Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool everyone! Since Gold scenarios are intended to warp your mind, we ask L3+ judges to refrain from answering and/or guiding conversation until Friday. Also, please remember that in this scenario, as with almost all KP scenarios, we assume that there is no cheating going on. With that all out of the way, dive in!

The blog post for this scenario can be found here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1228

You are the Team Lead of the Deck Checks team at a Super Sunday Series event at a Grand Prix. You perform a random beginning-of-round deck check on Andy at the beginning of round 7. You notice that throughout the event, Andy’s main deck has become quite warped from the way that he is shuffling, and the sideboard has 15 flat cards in it. If you put a sideboard card into his deck, it is quite easy to see where it is from the side. What do you do?

Initial reaction before looking at any reference materials: Tournament Error - Marked Cards, warning, no upgrade. Since this is a beginning of round check, the player can't gain any advantage from the markings in the game about to be played; the deck they presented to their opponent doesn't have any issues, but their cards as a whole are considered to be marked. Also, it can be discerned from the wording - “Andy’s main deck has become quite warped from the way that he is shuffling” - that he wasn't doing this on purpose to try and gain an advantage, and should fall under the “normal wear and tear over the course of a tournament” portion of the rules. So the lack of advantage for the game about to be played throws out the possibility of an upgrade, and the lack of intent throws out the possibility of USC - Cheating. As for a fix to the situation… the player has a couple options. Either they can shuffle their sideboard until it has the same warping as the main deck, they can buy/use “fresh” copies of the cards in their main deck, or they could try to double sleeve their deck and/or use thicker sleeves that hide the warping.

After looking at the IPG: Oh, right, the Head Judge could issue proxies too. Forgot about that option!

Edited Benjamin Harris (Jan. 21, 2015 12:51:06 PM)

A few questions;

Is he using sleeves? Was this event sealed or draft (ie; new cards)?

I would determine if this problem would be solved with new sleeves (or getting sleeves period), and if so request that the player obtain new sleeves (or give them some) before starting next game. No infraction, no penalty, but I would give them a time extension.

If the cards are simply too bent that sleeves would not fix the issue, I honestly don't know what I would do. We can't tell them to bend their sideboard cards. We can't tell them they cannot use their sideboard. I don't think I would want to proxy their entire deck / side.

I suppose a reasonable fix would be to get basic lands NOT IN HIS COLORS and sharpie them as proxies of his sideboard, then bend them in the same way as his main decked cards and have him use those. Again, no infraction or penalty, and I would still give them an extension.

Edited Sal Cortez (Jan. 22, 2015 12:39:43 AM)

Right now, Andy hasn't committed an infraction in this round since he hasn't sideboarded yet. I would caution him that if he sideboards he'll be facing a Marked Cards infraction, and I'd explain what the penalty is, including the likely GL upgrade. I leave it up to Andy to make sure he plays with a legal deck and ask a floor judge to keep an eye on his game 2.

I would try to work with Andy to come up with a good solution for him, including possibly involving the HJ to issue some proxies, but the initiative to choose a solution is his. I would not instruct or suggest that he pre-warp his sideboard to match, but he could decide to do that himself. Other options could be to use new, stiffer sleeves, or choosing not to sideboard anymore for the rest of the event.

Strictly speaking, if Andy requests proxies the HJ could only proxy his main deck since those are the damaged cards, but for practical reasons I would suggest that the HJ approves proxies for the sideboard using cheap basics and pre-warp those. In that case, I would tell Andy to proceed with game 1 while I arrange some sideboard proxies for him, or have one of my team members do so.

Ah, the elusive Gold scenario…

For starters, there has been no infraction committed just yet, since the deck presented does not contain any marked cards (or, rather, all the cards in the deck are equally marked, making them indistinguishable form each other). But the fact that only the main deck got marked and none of the cards in the SB did tingles my spider senses. An investigation may be in order, since 6 rounds have already been played and is conceivable that some of the SB cards would have been subjected to a similar treatment during sideboarded games.

The scenario does not specify, but from the fact that the SB has only 15 cards in it, I assume it is a constructed event, and also I suspect there are not many rounds left in the tournament since we're already in round 7 (and it is a single-day event).

Given all that, I would do nothing right away, since there hasn't been an infraction yet. But I would keep an eye on the player's shuffling after the decks are returned, to try to ascertain how the cards got marked, and I would look into his play (and shuffling) during games 2 and 3 to see if there's any change when he has sideboard cards in his deck. I would also involve the Head Judge so that he's aware of the problem.

Of course, there always exists the possibility of this being a deck that was never intended to have sideboard cards in it. The Judgment Wishes are still legal (and used) in Legacy, and even Glittering Wish is legal in Modern. I would take that into account when checking the deck's composition.

The above responses are stating that since the presented deck's cards aren't marked, there isn't an infraction. Why is only the main deck considered for TE-Marked Cards? The definition of Marked Cards from the IPG is “A player’s cards are marked or oriented in a way that could potentially give an advantage to that player. ” - it doesn't say the cards in a player's deck, but a player's cards as a whole. Is there an implication or statement I'm missing that makes this not apply to cards in the player's sideboard?

Edited Benjamin Harris (Jan. 22, 2015 07:59:47 AM)

Originally posted by Benjamin Harris:

The above responses are stating that since the presented deck's cards aren't marked, there isn't an infraction. Why is only the main deck considered for TE-Marked Cards? The definition of Marked Cards from the IPG is “A player’s cards are marked or oriented in a way that could potentially give an advantage to that player. ” - it doesn't say the cards in a player's deck, but a player's cards as a whole. Is there an implication or statement I'm missing that makes this not apply to cards in the player's sideboard?

Benjamin, no matter how the sideboard cards are marked, there is no way the player could gain an advantage from it unless he puts those cards in his deck.

Before reading comments:
I feel like this should probably be Tournament Error: Marked Cards with, to the head judge's digression, an upgrade to a game loss. The ipg says that the penalty should be upgraded if it “would clearly compromise the integrity of the game” and from the description of the scenario it seems like it would be very easy for the user of the deck to notice this and use it to their advantage.
So TE: MC with an upgrade is my final answer.

So now there's the problem of a fix. The IPG says we could proxy cards that have been damaged during the tournament, however, proxying an entire deck is messy, gross, takes forever, and feels bad in general. Then the player has the option of finding replacement cards for their entire deck or replace them with basic lands and then reflect the decklist to this change. However saying “yeah, I need new cards because mine got super bent” doesnt really make it seem easy to find replacements.
While it may seem unorthodox, I'm wondering if there's any backing to just have the player shuffle their sideboard for a few minutes until the warping of the sideboard matches the warping of the mainboard. If the player doesn't want to do this, they can always try to find replacements and if that fails, get basics for the replacements they couldnt find.

After reading:
It seems like everyone is saying that no infraction has yet to have been committed, so there shouldnt be a penalty. I dont really understand that line of thought as we're 7 rounds into the tournament and presumably the player has sideboarded at some point and could have gained an advantage that way. But seeing as they havent sideboarded yet they may not have sideboarded ever in the entire tournament, so I guess I can understand the no infraction line of thought. If anyone would mind explaining their “no infraction” philosophy more in depth I would be very satisfied.

In the same way that we don't penalize players that miss a trigger on their cards on round 5 for triggers they may or may not have missed in previous rounds, we cannot penalize this player for things he may or may not have done in previous rounds, because we do not have that information. When doing a Deck Check, you consider only the contents of the presented deck to ascertain its legality (that's why we wait until both players have presented their decks to their opponents for additional shuffling/cutting). The player in question presented a legal deck, since the cards are indistinguishable from each other (they are all similarly warped).

The fact that the sideboard cards may be marked in regards to the main deck has no bearing on the status of the deck presented for game 1. It is a different situation from the player failing to desideboard from a previous round, which would involve an infraction.

I think we are looking at a situation where the player is not currently
committing an infraction but is probably less than 30 minutes from that no
longer being the case. This is a situation where we are perfectly capable
of stepping in and preventing this from becoming an issue as we continue
into the tournament. As was noted by Benjamin Harris at the beginning of
this thread the IPG has this section in it that gives us a way to correct
this problem

“If the cards themselves have become marked through play in the tournament,
the Head Judge may decide to issue a proxy”

If we felt it was appropriate the Head Judge could issue proxies for
his…ugh…whole deck. Now while there is probably support from the IPG
for this I really don't want to do this and have him just keep shuffling
that way and have this be an issue in the near future for the exact same
reason.

No matter what the end of the conversation looks like Im going to go to the
Head Judge and ask for proxies to be issued for this individual's main deck
cards. Assuming the HJ agrees to do so I will likely be have a
conversation while helping get his deck back in order about his shuffling
practices.

In short, ask for proxies from HJ, there is no reason to watch him walk
into a marked cards game loss when we have the “easy” opportunity to fix
the problem during the deck check. Yes the time extension will be long but
it is something that happens on occasion.

Originally posted by Claudio Martín Nieva Scarpatti:

In the same way that we don't penalize players that miss a trigger on their cards on round 5 for triggers they may or may not have missed in previous rounds

But isnt that a Game Play Error and not a Tournament Error?
I am of the opinion that a Tournament Error can take place at any time, while Game Play Errors can only take place during an actual game.

The phrase “the integrity of the game” is used in TE-marked cards. The integrity of the current game is not in question, but having sideboard cards that are clearly marked is in the spirit of marked cards. TE-Marked cards - warning. No upgrade to a GL.

Originally posted by Elliot Garner:

I am of the opinion that a Tournament Error can take place at any time, while Game Play Errors can only take place during an actual game.

Tournament errors as a whole categories certainly aren't tied to a game being in progress. But individual TEs certainly only make sense in a game. I'm sure you wouldn't consider Deck/Decklist Problem while a player was sideboarding between games by first taking out cards, then putting in sideboard cards.

Claudio's point, however, was a different one: His point was that we don't start handing out penalties in round 7 for things the player may have done in previous rounds, no matter how likely we may think it is that he actually did those things. If a deckcheck discovers marked cards in round 3, we give the player a Warning now; we do not give him one for round 1 and another one for round 2 as well, even if we are certain that the card condition was the same in rounds 1 and 2.

Which leaves the question: is there a problem right now, in the current deck check? All cards in the presented deck are warped the same, so they are indistinguishable. If all cards in a deck are indistinguishable, they are by definition not marked, so there is no problem. And there is absolutely no way that the player could gain an advantage in this game.
Sure, if he sideboards for game 2 or 3, there very likely will be a problem. Advise the player of that, and that he'll face the upgrade GL. But right now, there is no problem.

How would I fix this? Tell the player that he needs to make sure that all cards he presents in his deck for games 2 and 3 need to be warped the same way. Whether he accomplishes that by un-warping his maindeck, by warping his sideboard, or by not sideboarding, is his choice. I do not see any provision for providing proxies to the player. The cards are not damaged; and even if you consider this “damaged”, I would no more give a proxy for this than for any other mistreatment a player subjects his own cards to.

Thanks for your thought-provoking responses, everyone. This one was indeed a difficult one and here is the Knowledge Pool's answer.

As in all other aspects of policy, we don't particularly care how long Andy's sideboard and main deck have looked like this. We don't want to penalize players for actions they may or may not have taken in previous games. We also don't want to start considering players to have committed infractions before they happen. We're not Tom Cruise and none of us are in Minority Report.

We need to look into whether or not there is currently an infraction and what the appropriate penalty would be. TE–Marked Cards says “A player’s cards are marked or oriented in a way that could potentially give an advantage to that player.” I think we can all agree that the sideboard cards could offer an advantage to that player if they are used. We also assume that when a player makes a sideboard, they will use it in some manner.

The upgrade clause states “The Head Judge has the option to upgrade this penalty to a Game Loss if he or she believes that a player noticing the pattern of markings would clearly compromise the integrity of the game.” The Knowledge Pool team doesn’t feel that this criteria has been met. Since this was a beginning of round deck check, we thankfully caught this problem before the integrity of the game has been damaged and there is no need to upgrade this.

Therefore, this falls under Tournament Error–Marked Cards and comes with a Warning. Due to the nature of this problem, we have a few options available to us, which should be presented to the player after consulting with the head judge. One simple option is to allow the player to continue the tournament but without the use of his sideboard. If they wish to continue using a sideboard, the player may either warp the sideboard cards so that they match the main deck cards, or they may replace the main deck cards with unwarped versions so that they match the sideboard. In either case, give the player a reasonable amount of time to do so, but be careful not to let this call impact the entire tournament due to an excessive time extension.

This won't be a simple fix. However, this player has created the situation through their own actions. This is really no different from a player who ignores our announcement, sets his open drink on the table, then drenches his deck and wants us to fix his problem.

So if the player wanted to replace the cards in their main deck with
unwarped cards, how much time would you give them? And what action do you
take if they don't finish sleeving it up before the allotted time?