Do I like Norin? No. But I do like how he sets up a free win for himself, and I don't see how this is different from pileshuffling your opponent's deck to see if he/she presented 59 cards in the hope of a free win.

I think Norin is taking advantage of superior rules knowledge, without rules lawyering. For me, it's really important that Amanda is the one who controls the Spirit; if it was Norin's Spirit, I would be much more careful… do we expect players to remember their opponent's cards, and do we expect players to remind their opponents of their own rules-changing cards? I would like to propose this as a variant of the scenario (Norin controls the Spirit, otherwise exactly the same as OP), and am curious to hear if this would change your opinion!

And as Mark pointed out: this only makes sense if both players speak the same language. If this happens between a French and an Italian player at a Spanish GP… *headache*

I am trying to justify to myself why control of the Spirit would matter… subjectively, it feels like it really should.

As stated, I don't feel particularly bad for Amanda because she chose to put both the Spirit and the Stratus Walk in her deck (even though it wasn't a Constructed event). Her choice, her responsibility to deal with the consequences. If the Spirit was Norin's I would feel a bit bad for her since the interaction between the two cards was imposed by their matchup, not by her choice.

But I can't put my finger on why that should affect the ruling (at Comp/Pro REL). Norin still responded clearly and correctly, Amanda still should have been aware of the Spirit's ability, and she still shouldn't have drawn that card.

I think this is GPE - DEC with a GL for Amanda and no infraction for Norin. Norin carefully chose his words and did not confirm the draw. He just confirmed that the trigger was resolving. Properly determining the correct actions to take upon resolution is up to Amanda. If she misinterpreted Norin's answer, well, too bad for her. Words have a meaning and Norin's answer was very precise.
I also don't think that who controls the Spirit should influence this ruling.
My answer might change if there was a language barrier between the players. But in that case we probably wouldn't have both players telling the same story and thus a different scenario.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

And as Mark pointed out: this only makes sense if both players speak the same language.

Julien de Graat
My answer might change if there was a language barrier between the players.

(Devil's advocate) So my question then is: is it the words used that are important? Or the meaning behind the words? (or some combination of both?).

It's inconsistent of us to say to one player “Game Loss, he used technically correct English”, and to another player “Warning, because I know your English isn't great and you guys misunderstood each other”.

Amanda has basically asked if it's ok to go ahead and draw her card, and taken Norin's response as confirmation to go ahead and draw a card.

It sounds very much like the thread from ages ago about “I would like to leave my main phase and go to the beginning of combat step - have you any responses?” “Yes, tap your equipped guy” “Cool, reequip, now I would like to leave my main phase…”

I find myself agreeing with Mark, for similar reasons. Yes, we know the difference between “resolves and does nothing” and “countered before it would resolve.” Just like we know the difference between “responding to you declaring attackers” (not actually possible) and “in your precombat step doing something.” However, if a player says the former, I would always assume he or she is doing the latter and would never say, “No, can't do that.”

Yes, Norin used the exact wording of the rules to express something very precise, but Magic is not a game of semantics and something like this doesn't feel like winning by skill.

This obviously, as a human taking the call, feels bad. I don't think we should let that overrule the documents in a decision. I have found nothing the the documents that says Norin committed an infraction or violated the MTR in any other way. In fact, the MTR seems to support him.

From MTR 4.1, Player Communication
“The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a
game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning.”

Norin understood the rules of the current game better and used that information to gain an advantage. Obviously, we would *like* all advantages to be gained within the context of the game of magic and not in some sort of policy metagame, but the fact is that metagame exists.

DEC for Amanda and no infraction for Norin.

Norin is aware that when the trigger resolves, it will do nothing per the rules of the game. This trips up some judges in terms of “doesn't resolve” versus “resolves and does nothing.” Is Norin not demonstrating advanced rules knowledge by expecting that the trigger will resolve and do nothing, as it should?

You can argue his intent of the hopes that she messes up and draws a card to get a GL. I think that's something we don't hold against Norin. In competitive play, players usually wish their opponent would make an in-game or tournament mistake that costs them a game. “It's not very sporting, but it's not unsportsmanlike.”

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

I think this is GPE - DEC with a GL for Amanda and no infraction for Norin. Norin carefully chose his words and did not confirm the draw. He just confirmed that the trigger was resolving. Properly determining the correct actions to take upon resolution is up to Amanda. If she misinterpreted Norin's answer, well, too bad for her. Words have a meaning and Norin's answer was very precise.

Agreed. We can argue intent all we want and how shady it is, but I feel that the communication was clear. From the given scenario, both players discussed the trigger. If Amanda were to say “Draw a card” and Norin said “ok”, we're in the realm of GPE-GRV due to the “confirmed draw” clause of GPE-DEC. But Norin didn't confirm a draw. He confirmed a trigger, which Amanda acknowledged.

I think part of this discussion boils down to each individual judge's expectation of a player to prevent their opponent from drawing a card they shouldn't. How fast did Amanda do it? Did she lay the card out first? Could Norin have stopped her in time if he wanted to? These are very subjective questions.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It's inconsistent of us to say to one player “Game Loss, he used technically correct English”, and to another player “Warning, because I know your English isn't great and you guys misunderstood each other”.

This is not necessarily inconsistent. We are simply talking about two different scenarios.

Originally posted by Julien de Graat:

Mark Mc Govern
It's inconsistent of us to say to one player “Game Loss, he used technically correct English”, and to another player “Warning, because I know your English isn't great and you guys misunderstood each other”.

This is not necessarily inconsistent. We are simply talking about two different scenarios.

I would call this inconsistent. I don't see anything in the IPG that allows for deviation due to language barrier. Then again, the likelihood of two people speaking completely disparate languages trying to word game their opponent seems very unrealistic.

It may not be that they're trying to word game each other in their second language. It may be that that's the sentence they know for communicating “I want to draw a card” and “sure”. I've had situations where players have used the wrong words to describe a situation.


(As an aside, I'll admit that I hate the idea that Norin can get away with word play like this. If it ends up that an official answer is that it's a Game Loss then fair enough. Morally though it feels really crappy. And that may be influencing my answers here ;) )

ultimately, if Amanda doesn't want to get a game loss for drawing extra
cards, she shouldn't draw extra cards. anything else is secondary to that
IMO.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It may not be that they're trying to word game each other in their second language. It may be that that's the sentence they know for communicating “I want to draw a card” and “sure”. I've had situations where players have used the wrong words to describe a situation.

Jens Strohaeker
The conversation above is the exact wording that was used. On questioning Norin states he expected her to draw an additional card but both players confirm he has clearly only confirmed the trigger not the drawing of a card.

How much clearer do you want your player statements? Both players concur the trigger was acknowledged, not the card draw. I grant you that often, you don't get such nice black on white statement as we get here in the forum, but if you do, use it. When, during your investigation about this situation, you feel that there has been some miscommunication between both players, try to get that out. It might very well be that in the original case that Jens handled at the table he was a bit uncertain about whether Amanda understood what Norin meant by the remark: “The trigger resolves”, but in the scenario we're discussing, the original post is clear on this.

If 2 players do not have a common language, or if one or both is talking in their secondary or even tertiary language, that just means that the players need to make more effort to communicate clearly. It is more likely you get a scenario where “Amanda thought that Norin acknowledged the card draw, but he only acknowledged the trigger”. In that case, Amanda is the one that has to be sure the communication was clear, whether Norin is speaking his primary language and Amanda her tertiary language. Why? Because Amanda asks the question to prevent getting a game loss, and she will commit the infraction if she isn't allowed to draw and still draws. So she is responsible for the clear communication of the ‘can I draw?’ question & answer. Does this mean Norin can get away with giving no answer to that question? Or giving evasive answers? That is a different discussion, and also see http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/8575/ for that.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

If it ends up that an official answer is

This one's not easy enough for any sort of ‘O’fficial answer; it seems more like an investigation, one of those “you had to be there” situations.

I would want to decide what question I believed Amanda thought she was asking, and maybe even what question I believed Norin thought he was answering.

I might be tempted to downgrade, based on the confirmation clause - if I was convinced that Amanda thought she was seeking that confirmation.

I probably would not find an infraction to apply to Norin, given the wording as stated.

But ‘O’fficial? Hardly. That's just my ‘O’pinion - and it's worth as much as others that have been expressed here.

“On questioning Norin states he expected her to draw an additional card”

I am really bothered by this statement by Norin. So he expected her to draw that additional card even though he knew that she shouldn't? He said or did nothing to stop her, knowing that it would result in a DEC GL?

If he did, I feel that he is gaming the win through penalty policy and not through skills in a game of magic. Players are not responsible for opponents making bad plays. But shouldn't players be responsible to stop opponents from making illegal plays?

you can't expect players to be psychic. sometimes your opponent makes an
illegal play, and there's nothing you could do about it. so if there was a
rule saying it's illegal for a player to let his opponent make an illegal
play, this rule would be broken frequently by players who had no choice in
the matter. furthermore, players could just break rules willy-nilly and it
would be their opponents' responsibility to stop them from doing it.
in reality, the only person who can be held responsible for Amanda's
actions is Amanda. it's not fair to Norin to put the burden on him.