No, I have the same feeling, and I’m not happy about that.

The rules are clear. And we don’t need a policy about how to break or bend the rules.

How is that going to help?
You want people to run away from judges?

Hard to believe, a judge involved in the investigation will not leak information from that document. We don’t do that.

The alternative is assuming I can’t tell when someone is joking and think he was cheating. I figured people would get it, but then I should have remembered people thought I was serious when I said Ari Lax knew how to insult people in fluent Japanese.

It was pretty clearly a joke even without the clarifying comment. Jason just doesn’t have a sense of humor.

It’s interesting that people automatically assume that Durward is lying. He’d have to be pretty stupid to write about this topic if he had knowingly colluded, since it would make him look worse once the DCI punishes him. In the very recent past, we’ve seen at least one person doing “damage control” (i.e., “stop the witch hunts”) about an ongoing investigation and he looked much worse for simply not speaking on the subject until the investigation was complete. Maybe it’s the actions of Humphries/Bertoncini/Boettcher that have so jaded people.

Yesterday, I read a post by another judge, who had access to the original DQ report. He indicated that Durward’s description of events was more or less in line with that report, which he said was to be expected with a well-known player (as opposed to some random person spouting off about his/her DQ). He further indicated that there was, indeed, an ongoing investigation, but it would likely not be concluded for about a month.

I don’t know if the DCI investigates gray-area situations like this, particularly if they involve high-level players, as a kind of internal audit to ensure that judge staff are fairly implementing policy or if they are looking at Durward for an infraction.

Caleb clarified in the comments on his article that this was a joke and that he’d even run it past Perez before publishing. Perhaps you are making a similar joke?

Suggestion:

“In swiss rounds, no discussion of prize splits may take place until match results have been reported.”

This would serve to clearly separate prize splits from concessions/draws.

Nobody said anything about there being an investigation. As far as we’re aware, due to the reporting judge not recommending a suspension, there won’t be an actual investigation.

And while we don’t know for certain, there’s way more reason to assume that there isn’t an investigation than there is to assume that there is one.

Emulating commenters on your posts, are we? :p

Classic!

There are many things in the grey zone, and the head judge on the event is the one who decides, if he wants te be sure, ask the judge first. Not doing that is his own fault.
I agree that getting rid of the grey zone will benefit the competitive scene, but don’t blame the judges. If you know the grey zone exist, and you enter that grey zone, expect to get caught, and don’t cry about it afterwards.
I’m somehow upset he is playing victim here, while he was trying to be smarter than the rules.