The VEKN Ethics Committee met on 25th and 26th of October to discuss the reports submitted by the Tournament Organiser and Head Judge at Aarhus European Championship 2025.
Ethics Committee
This body is made up of senior VTES players and volunteers, drawn from the wider community. During each ethics case, the National Coordinator for any impacted player is also added as a voice to the Committee.
Event Timeline
Friday 17th October 2025: Last Chance Qualifier 2025. Issue noted at a table, judge called.
Saturday 18th October 2025: Grand Prix Final 2025. Issue noted on stream, judge informed during game.
Sunday 19th October 2025: EC Day 2 Final 2025. Issue noted on stream, judge informed about halfway through the game.
Monday 20th October 2025: Statement from Tournament Organiser about submitting a report.
Tuesday 21st October 2025: Tournament Organiser report shared with Ethics Committee.
Wednesday 22nd October 2025: Players asked for statement of facts.
Thursday 23rd October 2025: Player statements received.
Saturday 25th October 2025: Ethics Committee meeting.
Sunday 26th October 2025: Ethics Committee meeting.
Wednesday 29th October 2025: Draft conclusions sent to Ethics Committee for agreement. Iteration of wording between members.
Saturday 1st November 2025: Draft statement sent to affected players.
Monday 3rd November 2025: Statement published.
RULINGS
Of the three cases considered, one player will face no official sanction from the Ethics Committee.
Given no sanctions were applied, the identity of this player does not need to be disclosed.
The evidence for the Committee's decision-making was as follows:
• The Tournament Organiser and Head Judge reports
• The available video evidence
• The player statements
After evaluating the evidence for the two other cases, one player, Marius Iscru (VEKN #3200246), faces a 12-month suspension from VEKN-sanctioned play ending 17th October 2026, with a further probationary period extending to 17th April 2027.
This sanction was put in place for acts the Ethics Committee determined to be material and repeated misstatement (Section 5.1 Cheating of the tournament rules) during the Grand Prix 2025 final.
The Committee’s decision was based upon the following plays during the final of the Grand Prix event:
• Not taking pool damage from Reckless Agitation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwFe3PHnu10&t=15420s)
• Not taking pool damage from Kine Resources Contested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwFe3PHnu10&t=18680s)
• Firmly stating that he had paid for the Kine Resources Contested when queried by the Head Judge, which amounts to deliberate material misstatement.
In addition, when reviewing the camera footage, a further error was noted in Round 3. Here, he attempted to deal 5 hand damage rather than 4; this was corrected by another player at the table. Although not material by itself, this adds weight to the overall decision.
One player, Ruben Feldman (VEKN #8840001), is banned from VEKN-sanctioned play.
This sanction has been put in place for acts the Ethics Committee determined were breaches of: 3.2 Pre-Game Procedure, non-randomised shuffling; 4.4 Card Elevation and Disposition, namely parts of his library going below table level during shuffling, and 4.6 Card Sleeves which allowed identification of significant parts of his crypt (sections 5.1 Cheating and 5.4 Marked Cards of the tournament rules).
The Committee’s decision was based upon the following plays during the Day 2 European Championship 2025 final:
• There were several irregularities during the shuffling of the library, which were confirmed by an independent expert witness as a clear manipulation of the hand/library. More concretely:
• The shuffling of the library started with an initial slow shuffle, keeping the top section unchanged. Then the deck was moved below the table, which in itself is already a violation of the tournament rules (Section 4.4). The library was then shuffled more vigorously. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oie74hke0s8&t=32411s)
• After that, five cards were drawn from the top. These cards were again moved below the table. When they reappeared again, there were too many cards for the starting hand, and a card was put back on top of the library. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oie74hke0s8&t=32523s)
• Using a marked crypt, where it could be determined if a card was likely to be a Tremere antitribu or not with a high degree of certainty (Five Tremere antitribu and one Tupdog versus two Tremere antitribu and twenty Tupdogs, as asserted by the Head Judge, the Event Organizer, and a bystander who all repeated the test for double-check.)
The Ethics Committee will use these recent cases to review the standards and update the VEKN Code of Ethics as necessary. We would expect any potential changes to the VEKN Code of Ethics to be based on community feedback.
FAQ
Q: Why was the Day 2 final not stopped immediately upon discovering an issue?
A: The Head Judge was informed approximately halfway through the final. Swapping in for the 6th place player was not considered viable due to the impact on the game each of the decks would have had, restarting the final was considered not possible with onward transport and other time constraints at the venue. The Head Judge waited to see the impact on this game. Additionally, the Head Judge had only been able to view one small set of the actions on the Twitch stream and wanted to investigate further. The issue of marked sleeves was discovered after the game had concluded.
Q: Why was a Game Loss not issued in Day 2 final immediately upon discovering an issue?
A: A game loss would have definitively impacted game state, perhaps acting as a king-making situation. Any effect of errors or manipulation on the overall game outcome at that time was still uncertain. This situation differs from the Grand Prix final, where essentially the pool damage applied at that time (3 + 1 damage for a total of 4) acts as an elimination for Marius.
Q: Why was a player who was later banned able to leave with prizes?
A: The Tournament Organiser and Head Judge had decided at that point that an Ethics Committee submission was needed. As an investigation was required, it was decided that little value would be gained from a confrontation at that time.
