Speaking of Bets

I’m sure most of you have heard about the situation with Craig Wescoe and Drew Levin. If not, go here: http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/, specifically http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/Player_DQed_For_Betting_On_Self%3F and http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/articles/-/My_Story.

The long story short is this: After the conclusion of a match that would’ve put Drew into the top 8, he made an offhand comment about winning a bet with a friend. Wescoe, and possibly others, notified a judge and Levin was DQ’d despite testifying that the comment was a joke. At the event, news quickly spread. I don’t know if there are other facts involved, but most of the conversations I have seen and heard about the topic involve a lot of unqualified soul reading at best and witch hunting at worst.

I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt (which is not to say I’m a pushover…only that I am willing to expose myself naively when I have reason for doubt), so let’s go through and see what the situation looks like if we do that.

Drew Levin

Best-case: Drew was actually just making a joke, there was no bet in place, and he exposed himself to an unfortunate situation through a combination of tournament innocence, youthful foolishness, slight rudeness (Wescoe was still sitting there wall Drew made the comment). And he happened to get called on it in a big, big, probably overblown way. His take on the situation seems to indicate that he came to a reasonable peace on it. Hopefully, he doesn’t have too bitter a taste in his mouth.

Worst-case: Drew did make a bet with a friend that he would top eight the tournament. If you’ve been around the scene for a while, and by scene I mean any group of Magic players who play competitively more than casually, the kind that is probably also into poker rather than d&d, you know that we’re almost all excited by gambling. We play the credit card game for dinner, we money draft, and even if we don’t do that we play for the cards. We consider all kinds of scenarios in terms of (betting) odds. It’s actually something we love about Magic. Wizards is in a position where they have to have a policy, but their enforcement of it indicates a clear break between the spirit and the letter of the law. If Drew’s bet was real, which is as likely as it being fake, it does not exist in that clear break because it was a bet concerning a sanctioned match. But I’m inclined to believe that while Wizards may have needed to act, it was only as a preventative measure, and not because Drew’s bet violated the spirit and sanctity of competitive Magic. Frankly, aside from a technicality and a realpolitik naivete, there was nothing wrong, shady, or reprehensible about what Drew did. Other than being inconsiderate of his freshly-stung opponent.

Craig Wescoe

Best-case: Craig was concerned that he was in a compromised position, given the publicness of a statement about an illegal act and the proximity of a judge. He notified the judge, or even better-case, asked the judge if he had heard the statement (to which the judge could have said no and the rest been a non-issue) to bolster his position in case their was an issue. Unfortunately for Craig, it’s hard to assume any better intentions than that. He hangs out with PT and GP regulars who almost certainly gamble on Magic all of the time. Even if we assume that he has a real problem with that, it’s hard to also assume that he considers it his obligation to do his part to root out that tournament evil. Further, we have to be pretty lenient with Craig, I think, to see that he was in such a compromised position. If the judge had heard anything, he likely would’ve reacted. If Craig was concerned with culpability, he could have asked that judge or any other some hypothetical questions to verify his role that didn’t demand DCI involvement in the situation. Of course, not everyone is great with stress, maybe Craig didn’t think that far ahead and he just made a mistake of judgment in handling the situation, in which case I think he owes Drew an apology.

The alternatives were that he considered even the slightest risk to his own interests more important than the great joy of another relatively innocent individual, or that he did have malicious intent.

I’m, as a stated before, inclined to give Craig the benefit of the doubt that he made a judgment error and misevaluated the situation. And I think he’d do better considering that than defending the rightness of his course.