Hey all,

I recently head judged my first competitive event (GPT) and had a few situations come up where I wasn't sure if my response was correct.

In the first situation, I have Anthony playing Nathan. Anthony controls an Elspeth, and on his end step, Nathan casts Utter End on Elspeth. Anthony places Elspeth in the graveyard. About four seconds later, Nathan says hey, it goes to the exile zone. I was watching the entire time, and was about to inform Anthony that it went to exile instead, however Nathan did it first.

In this case, considering how fast it was caught and because I was not involved at all, I did not apply a GRV. Would you have in this situation?

In the next situation, I have Anna playing Nancy. Nancy controls an Erebos, God of the Dead, as well as four other creatures with no significant abilities. Anna plays End Hostilities, and Nancy places all the creatures (including Erebos) in the graveyard. I was watching at the time, waited five seconds to allow Nancy to realise what she had done, and then pointed out Erebos should not be in the graveyard. I then applied a GRV. The player felt I was being too harsh, but I kept the penalty in place as I feel he may not have fixed the issue himself if I had not caught it.

In the third situation, I was not present, however another judge who was not judging the event was spectating. Angus is playing Nate. Angus attacks with a rabblemaster. In response, Nate plays Stoke the Flames targeting Rabblemaster. In response to Stoke the Flames, Angus plays a foreign language Deflecting Palm. They both record Nate's life total as going down four points, and then proceed with the declare blockers step. I was called over by the spectating judge, and applied a GRV and FtmGs as appropriate.

After this happened, the judge confronted me about the FtmGs, asking if I was sure that it was the correct penalty. After talking to him, I realised I had not got the entire story (I didn't realise he had played a foreign Deflecting Palm) and I also was not informed that Angus had explained how Deflecting Palm works incorrectly. In this case obviously I did not correctly investigate the situation, and if I went back again I believe I would apply a TE - Communication Policy Violation.

I have a few questions here - 1. Is TE-CPV the correct penalty in this situation? 2. Considering I had already applied the two penalties, and it was approximately twenty minutes later (and the next round) when I had the discussion with the judge, should I have deleted the penalties and changed it to CPV?

Thanks for any feedback, apart from these three calls the rest of the event went remarkably well, considering it was my first solo competitive event.

First and Second situations - an infraction doesn't happen until the players try to take other actions without realizing and preventing the mistake. In the first case, you did fine. For the Second, it sounds like they weren't going to notice and prevent the error, but you want to wait until it's certain.

Last situation, your initial infraction was OK; they resolved a spell incorrectly. This is not a violation of the Communication Policy, so it is not a TE-CPV.

d:^D

Thanks Scott.

Was it still correct to apply a FtmGs to the inactive player, even though they couldn't really maintain the game state as they had asked for the text of the card and the opponent gave the wrong answer?
That is why I leaned towards CPV, as they incorrectly represented free information (although not on purpose).

The Oracle text of a spell is derived information, not free information, but Angus is still not allowed to represent it incorrectly. Why is it not a TE-CPV?

Your original post wasn't clear about Nate requesting Oracle text from Angus.

Even so, if Nate says “so, what's that do?” and Angus answers “prevents damage and does it to you instead”, I'm not convinced that this is representing derived info incorrectly as much as GRV for letting Deflecting Palm prevent damage to a creature.

Having said that, if you ruled this as TE-CPV, it would be fine. Do you think Angus was trying to represent derived info, or just resolving his spell incorrectly?

I also don't think this is worth splitting hairs… Your ruling was fine, CPV might be OK (depending on exactly what was really said), and in either case, you can backup (or not) as appropriate for the situation.

d:^D

Yes, I re-read and I wasn't totally clear here. Unfortunately I wasn't at the table when the exchange happened, so I guess in this case it's fine to stick with GRV.

I think the issue here was that he didn't know what the card actually said, and so he told his opponent what he thought the card did, and he was wrong. I believe that “Prevents damage and deals it back” would be a pretty good bet for what he said.

In the future I will just make sure that I actually ask a few more questions, I think I jumped straight to the fix and penalty a little too fast.

Edited Tom Wood (Jan. 5, 2015 06:07:46 AM)

In the second case don't you give Anna anything?

There is also an underlying question here that I feel goes missed:

There is a perceived fear for any penalty, even warnings, that lives with beginning judges and inexperienced players. A lot of people seem to think/feel that getting a warning is something bad. In the same vein new judges (and I remember myself feeling this way) feel bad when giving a warning.

But that is completely unnecessary, warnings are just that, warnings. They mean: You did something wrong that could potentially harm the game if we left it unchecked, please pay more attention. Explain this to players, tell them you giving them a warning is little more than giving an incentive to play better/technically correct/less sloppy. A warning without context, not only what you are giving it for but also why we give them, is something scary and it doesn't need to be.

It might be silly to some of us, but newer players can and have been scared away because they got (a few) warnings in their first competitive event.

One time at a TCG something or other we gave a younger player a FtMtGs and he looked super sad/worried. After the round I went to go talk with him, and, as I had suspected, he didn't realize that a FtMtGs can't upgrade and doesn't really matter. He felt a lot better after that and I think if we hadn't had that talk he would have left the event feeling a lot worse about judges and competitive Magic. Moral of the story, don't be afraid to give out warnings, but also don't hesitate to talk to the players about why it's not the end of the world if they get one. (Or maybe hesitate and then talk to them between rounds.)

Yesterday (day 2 of Grand Prix Denver), a player approached me and asked something like “I was curious about that Warning I received earlier - will that affect my record or how much money I can win?”

It is kind of surprising how many players have some degree of ignorance regarding penalties; just one more thing for us to teach the world!

d:^D

Scott makes a great point that I'd like to reiterate expand upon!

Many players at a store-level event will never have interacted with a judge
before–let alone received a formal warning in a competitive event. As in
Scott's case, this comes up at GP events, too! This is a great opportunity
for you to make the first experience with a judge a good one even in spite
of being given a warning.

Sometimes a player will get a strange look on their face, or just seem
really nervous, when you say they are receiving a warning. This is a hint
that you can help them to understand! Asking “Do you know how warnings
work?” or “Has a judge explained warnings to you before?” can take the edge
off the situation. You don't have to explain all the categories or go into
deep detail; just help them to accept it. You can always suggest finding a
judge later if they have more questions.

In the Erebos case, you can point out that this you handle errors in a
uniform way; they get Erebos back and their opponent is also receiving a
warning. Be careful to not be flippant about it; just explain.

On another note… you might also want you to ask their opponent a few
questions about allowing Erebos to go to the graveyard. Allowing Erebos to
go away may be an easy mistake to make, but maybe they really wanted to
have Erebos go away….! :)

–David

–
Ab ovo usque ad mala. – Horace

One little language trick you can try:

“I don't see a need for a penalty here so I'll let you off with a warning. Try to play more carefully.”

For someone not intimately familiar with the IPG, it emphasizes that they're not being penalized. It's just a finger wagging with the implication that it will get worse if the behaviour continues. Exactly what a warning should be.

Don't say “warning” unless you mean Warning, and don't say that a Warning
is not a penalty. This will only promote confusion about penalties.

Sean

Yes when I say, “I'm letting you off with a warning.” I am issuing a warning. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Using the word “penalty” in this manner is probably questionable. The English word as defined (and as generally understood) is that a “penalty” is associated with punishment. A “Warning” doesn't have an associated punishment until it is upgraded. If there is a better word to use in its place, I'm open to suggestions.

“Letting you off with a warning” is awful. It makes it sound as though you somehow have the authority to give them a harsher penalty. Why not just say that you're giving a warning? If they have concerns about warnings, address them. If you're actually downgrading, explain why. You don't even have to use the word “penalty.” Just be courteous whatever you do.