enter an 8-man tournament with it. He does, and wins it."
and further : "I'm now 3-1 with the deck and I call up Joshie. "I'm going to bed. If you want to take over for me there's 30 minutes left in the round.""

:lightbulb Ohhh, now I get it. It's like they think it's the same as lending a deck to someone...

In my opinion the general practice of playing on another's account should be frowned upon, however, I can also see times when it would be very frustrating and i would for example allow my wife to start a game for me (or more likely just apologise to an opponent and click on "no mulligan" if i'm likely to time out and am due back very shortly.

Well... it's a fine line isn't it? And it's very easy to keep shifting it. For example, what if you let someone fill in for a short while while you take your kid from school and give that person careful instructions on what to do and what not? What if you let them play according to their own insights? What if all this person needs to do is offer a draw which is very likely to be accepted? Does it matter in any or all of these cases if the person involved is of lower/higher rating?

I can't say I have an easy answer for it.
Free Speech
Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of extralegal retaliation like harassment or violence. That’s all! Free speech doesn’t include the right to speak your mind on any forum anywhere. The government may not prevent you from speaking, but private parties, like blog owners or corporations, aren’t required to let you use their property as your platform. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, block you on social media, change the channel, close the browser tab. Free speech doesn’t give you the right to bombard people with harassing messages or otherwise force them to pay attention to you against their will. And free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions.
I can't say I have an easy answer for it.

I think that's a first
I usually play as RogueDesigner.
I would put it more like casually running someone over becasue you were just test driving a car.

So off to the jail for Jamie Wakefield. 30 years minimum?
I usually play as RogueDesigner.
So off to the jail for Jamie Wakefield. 30 years minimum?

if he lieves in California he will be found not guilty ;)
I'd say 20, but i'm leniant !
If it makes you feel better, reg, it's unlikely that a first report of this type against anyone will cause any real unhappiness to that person. I have reported people for bribery with actual screenshots, etc., and haven't seen any DQs. In this case, a person's offhand statement about what they themselves did is unlikely to cause much of a reaction either..

Now, if there are a bunch of reports about a person, hopefully that will change. But from the situations I've been personally involved in, Wizards doesn't do anything for the first time someone is reported, even with better evidence than in this situation.

So: report away!
if he lives in California he will be found not guilty ;)

No, he'd have to be an actor, football player, or singer for that.