Forcing players to attempt to preemptively intervene when they are concerned that their opponent may commit an illegal action in the future in order to stop that illegal action seems… bad.

1) Players don't actually know what their opponent is allowed to do.
2) Judges are actually told not to intervene in order to prevent an illegal action– it seems odd to force a player to do something when we as judges are told not to.

For example, you're playing at a Comp REL event and trying to win within the rules. Your opponent asks you “Can I misdirect a Cruel Ultimatum?” You say yes. You think your opponent is about to try to cast misdirection, and then you think he is going to try to change the target of cruel ultimatum to you (the last big is illegal). Are you required to say anything?

I'll let you answer that.

If you were a judge in the same scenario, you'd be required to not to reach out and add that the misdirection play won't do much in order to avoid coaching.

I've seen a couple mentions about having a talk with our competitive player on the side… what do those talks sound like? Are you giving them a direct instruction not to play that trigger game again? Are you going to infract if they do it again?

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

I've seen a couple mentions about having a talk with our competitive player on the side… what do those talks sound like? Are you giving them a direct instruction not to play that trigger game again? Are you going to infract if they do it again?

No you're telling them that you will not DQ them but that they have to be very careful what they say in the future. (Aka you did not step over the line but you're very very close and I will watch you)

Of course not all illegal plays can be stopped or intervened with by the opponent. But in this particular case, Norin admits that he expected her to draw a card. Which is an illegal action. He knew she shouldn't be drawing.

The player cleverly answers that the trigger resolves and avoids confirming the draw, at which point the opponent draws and incurs a GL for DEC.

So from now all players should cleverly should try to avoid confirming a card draw from an opponent and let them draw into a DEC. I don't like where this is going.

Originally posted by William Anderson:

Forcing players to attempt to preemptively intervene when they are concerned that their opponent may commit an illegal action in the future in order to stop that illegal action seems… bad.

In this particular case I feel that it was pretty clear cut what was being asked.

1) Players don't actually know what their opponent is allowed to do.

sure.

2) Judges are actually told not to intervene in order to prevent an illegal action– it seems odd to force a player to do something when we as judges are told not to.

That is because judges are not involved in the matches as compared to the player.

For example, you're playing at a Comp REL event and trying to win within the rules. Your opponent asks you “Can I misdirect a Cruel Ultimatum?” You say yes. You think your opponent is about to try to cast misdirection, and then you think he is going to try to change the target of cruel ultimatum to you (the last big is illegal). Are you required to say anything?

Asking a rules questions as compared to saying “Draw trigger on the stack” is two different things. Why would you ask your opponent a rules question anyway?

I'll let you answer that.

If you were a judge in the same scenario, you'd be required to not to reach out and add that the misdirection play won't do much in order to avoid coaching.

Sure.

Edited Sashi Balakrishnan (March 19, 2014 11:25:55 PM)

According to the MTR, players are responsible for maintaining a clear and legal gamestate.

According to the IPG (section 2, Game Play Errors), Both players are expected to maintain the game rules and to share some responsibility for any errors that may occur involving public information.

According to Norin's statement, he expected that Amanda was about to violate a game rule, but chose to do nothing about it. Isn't that in direct contradiction to his responsibilities as they have been stated above?

I understand that we should not make an attempt to determine or correct any advantage gained, and therefore agree with the Game Loss for DEC to Amanda.

However, it seems to me that Norin is breaking a rule in an attempt to gain an advantage. So why isn't anyone suggesting to investigate to what extend he is aware of his responsibilities in order to determine if cheating has occurred?

If an opponent notices a game error committed by an opponent, they have a
responsibility to point it out as soon as they are aware of it. If they do
it immediately, then they do not receive any penalty. (FtMGS if they do it
later) However, players are not responsible for preventing their opponents
from making errors. We don't ask them to guess, predict, or anticipate any
future action of their opponents.

Why, though? If by your own admission you expect that your opponent is about to break a rule, and you choose your actions such that it encourages your opponent to break that rule, then why don't we hold you responsible for that?

The actions do not encourage the player to make the mistake. They may be
misinterpreted by the opponent which leads them to make the mistake. They
do not prevent them from making the mistake. We don't ask players to
predict the future or preemptively step in to prevent mistakes. Players
are allowed to let their opponents make mistakes.

Players are never responsible for any form of prognostication. This is true for Communication Policy, and it's true for rules violations.

Why would you want to make players responsible for things that literally don't exist at the time you want them to be aware of them?

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

Why, though? If by your own admission you expect that your opponent is about to break a rule, and you choose your actions such that it encourages your opponent to break that rule, then why don't we hold you responsible for that?

Because it's awfully touchy territory to punish a player for their opponent's mistake. Pleading ignorance of the rules is only an excuse for the most serious offenses of Cheating and (I think?) Stalling. That's a good thing, because it means players who know the rules and who know they didn't break any rules can feel comfortable giving us all the information they have. I think as a player I'd be more hesitant to call a judge after witnessing my opponent make an error if I could be penalized for failing to prevent them from making that error.

And to take it one step further - we specifically do not require players to track their opponent's triggered abilities. We acknowledge that game states can get complicated and players have a lot to focus on in trying to win their game. Requiring knowledgeable players to point out mistakes that their opponents haven't even made yet is effectively a handicap on those players, forcing them to stay vigilant lest they be accused of letting their opponent screw up.

I don't want to ask players to predict the future. I want them to act if they DO predict the future, because then it's no longer a matter of “you should have seen it coming, but you didn't”, and instead it has become “you saw it coming, and chose not to do anything about it”. It's a subtle difference, but feels rather essential to me.

Nope. There is no difference. We don't care if you are a good fortune
teller or a bad one. Still not your responsibility.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

I don't want to ask players to predict the future. I want them to act if they DO predict the future, because then it's no longer a matter of “you should have seen it coming, but you didn't”, and instead it has become “you saw it coming, and chose not to do anything about it”. It's a subtle difference, but feels rather essential to me.

You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight though when assessing such a situation. Looking backwards at the violation in question and expecting the opponent to look forwards in advance of the violation simply doesn't correlate as a reasonable expectation.

In most cases, the opponent only has a suspicion of what could happen. Sure, it might be a very strong suspicion, but it is still only a suspicion. Expecting the opponent to act on the suspicion, assess the probability the the player will actually take the suspected action, and act as if the illegal action has taken place (when it has yet to happen) is a rather unfair and unrealistic expectation. It puts the opponent in the potential role of preempting any suspected illegal play, and thus potentially having to coach the player in how to make the “correct play”.

This, to me, seems an expectation of “hyper vigilance” on the part of the opponent.

The expectation we have, per MTR 1.10, is that they bring “to a judge's attention any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches”. Until a rules infraction has happened, they can't notice anything. Because no rule has actually been violated. It's only once the rule has been violated that the opponent needs to alert a judge, because the game has now reached an “illegal state”.

What Brian says is correct. The expectation is that a player call attention to errors, not take action to preempt them (though sporting ones might).

In this particular example, Amanda hoses herself with her precise language. By talking about the trigger, rather than the draw, and expressing it as a statement, she opens herself up to this particular misdirection. Had she said something like “Draw for the trigger?” Norin's statement could be reasonably construed as permission, opening up the downgrade path.