Let me respond with something that I'll undoubtedly have to write to NASPA: Why I didn't call the director over earlier.
Basically, there are two possibilities: either my opponent cheats or my opponent doesn't cheat. In this case, the opponent clearly DOES know better, so if he continues to draw this way after being warned he's probably in the "cheat" category.
Now, after the first incident I don't know. If he does cheat, calling over the director dissuades him from cheating for the rest of the game, and... for a while. Warning him should in theory stop him for the rest of the game, or else risk an explosion (like what happened). If I were a more vitriolic person I could easily just lie and say I saw something I didn't see and he'd be completely and totally fucked because my story would be plausible and consistent with the rest of his behavior. Once he was sure no one was watching in a few rounds (he'd go back to cheating again. Directors can't and shouldn't be expected to watch for the remainder of the tournament based on one accusation.
If he is a cheater, I don't want him to stop for a little while. I want him gone: out: kaputt.
If he's not a cheater, a warning will make said person change their suspicious behavior just as much as a director will, especially from a highly rated player.
After the second incident, both blanks and all 4 S were gone. Thus, if he is Hodging his tiles (which seems more likely), what good is it if he doesn't know what tiles he needs? Again, I want him out. Informing him that he's going to be watched like a hawk will make him stop temporarily. I don't want him to stop temporarily. I want him GONE.
If he doesn't cheat, what does calling the director accomplish?
After the third incident, I was too pissed to be rational about it. I guess the best strategy was to just swallow my 120 point loss and move on and covertly create an incident report but I let my emotions get the best of me.
Calling the director over is to correct behavior. This wasn't an instance of correcting behavior. This person had already been told earlier what he was doing was unacceptable by 2 different people priorly.
I think you are being a bit naive in this thread. Maybe not. I could definitely be convinced otherwise. The identity of this person is not irrelevant here.
Establishing a formal track record of complaints and/or incidents is the best (only?) way to develop a case against someone. Very rarely are there seven witnesses and a camera record of obvious cheating (or other misdeeds) which is unmistakable.
If a police officer decides he has it in for you, he can give you a ticket for anything he wants, and you will lose if you take it to court if he decides to lie. The point in fighting it is not so much to get out of the ticket, because you will lose in a he-said-she-said with a lying cop, but to establish a pattern, so that the police officer cannot do so indefinitely.
Saying nothing to the rules people while infractions were happening, stewing, and then eventually losing your shit seems ineffective at achieving your professed goal. I don't know what happened there, I can only guess from reading a few posts. You weren't the only person I had read about a similar situation (though of course most recently I thought of this because of CT posts). I have no idea about the relative guilt/innocence/whatever in any of these incidents that have happened.
I also disagree on "calling director is to correct behavior [only]." That's part one, but it's also to have director impose sanctions where necessary. While there would be no sanction for an isolated incident, establishing a pattern of incidents could be useful for later in this tournament, or in other tournaments.
Sounds like a very frustrating weekend. Sorry to hear that it was not much fun for you. :(
The only way to get him out is if the director saw it. If the opponent knew the director was watching, he'd stop (as long as the director was watching). He's probably stop for a few rounds and then go back. That's not the goal.
Basically, there are two possibilities: either my opponent cheats or my opponent doesn't cheat. In this case, the opponent clearly DOES know better, so if he continues to draw this way after being warned he's probably in the "cheat" category.
Now, after the first incident I don't know. If he does cheat, calling over the director dissuades him from cheating for the rest of the game, and... for a while. Warning him should in theory stop him for the rest of the game, or else risk an explosion (like what happened). If I were a more vitriolic person I could easily just lie and say I saw something I didn't see and he'd be completely and totally fucked because my story would be plausible and consistent with the rest of his behavior. Once he was sure no one was watching in a few rounds (he'd go back to cheating again. Directors can't and shouldn't be expected to watch for the remainder of the tournament based on one accusation.
If he is a cheater, I don't want him to stop for a little while. I want him gone: out: kaputt.
If he's not a cheater, a warning will make said person change their suspicious behavior just as much as a director will, especially from a highly rated player.
After the second incident, both blanks and all 4 S were gone. Thus, if he is Hodging his tiles (which seems more likely), what good is it if he doesn't know what tiles he needs? Again, I want him out. Informing him that he's going to be watched like a hawk will make him stop temporarily. I don't want him to stop temporarily. I want him GONE.
If he doesn't cheat, what does calling the director accomplish?
After the third incident, I was too pissed to be rational about it. I guess the best strategy was to just swallow my 120 point loss and move on and covertly create an incident report but I let my emotions get the best of me.
Calling the director over is to correct behavior. This wasn't an instance of correcting behavior. This person had already been told earlier what he was doing was unacceptable by 2 different people priorly.
I think you are being a bit naive in this thread. Maybe not. I could definitely be convinced otherwise. The identity of this person is not irrelevant here.
Reply
If a police officer decides he has it in for you, he can give you a ticket for anything he wants, and you will lose if you take it to court if he decides to lie. The point in fighting it is not so much to get out of the ticket, because you will lose in a he-said-she-said with a lying cop, but to establish a pattern, so that the police officer cannot do so indefinitely.
Saying nothing to the rules people while infractions were happening, stewing, and then eventually losing your shit seems ineffective at achieving your professed goal. I don't know what happened there, I can only guess from reading a few posts. You weren't the only person I had read about a similar situation (though of course most recently I thought of this because of CT posts). I have no idea about the relative guilt/innocence/whatever in any of these incidents that have happened.
I also disagree on "calling director is to correct behavior [only]." That's part one, but it's also to have director impose sanctions where necessary. While there would be no sanction for an isolated incident, establishing a pattern of incidents could be useful for later in this tournament, or in other tournaments.
Sounds like a very frustrating weekend. Sorry to hear that it was not much fun for you. :(
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment