|
Shadow225 posted:I'm his Facebook blurb, he stated that after including his mana and adjusting his main deck configuration, he felt it was a large advantage if he didn't shuffle. That sounds like mana weaving to me. It doesn't make sense. Did he just mana weave his deck and then hand it over without shuffling? Did he do one mash shuffle? Why didn't his opponent just shuttle his deck if he thought there was an issue?
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Shadow225 posted:I'm his Facebook blurb
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It doesn't make sense. Did he just mana weave his deck and then hand it over without shuffling? Did he do one mash shuffle? Why didn't his opponent just shuttle his deck if he thought there was an issue? If you mana weave then mash once then its still the same as not shuffling at all. Your deck is not reasonably randomized. How can you have played for this long and not known this? It actually doesn't matter if his opponent shuffled at all. He is still at fault for presenting a non randomized deck. The root of the cheat is that you benefit every time you opponent just cuts the deck. Opponents, especially in the early rounds of competitive events, cut the deck instead of shuffling.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Sickening posted:If you mana weave then mash once then its still the same as not shuffling at all. Your deck is not reasonably randomized. How can you have played for this long and not known this? What if he mashes twice? Three times? IDK it seems very subjective and not something you should be getting DQ'd for without a warning. I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
AgentSythe posted:This, but for the statement "Mishra's Workshop is playable" Lifetime ban in Rich and Caleb's Twitch chat.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What if he mashes twice? Three times? IDK it seems very subjective and not something you should be getting DQ'd for without a warning. I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play... Yes, and then we shuffle the deck properly until it is well randomised. There's some number of each type of shuffle that works, I think for mashes it's 7? As judges we can check if a deck is good on that or not, and deck check "interception" is supposed to happen when the decks are presented, to check exactly for that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:If you post the store name and a screen shot of the threat I'll have this dealt with. Ok I'll get PM and PM you and Sickness about it later. There isn't much to be posted because it was mostly vocal. The only evidence is a passive aggressive note on the sealed event that says, "If you want to play EMA limited but don't want to contend with severe rare drafting, we offer this attractive sealed event." Nothing on the draft event page.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Lifetime ban in Rich and Caleb's Twitch chat. *walks past a pile of garbage* Ugh, what is this? You can't even cast Gush with it *throws workshop back onto the rubbish heap with everyone's Lodestone copies 2-4*
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What if he mashes twice? Three times? IDK it seems very subjective and not something you should be getting DQ'd for without a warning. I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play... What do you mean broken up clumps of lands? If you mean anything besides shuffling your deck a lot then I hate to break it to you. But you are either cheating and not realizing it or you are wasting your time by manipulating your deck before shuffling it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play... Random is random. If you're actively trying to avoid clumps of lands, then you're not properly randomizing your deck. Just do 10-12 mash shuffles. The clumps will be randomized into the deck, and sometimes they will randomly be clumped again, and you lose 2 games in a row to flooding, but that's how random works, and that's why mulligans are an option.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play... For amusement's sake, what I do after a game is to put my hand in the graveyard, then riffle my in-play nonlands and lands together once, then that pile into the grave/hand, then that pile into what was left of my deck. It takes me maybe 5 seconds and it removes any sort of inclination that I might be cheating.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Sickening posted:What do you mean broken up clumps of lands? If you mean anything besides shuffling your deck a lot then I hate to break it to you. I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating....
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating.... If you only mash shuffle "a few" times, it's cheating.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating.... You're wrong
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating.... If you fail to sufficiently randomize your deck, that is cheating. If you're weaving before shuffling and that has an impact on the shuffled deck, that's cheating.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating.... I can't believe that people who play competitively on a routine basis can say incredibly dumb poo poo like this. I can believe this from a casual person at FNM that just doesn't know better. They probably don't understand that mana weaving is even illegal or why. But a day 2 gp player or better? Jesus christ. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't believe that if i'm looking through my deck and i see a bunch of lands together (or multiple copies of a card together) and move them to other parts of the deck before i mash shuffle a few times that is cheating.... Between games you're right but you're actually not allowed to rearrange your deck while searching it in the middle of a game afaik.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I can't believe that people who play competitively on a routine basis can say incredibly dumb poo poo like this. Lottery of Babylon posted:If you only mash shuffle "a few" times, it's cheating. How many times? 3? 4? 5? It's not cut and dry.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Best case scenario is you're shuffling sufficiently afterwards, in which case it's superstition that puts you in risk of getting a judge called on you. Just stop.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How many times? 3? 4? 5? It's not cut and dry. It isn't, but the answer definitely isn't two. But lets break it down further. You searched your deck and identified clumps. Why move cards at all? If two mashes is enough, why move anything? The answer is clear. You moved things to stack your deck. You moved things to benefit yourself in some way. You have cheated at MTG.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
I read somewhere that 7 (proper) mash shuffles is statistically enough for sufficient randomization, but that number might have been from someone's rear end just like any other.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How many times? 3? 4? 5? It's not cut and dry.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Sickening posted:It isn't, but the answer definitely isn't two. Anteri's answer makes perfect sense. It makes him feel better about his deck being randomized. I don't see how that is something you should be DQ'd for. It's just SO loving subjective.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Anteri's answer makes perfect sense. It makes him feel better about his deck being randomized. I don't see how that is something you should be DQ'd for. If you are moving your cards around how is that random? For the love of god nobody can be this dense. The answer is clear. You moved things to stack your deck. You moved things to benefit yourself in some way. You have cheated at MTG.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Sickening posted:If you are moving your cards around how is that random? For the love of god nobody can be this dense. The answer is clear. You moved things to stack your deck. You moved things to benefit yourself in some way. You have cheated at MTG. No. You're allowed to do whatever you want with your deck and the order of the cards in your deck as long as you shuttle afterwards. The issue i'm having is the subjectivity of what is enough shuffling.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. You're allowed to do whatever you want with your deck and the order of the cards in your deck as long as you shuttle afterwards. As long as you shuffle it enough to compel a judge that you are trying to randomize your deck. Two shuffles isn't enough. This entire thought process is so dumb that I feel like the only thing that can help people not be idiots is to outlaw mana weaving or card moving all together to help you not be an idiot on accident.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Perennially relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Sickening posted:As long as you shuffle it enough to compel a judge that you are trying to randomize your deck. Two shuffles isn't enough. People get DQ'd from tourneys for judges thinking they are cheating when they aren't. That is a real thing that happens. And when it's based on something this subjective it's an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Between games you're right but you're actually not allowed to rearrange your deck while searching it in the middle of a game afaik. Wait really? On the phone so I don't have access to rules, but if I'm resolving a tutor or something, is it illegal to put 2-3 candidates on the bottom (closest to me) to have them on hand while I make a final decision?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Wait really? On the phone so I don't have access to rules, but if I'm resolving a tutor or something, is it illegal to put 2-3 candidates on the bottom (closest to me) to have them on hand while I make a final decision? No. That is perfectly within the rules.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:People get DQ'd from tourneys for judges thinking they are cheating when they aren't. That is a real thing that happens. Well this isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Well this isn't one of them. I don't know how you could know that.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't know how you could know that. By the person who was DQ'd own admission? Holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Sickening posted:By the person who was DQ'd own admission? Holy gently caress. No. He didn't admit that he was trying to gain an advantage at the time he was doing it and therefore it should've been a warning and not a DQ.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Wasn't 7 shuffles for a standard poker deck? I feel like someone brought in actual math that showed you needed 8 for a 60 card deck.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I read somewhere that 7 (proper) mash shuffles is statistically enough for sufficient randomization, but that number might have been from someone's rear end just like any other. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxJubaijQbI
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. He didn't admit that he was trying to gain an advantage at the time he was doing it and therefore it should've been a warning and not a DQ. Are you being pentadic here? He admited to not properly randomizing his deck during this match and many times before that. Intent doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Are you being pentadic here? He admited to not properly randomizing his deck during this match and many times before that. Intent doesn't matter. It does matter. If there was no judgement of intent there would've been no DQ.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
I am on the floor for this GP and it is stone cheating. Did something wrong? Check. Knew he was doing something wrong? Check. Did it to gain an advantage? Check. That is the literal definition of USC - Cheating. If he was just shuffling badly without knowing it, it'd be Tournament Error - Insufficient Shuffling, which is a Warning.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Thats 7 riffle shuffles. He doesn't address mash shuffles.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:28
|
|
