I don't think this covered in the MTR but I may have missed something. At a PTQ a player calls you over after verifying his pool, after the deck swap. He says he is missing a card that is registered as being in his pool, an Ordeal of Heliod. I counted the pool and sheet, including the uncommons and in fact everything looks legit, except that there is no Ordeal of Heliod in his stack of cards. I discuss with the player who registered this pool and he agrees that there was definitely an Ordeal in the pool when he passed it. We look everywhere, but can not find the missing card! What are our possible ways to fix this?

Assuming you can't find the card, and the fact that the registering player can corroborate this story, replacing it is key here, whether from an available vendor or other onsite source. Punishing the receiving player for this situation seems really bad on the customer service axis.

Reading the section on proxy cards, it seems that a) we would need to have the original available anyway to issue one, and b) that this is reserved for damaged cards, not lost ones. So that's less of an option than previously thought.

As far as infractions and penalties go, I'm not sure if Limited Procedure Violation extends to this loss in card between the registrant and the player.

Obviously, in this case, it's an uncommon. There's something to be said for keeping an eye out on the quality of the card - if a chase rare is missing, for example, we could have some more nefarious happenings on our hands :)

A thing we've been trying in recent times in the UK is to use sandwich bags (sealable plastic bags, if that term is not universal) to put 6 packs and a decklist in. Perhaps the TO would be willing to use this to avoid this kind of error.

~ Jack

Edited Jack Doyle (May 23, 2014 07:36:38 AM)

Issuing a proxy seems like the best solution to me, at least for the
missing card. The receiving player is entitled to it, in addition to not
being at fault.

The registering player doesn't seem to have made any mistakes either. He
registered the pool in its entirety, so something must have happened when
transfering the cards between them.

In the case that this all happened because of a malignant third party,
their cheating would still be impossibly difficult to identify.

With no identifiable cause of the problem, issuing penalties does not seem
appropriate.


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Jack Doyle <
forum-10241-205e@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Assuming you can't find the card, and the fact that the registering player
> can corroborate this story, I would feel happy issuing a proxy in this
> situation. Punishing the receiving player for this situation seems really
> bad on the customer service axis. Alternatively, if one is available from a
> vendor or random trade binder somewhere, that could work too.
>
> As far as infractions and penalties go, I'm not sure if Limited Procedure
> Violation extends to this loss in card between the registrant and the
> player. A thing we've been trying in recent times in the UK is to use
> sandwich bags (sealable plastic bags, if that term is not universal) to put
> 6 packs and a decklist in. Perhaps the TO would be willing to use this to
> avoid this kind of error.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/63988/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10241/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10241/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
>


–
For every action there is an equal and opposite distraction.

Originally posted by Erik Kan:

In the case that this all happened because of a malignant third party,
their cheating would still be impossibly difficult to identify.

If you're concerned about a malignant third party, it should be fairly easy to identify if that's the case. Between deck reg and deck build there was a deck swap - it should be possible to identify who was involved in the deck swap. You should also easily be able to identify who was sitting near the original deck reg (and could have taken it). That's about 5 or 6 people at most I would guess.

Checking the decklists of those players should reveal if anyone has registered the ordeal. Targetted deck checks of anyone playing white should catch anyone who hasn't registered the ordeal, but is playing it.

It's effort, but not too much. Up to you if you have the staff power (and the belief that it would be worthwhile) to follow up on it.

Though before seriously investigating the identity of a malignant third party, I would recommend checking the floor, inside/next to table numbers and underneath decklists, deck boxes, lands and anything else that accumulates on the tables during the process of deck registration and swapping ;)

I don't feel appropriate to issue a proxy here. I understand the feel bad
factor, but I don't see policy supporting that.

//David

We asked everyone near them to check their bags and everything, but nothing turned up. When we couldn't find it, I told the player that we may be able to issue a proxy for it but that I needed to get the HJ to do that. The reason I am bringing this up is because my HJ was adamant that no proxy should be made in this situation stating that Wizards has very strict policies about proxies used in tournaments and they are only to be used when a card is damaged, but still present.

I found this solution to be poor customer service, essentially telling the player “sorry, but we cannot proxy and unfortunately you are just missing a card.”, so I thought I'd seek more opinions. Would anyone NOT issue the proxy in this situation and have the player continue as if he lost a sideboard card?

Originally posted by MTR 3.4:

A proxy card is used during competition to represent an Authorized Game Card that has been accidentally damaged or excessively worn in the current tournament (including damaged or misprinted Limited product) as determined solely by the Head Judge.

DLI is correct, policy does not support issuing a proxy for lost cards - no matter who lost them (which can't be determined in this scenario).

I would not issue a proxy. I understand and can relate to those who would prefer that option, but I'm bound by policy.

d:^D

I agree it would feel horrible to tell a player that. Was there no spare pool to give the player instead?

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

MTR 3.4
A proxy card is used during competition to represent an Authorized Game Card that has been accidentally damaged or excessively worn in the current tournament (including damaged or misprinted Limited product) as determined solely by the Head Judge.

DLI is correct, policy does not support issuing a proxy for lost cards - no matter who lost them (which can't be determined in this scenario).

I would not issue a proxy. I understand and can relate to those who would prefer that option, but I'm bound by policy.

If the player purchased, or was otherwise able to find a copy of the Ordeal, couldn't they use that?

I ask because MTR 7.3 has the clause “Players may ask a judge for permission to replace a card with another version of the same card.” I realize that typically applies to swapping a foil for non-foil, but why or why not here?

If he is missing an uncommon from the pool and the list states that he
should have an Orderal, then he has a couple of options:
1) Acquire a copy of the Ordeal and put it back in the card pool (It's
somewhere around the table or got thrown away). This is not the judges'
job to find the replacement.
2) Report it to the judge as a lost SB card and judges will remove it from
the list with no penalty.

Mart, we did not consider that option. I would worry that giving a new pool to players in this situation could start a trend of players “losing” valuable cards and asking for new pools or a player receiving a low powered pool suddenly missing a card. Numerous scenarios where this could create advantage.

Now that I think about it issuing proxies for missing cards could open the doors to “hard-to-detect” cheating such as deck list manipulation and claims of missing cards that weren't really missing.

I like the idea of allowing the player to replace it with another copy of that card if they can acquire one and will remember this solution for the future.

As an aside - in the actual event, I did tell the player it would be treated as a missing sideboard card and felt bad about it. Then later in deck registration, after the issue was settled, the deck registrant found the card as he was packing up his stuff - it was somehow under his playmat. :)

Shawn & Brian S are correct, the player is allowed to replace the missing card.

Also, don't read Shawn's comment the wrong way - it' s not our responsibility to find it, but it's fine if we try to help.

d:^D

When we run larger events in the summer, the event often expands up onto the rooftop patio. Maybe once a year a card is dropped off the table or caught by the wind and ends up perfectly sliding right through the floor boards, gone forever. (They're very narrow so it has to fall perfectly for this to happen).

Since then, I've made a habit of scooping up all the leftover cards people leave behind and stuffing them in a long box in my trunk (boot if that term's not universal). If a card is missing/damage/misprinted, unless it's a rare, I can usually find a replacement really quickly. It also saves the cards from going into the trash. Once I have an extra box filled, I wait until the next time a new player or kid shows up and gift them a longbox of misc commons/uncommons and dollar rares. It really makes their day.

Sometimes they luck out, like the kid who got a box full of Inquisition of Kozileks. :)

Originally posted by Brian Brown:

issuing proxies for missing cards could open the doors to “hard-to-detect” cheating such as deck list manipulation and claims of missing cards that weren't really missing.

(All academic anyway, but…) There would have to be collusion between the registrant and the receiver, and the potential for gain (at least, gain greater than that of other, easier and safer collusion) is minor. But the risk is much greater. You can claim you're short a foil Tarmogoyf, but you wouldn't get a foil Tarmogoyf anyway. At best, you'd get a basic land with “TARMOGOYF” penned onto it. And you're probably the subject of an investigation.