Have any stories of Regular Rel deviations that you might want to share?

I think that stating what your deviation was, and why you deviated will help us all learn.

I'll share one of mine:
Sometimes cards don't get exiled when they should (snapcaster mage, other cards with flashback) or we have other wrong zone things. If this happened recently, I'm fine with partial fixing the zone change, not rewinding and exiling the card.

Why? Most wrong zone mistakes, if recent, have not influenced lines of play and partial fixing it is simple and easy. We also do this at competitive rel. It would feel silly to me to jump through more hoops just because its regular and the JARR doesn't have more details. Our goals are to keep it fair, keep it fun and to have games play out organically. Just fixing it does that and also satisifies the expectations of the players.

This is not a deviation. The IPG explicitly mentions cards in incorrect zones as an exception from “No partial fixes” rule. And it is fine even at CompREL.

Originally posted by William Anderson:

Have any stories of Regular Rel deviations that you might want to share?

I think that “Regular REL deviations” suggests that the Judging at Regular REL Guide is a rigid document that has set procedures that must be followed. While it has some good general guidance for judges, I would prefer to see “What stories involving fixes that are better than the suggested fixes in the JARR/JREG?”

Primarily at Regular REL, we can do things that seem more fair and specific to the situation. Certainly the general guidance of “Fix or leave as is” gives us advice on what to do in some situations, even broadly as “back up to point of error”, but that doesn't mean that any fix MUST be per what is listed in the JARR/JREG. This document isn't the MIPG. In my opinion, it just means we should consider what a “fair” fix is, and where we shouldn't tread into punitive fixes or fixes that wouldn't be agreeable to both players (or even a neutral player watching what unfolds).

For example, in a lot of situations where a spell was cast wrong and it was strictly the mana payment portion, I might be inclined to just fix the mana payment. If a creature was dealt lethal damage and shouldn't have been, return it to the battlefield if at all possible. Same with a card that should be exiled, but is instead in the graveyard. Obviously, the simpler the situation (nothing triggered, caught within a few actions, etc.) that makes it easier and more tolerable a fix. Especially if you can explain to the players, without saying “Well, the JARR/JREG says…” and you can just talk to the players directly and address their concerns.

And, if you can't fix the situation… You explain that both players do share a responsibility to the game and playing correctly. If the opponent misses an error, then that is something he should be more careful in looking out for. Even at Regular REL, we can stress that shared responsibility and remind the players that mistakes may be made by one player, but both should be looking for them.

But, stressing that the JARR/JREG is a very specific document like the MIPG… I feel that misses situations where we can provide more reasonable and specific fixes as appropriate to the situation. Especially ones the players will more readily understand and think is fair, versus some broad policy meant to handle 95+% of problems. Don't ignore the JARR/JREG's guidance, just integrate the general idea behind what a fix should accomplish. (About the only thing I'd say stick the JARR/JREG on is, “DQ cheaters!”)

Even though this would not be a deviation from the IPG at Competitive REL, it would certainly be a deviation from the JAR at Regular REL, so William's original post is a valid example of such a deviation. Fortunately, we are encouraged to “deviate like hell” at Regular REL, which is I suppose is another way of saying what Brian is getting at.

I've never much been a fan of “deviate like hell.” Mostly because I feel that it can lead to all kinds of very “clever” fixes that can get people into trouble. Especially if players decide they'll do it themselves.

That is why I generally try to keep any fix simple, innocuous, and unobtrusive to the game. And if that isn't possible, I leave things well enough alone. If the player(s) created a situation where it is too messy to fix, then I don't.

But that is just my thought process, and general caution to not over read into “deviate like hell.”

Gotta give a ^5 to Brian, here - “Deviate Like Hell!” is a cute slogan, but a lousy Policy.

Having said that, I think the original idea, as a discussion topic, has merit - what deviations have you implemented (at Regular REL) that seemed to actually improve the experience for the players?

d:^D

Nice work Scott! Killed another great conversation :P

Seriously though, this is a great discussion topic - and, like Brian, I'm not a big fan of DLH.

In fact, you can read about it here in my first blog post - thanks Lems for setting that up!

Hopefully the blog will become a place where I can discuss upcoming changes, ask for input and tell some stories about the genesis and ongoing evolution of the concept of Regular REL

I also am not a fan of “Deviate Like Hell,” however, there's an instance that I can point to where deviation of the JAR is not only acceptable, but I have no issue with, and it comes down to store policy.

At one store that I frequent in Windsor, Ontario, there are “store rules” posted, and even goes so far as to state that there will be tournament based consequences for failure to adhere to them. I have no issue with this, as they are posted, and everyone can see them.

In another, in my LGS in Sarnia, Ontario, we've long held a 5/10 policy in regards to tardiness. Now, the JAR states that there should only be penalization at 10 minutes with a match loss, but, this is a policy that we've had for over 10 years, and everyone understands it. In fact, when I was being “interviewed” by Steven Zwanger at GP Toronto in prep for an L2 test, he mentioned this fact to me, and I simply explained that this was a long-standing store policy, others may differ, and I'm OK with that, as long as everyone knows the standard going in.

Those are a couple of deviations that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm certain that there are countless other local ones. I'm curious to hear what some other people do in other scenarios.

In my LGS, we do not so much deviate from the JAR, but from the MTR with regards to pairings. When we have an 8-man draft, we do cross-pairing, which I manually force into WER. When we only have 6 players at a table (because there are 14 players, and nobody likes the 7-7 split with a bye on each table), we have an intricate algorithm for making the pairings; we experimented a lot with that, and this is what feels the most fair to the majority of players. The algorithm is published on our website, and before the start of the draft it is announced that we will use it.

Apart from that, I try not to deviate from the JAR at all! ^^

I've heard tales of “House Rules” at some stores, and while I'm sure most
of them are fundamentally harmless - like the example of 5/10 - part of me
worries that this might be the ‘thin end of the wedge’ and lead, step by
step, to more gratuitous rules. I'd be interested to hear more examples
(@Mike - perhaps a copy of the Windsor Rules?). I know of a store that wont
let you use dice to record lifetotals - pen and paper or get out. This to
me sounds like a store on the edge of “going rogue” policy-wise.

I also wonder if insisting on sticking to old policy, simply because
“that's what everyone understands the rule to be” might lead to a culture
of inflexibility regarding new rules?

As far as pairings go - I think as long as your players are happy, you're
in the clear. Some people love “outside pod pairings”. These people are
crazy, but it takes all sorts :P


On 13 January 2013 11:39, Dustin De Leeuw
<forum-2214@apps.magicjudges.org>wrote: