Scouting Opponent Crews

[enderwiggin]

Meaning that the logical thing to do would be to never interact with anyone outside of the game. The community should just die completely.

 

During WHFB 6th, there was this guy playing in the Finnish tournament scene. He was insanely good. He played the factions known as the very weakest and his army builds went against conventional wisdom. O&G without cavalry, foot High Elves with a lvl 3 Mage, stuff like that. And he won almost every game. Among other things, he won the biggest Finnish tournament ever with those damn foot-HE.

He garnered a lot more respect and was far more "the best player" than he would've been if he had played the actual power lists of the time.

 

I also note that you didn't comment on the story about MtG. Do you consider it a legit tactic?

 

(Yes I spaced the bits a little.)

 

On your first point, I'd say that was an intelligent player who metagame'd correctly to an advantage. Taking unconventional lists in 40k I know exactly how disruptive it can be if the entire tournament had been netdecked builds the entire time prior.

 

As for the MtG post, honestly I played early magic and do not recall such a card allowing you to impact your opponent's deck like that. First time I would have seen a mark though any MtG player worth his salt would have called a judge over to DQ the guy doing it because he's marking cards for his advantage.

---

 

On the topic of competetiveness ethics, my kneejerk reaction was to outright cry foul at the bag glancing... But I would have been a hypocrite. I played competetive Warhammer 40k for years, big tourney experiences, the works. I did well, damn well given my choices. Some of the most disgusting lists of the day I dissected in actual play like they were in the hands of a noobie. I'm talking going into tournament situations/games with handicaps just to elicit a bit of fun towards the end of my 40k career (worst game was one in which I table a SM Salamanders army while only taking one wound on a multiwound char myself, while also 500 points under the 1850 limit). I enjoy winning, but there's actually something I enjoy more...

 

Outside of tournament play, I very much like teaching the games I play to new players. I'm fair, give players asking suggestions in/out of games, and I'm usually always willing to talk shop with players who have different needs/wants/views/interests in the tabletop game they want to try out. In tournaments, I'm the RAW demon people don't like when they are proven wrong. I feel the pinnacle of tournament play is through personal skill though. I will RAW you to death and wring every advantage from the rules or outside game knowledge that I can, but I won't cheat you knowingly. I have literally caused teammates, and myself, to lose important games because a rule was not being followed or had been forgotten by the opponent. For something like an 18 hour round trip drive, you can imagine my teammate was not very talkative with me. In instances where I finish quickly, half the time (especially later in the day when I've seen the flashy armies/conversions) I'll offer a quick learning game if the other party seems new or open to it.

 

So, with that bit of background I fully understand where the argument is coming from. Do I go looking for players and pretend a paintjob/conversion interests me to glean information? No. If a player has their minis in the open though, or is talking/bragging/displaying them then I agree with the mentality that the memory can't just be forgotten when you're in that focused state of mind. I equate it to simple dice roll-rigging skills (or card shark skills in Malifaux). Just because you can do it without being caught, doesn't mean you should just for the advantage that may hold. Not every piece of your gamer integrity needs to be examined just because it could give you an advantage, you come away from the table with so much more when you can find the happy medium balance brings.

[Cats Laughing]

No one's livelihood hangs in balance in a tournament. 

 

I don't know about you, but I sustain myself on the tears of the vanquished.

 

More seriously though, this thread reminds me of a Warhammer Fantasy league my local group played several years ago (probably more than a decade, but not quite 2).  There was a player who was changing his list on the fly as he saw opponents taking stuff out of their bag.  There was no requirement to have set lists for the league, but a presumption was that you wouldn't be able to build your list after seeing your opponent's list.

 

When I played him, I had my list written down in advance (as I typically did), but just to throw him off the scent I pulled out my 4 High Elf Repeating Bolt Throwers (back when they were 50pts of broken cheese) and put them on the side of the board.  I watched my opponent look at them, put his big unit of cavalry back in his bag, and pull out a big unit of flying bats.  He sure did bitch and moan when I didn't deploy the vulnerable artillery, but the league organizer pointed to my written list (computer printed) and told my opponent that he had no valid complaint.

 

So, any comments on the sportsmanship in this story?

[Math Mathonwy]

On your first point, I'd say that was an intelligent player who metagame'd correctly to an advantage. Taking unconventional lists in 40k I know exactly how disruptive it can be if the entire tournament had been netdecked builds the entire time prior.

I'm not sure you know/remember what foot HE were like in 6th. They weren't disruptive - they just sucked

 

As for the MtG post, honestly I played early magic and do not recall such a card allowing you to impact your opponent's deck like that.

On this I'm sure: you were allowed to shuffle your opponent's deck if you weren't satisfied with it and there was a card that force your opponent to shuffle their deck (preferably done after they had somehow arranged it using a card that allowed you to do that; but it was a really sucky card).

First time I would have seen a mark though any MtG player worth his salt would have called a judge over to DQ the guy doing it because he's marking cards for his advantage.

But that wasn't the point of the story. It was a "good" tactic in that it lead you to "win" games. It was a "smart" play.

 

So, with that bit of background I fully understand where the argument is coming from. Do I go looking for players and pretend a paintjob/conversion interests me to glean information? No. If a player has their minis in the open though, or is talking/bragging/displaying them then I agree with the mentality that the memory can't just be forgotten when you're in that focused state of mind. I equate it to simple dice roll-rigging skills (or card shark skills in Malifaux). Just because you can do it without being caught, doesn't mean you should just for the advantage that may hold. Not every piece of your gamer integrity needs to be examined just because it could give you an advantage, you come away from the table with so much more when you can find the happy medium balance brings.

Well said!

[Dirial]

You two really should just get a room at this point. 

 

Well, that's what you get for being sincere once in a while. No one takes you serious anymore.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Wow. Hadn't looked in on this thread. Yeah. That's why I stay clear of tournaments. I've had enough people try to game every advantage and generally make a hobby unenjoyable that I avoid those things like the plague. Stuff like stalling or some or obfuscating what's supposed to be public knowledge, or this stuff.

 

I like to win. I play to win. But more importantly, I like to play a good round, based on skill. I don't care about the bragging rights with toy soldiers and whatnot, and it sure doesn't get me excited knowing I wrecked some hapless player or even barely pulled through with a win, because I didn't-quite-cheat and got away with it.

 

I don't know if tournaments bring out the nasty in players or bring out the nasty players, but it happens way more often in tournaments than out of them, and I find it a really trash attitude, particularly when you consider that there's really nothing of substance at stake.

[Ausplosions]

Ausplosions, I'm curious as to exactly what behavior would cause this response from you.

As Specter mentioned, he's not sneaking around digging through peoples' bags...so I assume "scouting" involves either sitting quietly in the corner observing the room or walking around either observing or interacting with people.

He is actively attempting to trick other players into revealing information that he can use, that wouldn't otherwise be available.

This combined with the fact he literally says he knows it's not fair to do this, and yet doesn't give a shit and will do it if it lets him win.

I would not accept someone like this into a tournament, league, campaign or even a friendly game night.

This type of attitude is the worst type in wargaming, and has no place. This type of person is poison to a gaming community. The complete disregard for fair play and spirit of the game is astounding.

If i found out after the fact, I would give an apology prize to all of his opponents, disregard his placing, ban him from future events, and let other TO's know about him.

It's cheating. It's sneaky. It's a deliberate attempt to deceive. It's not acceptable.

[moxypoo]

It's cheating. It's sneaky. It's a deliberate attempt to deceive. It's not acceptable.

 

So what if he simply sat in the corner and observed what was going on in the room?  Or maybe walked around once to observe what was going on? Would you consider this sneaky and cheating?

 

Aaron said on the previous page that he'll often pull out models he has no intention of using specifically to deceive his opponent - would you consider this sort of behavior unacceptable too?

 

The reason I ask is because I have exactly 0 time for tournaments, but my group of friends plays a lot like Specter describes.  We're all very competitive (probably comes from the career path we're in) and most of us try to squeeze out advantages. For example, I know my one friend loves Nekima and the Dreamer, so whenever he declares Neverborn, I always take some models specifically to deal with Nekima and the Dreamer.  They also know that I'm best with Leveticus, so they always gear up to take him on when I declare Outcasts.

 

I'm just curious where the community draws the line since I may have time to play tournaments in the future.

[Dafty]

I imagine at ausplosions tournaments he carts in x amount confession booths. Modified so that neither person can talk to watch other. Then after he sets these up. He tells every everyone no talking, no walking around, unless too and from the latrine. He also confiscates all phones. No texting. He then proceeds to walk by slipping papers into each person's booth. With table number faction they are playing against and strategy and schemes. With a foot note saying when you hear the buzzer proceed to your assigned table. Which is shrouded with heavy curtains so no one can see what you are playing. It also muffled sound. After the match must proceed back to your booth. Which has been supplied with stale pretzels.

All of this is done for a fair and balanced game with no public knowledge.

No Scouting

No talking

No mingling

Tyrant ausplosions has spoken.

[Dirial]

I think he means that such measures are unnecessary if "poisonous" people don't dominate a tournament scene.

[zFiend]

I doubt that was what he meant Dafty.

[enderwiggin]

I'm not sure you know/remember what foot HE were like in 6th. They weren't disruptive - they just sucked

 

On this I'm sure: you were allowed to shuffle your opponent's deck if you weren't satisfied with it and there was a card that force your opponent to shuffle their deck (preferably done after they had somehow arranged it using a card that allowed you to do that; but it was a really sucky card).

But that wasn't the point of the story. It was a "good" tactic in that it lead you to "win" games. It was a "smart" play.

 

 

I never played fantasy. Just 40k. So I wouldn't know then or now. I only know how the meta gets so butt-flustered when people try different things. XD

 

 

On the MtG, I'm just a level 1 judge, so there be some clause buried deeper but the only times I'm aware of the opponent touching the deck is at the beginning when they may cut the deck or, yes, shuffle it. However, past that the owner shuffles the deck and the opponent only gets to cut it.

 

Disclaimer: The rules have changed quite a bit over the years, but I seriously doubt the damaging story is very much more than hearsay. It may have happened a very small number of times just like the guys who would draw one less card and then claim they were at an earlier turn/that the opponent cheated by drawing more cards... Those kinds of things are very swiftly dealt with in the scene though and it's really not statistically effective. Trust me too, marking cards would have been called immediately and DQ'd.

[Dafty]

If someone is walking around mingling chatting etc. You have no idea what they are thinking. To walk up and eject them for perceived "scouting" is more poisonous and hurtful to the hobby. Then the actual if Any information is gained.

Unless proof is shown that they are cheating. Any negative action or sanction against them is wrong. Just because you don't personally like someone does not give the right to ban.

Talking happens. Paint jobs are admired. Its a social hobby.

[Bodiless]

(Carefully moving away from impending relic modhammer impact...)

 

 

Ausplosions, on a practical level this seems impossible enforce. How would you distinguish, in practice, between someone who is just enthusiastic about the game and wants to socialize and talk shop and someone who is aiming to get an advantage in play? Without being able to read someone's mind and divine their intent I can't think how you would write down the difference in a tournament packet. And you would need to be able to do so,  so that people knew what behavior would be encouraged as part of the social aspect of a tournament and what would get them banned. Do you have a sense for how you would write those guidelines? 

 

Edit: Mostly ninja'd, although I am still curious about how someone would make the distinction in a tourney packet. Just because I can't think of how it would be done doesn't mean it can't.

[Dafty]

I wrote those guidelines see 2 previous post.

[SpiralngCadavr]

I'd say it would be in the big grey area of tournament runner's call. Keep an eye on 'em, and if it looks like a pattern, give 'em a warning shot or maybe make a general reminder announcement and if they still do it, they've been fairly warned that you consider "not-quite-cheating" to be "actual (and disqualifying) cheating." 

[Bodiless]

I just think that would be very tricky to put into practice. For example, I am a decent player at this point and enthusiastic about the game to the point of being irritating at times. I would be more than a little worried in this situation that my enthusiasm for the game and desire to talk about it would look  like attempting to gain an unfair advantage - especially if I was in the running for prizes. Unless the TO knows me personally how are they going to be able to make that call? What if I am just quietly watching a game between two really good players and interesting crews? Players that might be my opponent later? Unless someone comes out and says "hey I am trying to get an advantage here" I just don't see how you can divine someone's intent well enough to make a ruling. Unless they are doing something blatant like looking into bags.

[rancor709]

I can see how a lot of people are viewing "hyper-competitive" play as detrimental to the well being of the community - and I totally understand that. Whenever you see a hobby/game or whatever else, there is a "soft" and "hard" aspect of it. In Malifaux, I believe that right now the community is mostly "soft" (no negative connotation) - as in, people are here to have fun and have a good time and be nice and build a community and friends. A perfect example of the soft side of Malifuax is A Wyrd Place podcast and facebook - genuine lovers of the hobby and the game. However, compare a game like Malifaux to a game like Magic (where "hard" play is a necessiyt in tourneys) or even players such as the author of the "deception" article in last month's Chronicles. As a game like Malifaux builds community you are going to start attracting hyper-competitive players (yours truly) due in no small part to just how good and complex of a game Malifaux is - this is unavoidable. My hope is that the soft part of Malifaux doesn't erode as the army of neckbeards descend on this great game. I am absolutley a competitive player at heart, but I am consciously aware of the state of the Malifaux community and I think its great. I won't be the one to change it. Regardless, if this community continues to build there will be more and more competitive players "invading" your hobby and hopefully you can accept this reality and still find enjoyment in the game (story mode, hardcore, and enforcer brawl is for "fun" right?) Remember that super competitive people find the same enjoyment in strategy and winning that you find in the hobby and community of the game - they are just a different sort of people and enjoy the game in a different way that might conflict with your enjoyment - this should not instantly make that person a d-bag. I find myself lucky in the sense that I have no problem fitting in and facilitating the community of the game while still trying to maximize my face-smashing when possible. I've never had an opponent be upset with my conduct or my gameplay - if they were, after all, I would have no one to play with. The art to deception, after all, is that your opponent doesn't know you did it. Be a nice person and keep your shadyness to yourself - its unfortunate that most competitive players are unaware/uncaring of of the needs and goals of most casual players, and vice versa.

Even if you don't agree with my statements then at least be aware that there are "jerks" like me lurking around scotuing the field, as it were.

Having said that, I believe the "best player" is the one who maximizes on every single conceivable advantage in addition to being particularly gifted at playing the game (reading articles/strategy and listening to podcasts and battle reports etc.). A Player won't win on shady principles alone - its an extra tool in addition to developing advanced tactics and knowledge. Perhaps you and your opponent are so close in skill that all you needed was that extra push - one thing that he didn't take into consideration - that gave you the advantage. Letting "luck" dictate the winner in this example would be even worse than one player just simply happened to know more than the other. Furthermore, if Player A had advanced knowledge of a majority of the models/aspects of the game whereas Player B is a newer player who plays casually. Player A would almost certainly win and this would almost certainly not be considered cheating yet he still possessed a tremendous advantage that Player B did not have. I would propose that this is unfair but legitimate.

I believe that pre-game scouting is unfair but legitimate.

This would be no different than utilizing psychology on an unknowing opponent - you have one gamer who is critiquing everything that everyone else is doing at all times and another gamer who plays for fun or shows up drunk or just plain doesn't have a battle plan until he reaches the table. Not everyone pays attention to "tells" and psychology - those who do have an advantage not unlike my pre-game scouting. Yet this usually goes undetected or is just absentmindedly dismissed.

TL;DR - Tournament play is a huge grey area. Try to get what you want out of the game and try not to hinder others in their same quest.After reading many of his posts I have no doubt that if Icemyn and I played each other without previously knowing who we were, we would have a really fun and great game.

------

A few extra points:

Observations such as "a full bag of neverborn" are more telling than you think. Unless I had reason to believe otherwise, I would assume that you are a person who plays all over the place and although you have played most/all of the masters you are probably not particilarly knowledgable of any in particular, and if you are - its only one or two with the others being "for fun." I would try to make a particilar point of seeing which masters you field more often, if I felt it necessary. Regardless, deducing your opponent is so much more than just one simple point such as master selection. There are lots of other questions that can reveal the characteristivs of a player that people don't even think of necessarily - Are your opponents models painted well? Did he paint them himself? How concise are his lists? What is his temperment? How seriously does he take the game? Blah blah blah. A "full bag of [faction] player" is not exempt from scrutiny - there is psychology is everything that a person does.

"Really needing to win that starter box" has nothing to do with it. Clearly this statement, if made seriously, is made by a person who is not a competitive player. Winning for winning's sake is what its all about, regardless of prizes or placement. This mentality is often not reserved solely for "wargaming" - this is a broad way of viewing practically everything. Competitive people are competitive by nature and this spans their personal and professional life in addition to the wargaming hobby they might have, most of the time. Like I said before, you play to have fun but my fun comes solely from winning. Hopefully casual and competitive players can one day appreciate and understand these two kinds of people without instantly laballing the other party as d-bags. Besides! If you are a casual player who righteously stomps a neckbeard and makes him nerdrage - is that victory not doubly worth it!?

And that's all I have to say about that.

Hi My Name is Joe and I am a Competitive Person and competitive player.  First and foremost there is really no wrong way to enjoy the game or enjoy a portion of the community. At the end of the day were all playing with little toys on a field but doesn't mean it doesn't matter to us on some base level. For myself Malifaux allows me to exercise the problem solving portions of my brain along with the spacial and creative portions that always can use additional exercise. And tournament play and tournament observation are something to keep in mind. Think of your local group that you play with, I bet you know what your opponent is bringing more often then they do, this comes from repeatedly seeing the types of list they take, the style they play and just talking the game with them. Given a large enough time frame you will begin to subconsciously build against them as over time your choices will be influenced by your opponents tendcenices. Spectre brings up some bits about observation in a tournament environment I think that's part of the game. At a tournament I put what I'm bringing that day on my tray, you can see what may be coming at you if you want to burn time doing that. Malifaux is a balanced enough game even if you think you've teched enough against me, I'm confident in having the tools to not be utterly screwed by that. Its one of the reasons I talk about what I'm doing on the show. I'm confident enough even if you know what I'm going to do you'll have an issue stopping all of it. I'm a firm believer as Spectre says that the best player is the player that uses all of the information legally available to there advantage the best on that day.  Spectre brings up the psychological aspect of the game, absolutely something to be though about at high levels. Even the coloration of your models may indicate something about there implied importance. The greater you can understand the information available the greater you can utilize it for advantage. 

 

Spectre makes some excellent analysis about myself from the words on my show. Yes I do have the most experience with dreamer, and I have the second most with Pandora. Making the conclusion that I would be likely to drop either in certain match ups is a great call as I have the most comfort with them. Okay so how does Spectre make that an advantage, well he can wisely bring high wp models. My counter argument is knowing what type of masters are in the faction will also naturally lead you to taking high WP models. And a greater understanding of what is popular in the ubiquitous meta can also give great indications of what to build against.  

 

I don't think I've ever played Spectre but just based on his posts, I look forward to adepticon and hope to see him across the table.

[Math Mathonwy]

On the MtG, I'm just a level 1 judge, so there be some clause buried deeper but the only times I'm aware of the opponent touching the deck is at the beginning when they may cut the deck or, yes, shuffle it. However, past that the owner shuffles the deck and the opponent only gets to cut it.

It's 100% not in the current rules! It was at the very beginning (I mean, you weren't allowed to use shields, for crying out loud!).

 

Disclaimer: The rules have changed quite a bit over the years, but I seriously doubt the damaging story is very much more than hearsay. It may have happened a very small number of times just like the guys who would draw one less card and then claim they were at an earlier turn/that the opponent cheated by drawing more cards... Those kinds of things are very swiftly dealt with in the scene though and it's really not statistically effective. Trust me too, marking cards would have been called immediately and DQ'd.

Like I said, I too doubt the veracity of it actually ever happening. Far more likely is that someone made a thought experiment but never went through with it.

But whether it happened or not is completely beside the point. Let's pretend that it did happen ans was allowed by the rules and the judge that was there allowed it since it was allowed by the letter of the rules. Do you think it was a good play in those circumstances?

[enderwiggin]

For the purposes of a thought experiment I'll respond with my personal tourney player mentality.

 

Yes, it was a good play then because if the judges allowed essentially marked cards like that then so long as the "normal" player valued his cards he would have lost/conceded every time. Since you stated the cards to do this, although I can find no evidence of the card by light searching, were garbage/cheap then the plan is both financially and tactically sound.

 

Everywhere else though, that it matters, it was nothing short of sleazy and I'd personally not destroy something for the opponent just to wring an advantage. If it happened to me, I'd be more determined to see the other guy knocked out of the tournament simply to prove a point and prevent it from happening to other guys since his deck is clearly one-trick ponyish and they did have rules on stalling back then.

Then, I'd likely be getting the police involved for destroying my property afterwards.

[Math Mathonwy]

Here's a story that touches this phenomenon lightly (and shows the card that was used), though in a bit of different light than the story I had heard:

Shuffling has been used as a damage source once before in the history of Magic, but in a rather different way. Back when card sleeves weren't as prevalent as they are today, some players who lacked the most expensive cards would use the Alliances card Soldier of Fortune to shuffle their opponents' decks many times a game. This wasn't to thwart Brainstorm tricks or deal damage via a Psychogenic Probe predecessor—it was to scuff up any copies of the Power 9 (Black Lotus, Time Walk, Timetwister, Ancestral Recall, and the Moxes) in that player's deck. An extra seven shuffles a game, every game, would quickly take the minty freshness off those very valuable cards. By forcing competitors to leave their Power 9 at home unless they wanted to face some heavy depreciation, Soldier of Fortune wielders evened the playing field in a pretty slimy way.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mg88

[Bengt]

Here's a story that touches this phenomenon lightly (and shows the card that was used), though in a bit of different light than the story I had heard:

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mg88

This sounds like BS to me. That card is from Alliances, which came out just after I stopped playing. When I did play, everyone used sleeves and I only played casually. Some people who had expensive cards even had super thick sleeves that were hilariously hard to shuffle. And the max 4 duplicate cards were already in effect way before that. There was a card from the start that did force shuffles, Time Twister, but it was Rare (and expensive) so good lucking getting a deck of those.

[Math Mathonwy]

This sounds like BS to me. That card is from Alliances, which came out just after I stopped playing. When I did play, everyone used sleeves and I only played casually. Some people who had expensive cards even had super thick sleeves that were hilariously hard to shuffle. And the max 4 duplicate cards were already in effect way before that. There was a card from the start that did force shuffles, Time Twister, but it was Rare (and expensive) so good lucking getting a deck of those.

I did find another account of such a thing:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9711e&L=mtg-l&D=0&P=4275

You can find far more through there, of course

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9711e&L=mtg-l&D=0&P=5049

But this is sorta off topic in that whether it happened or not, my point was to illustrate a behaviour that I don't find showcasing "skill" but can lead to winning through under-handed tactics that are allowed by the strict RAW of the rules.

[enderwiggin]

I have never heard of any sanctioned event allowing the card protectors I think you're talking about Bengt, but I do have to echo most of the sentiments. That card just forced the opponent to shuffle. If it was that hard on cards they wouldn't riffle shuffle and would just pile shuffle. It was legal then (and now iirc, haven't looked in years).

Also, the restrictions on card count was very quickly fixed back in the day, though that was a minor point to make. I feel the blame there sat with burn mostly....

 

In any case, sure was cool back in the day to see most Power 9 go for under 200 bucks (just for a lotus) and even less for the rest. Hindsight and all that.

[Ausplosions]

I'm not saying don't talk. I'm not saying don't mingle or have fun.

What I'm saying is if I find out after the fact you were using that interaction to scam people, you will be ejected.

Sitting in the corner is NOT what we are discussing here.

As for Aaron taking different models to the table. He's not hiding anything. Crew build isn't public knowledge yet anyway. It's a shame he feels he needs to, and probably as a defence against cheats like this.

Spectre would be banned because he as admitted in a public forum that he will WAAC and that he doesn't give a shit about fair play.

On a side note; how did I become the bad guy Dafty, in a thread where a guy admits to behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner with no remorse.

[Ausplosions]

If someone is walking around mingling chatting etc. You have no idea what they are thinking. To walk up and eject them for perceived "scouting" is more poisonous and hurtful to the hobby. Then the actual if Any information is gained.

Unless proof is shown that they are cheating. Any negative action or sanction against them is wrong. Just because you don't personally like someone does not give the right to ban.

Talking happens. Paint jobs are admired. Its a social hobby.

Again, this is not what I said. If you can't discuss this without setting up strawmen, then stay out of it.

I never said I would eject someone for talking or socialising. I said I would eject Spectre, because he is a cheat. And anyone I found to be doing the same thing.

Would it be hard to provide the facilitation of proof? Absolutely. But if I did, they would be out.