Some people have said that this is DEC, and then gone on to talk about the card being “uniquely identifiable”.

The term “uniquely identifiable” does not actually appear in the IPG; people generally use it to talk about the non-upgrade clause in GRV. The language used in the DEC downgrade section is a little different; it reads (bolding mine):

If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

“known to all players before” is not equal to “can be worked out afterwards”.

The card sounds like it was pretty squarely on top of the hand pile, and therefore pretty definitively in her hand. That makes it DEC. In my opinion, we can't downgrade here - as James has said, even though we can work out which card it was, there's no guarantee that Nutmeg's notes are correct, and without them there's no way to determine which card it was. I feel that that means we can't downgrade, as the identity of the card wasn't actually known, so it's a Game Loss.

It sounds harsh yes, but there's a lesson to be learned here; DON'T DO IT.

Originally posted by Nathen Millbank:

Well, given Scott and Brian's responses on this thread I would have to say no infraction, no penalty. It is my understanding from their comments that “the card touched your hand” is not an appropriate metric to use when deciding if a card is drawn or not. My understanding is that the metric is more like, “the card was placed basically fully into a hand that is picked up off the table.”

As it is past FNM in my part of the world…

I can only speak for my own post, but this is the wrong takeaway from my post on the thread. If anything, my point was with regards to overly technical application of infractions in situations where the circumstances did not merit it since the players were not confused. That is, understanding and applying MIPG 2 as warranted.

At no point did I argue or state that the metrics used in the MIPG were inappropriate with regards to assessing whether an infraction occurred. Quite the opposite in fact, as I believe I stuck closely to the existing definition and concepts in the MIPG; I simply used some rather careful “qualifying” language about not assessing an infraction (i.e., “barely”).

Brian,

This thread – and the earlier one regarding anticipate – both hinge on the definition of “put a card into his or her hand.” Prior to that thread, I understood that we drew a line; when a player physically touches a card to the other cards in their hand, they've drawn it.

However, it was my understanding that you and Scott both argued on the anticipate thread that a card making physical contact with the other cards that comprise someone's hand does not necessarily constitute that person “putting the card into his or her hand.” In fact, Scott's question was explicitly “was it ever actually difficult to distinguish it from the cards in hand?” From my reading, both you and he said that because the contact between the anticipate card and the rest of the hand was both minor and incidental, that it would be overly technical to consider the card drawn.

I don't think that you argued that the IPG was wrong. I think we're just discussing what the definition of “drawn” is in the context of the IPG. Or perhaps where the “if the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players” clause interacts with the technicalities of DEC?

I honestly have a hard time distinguishing the scenario in this knowledge pool and the anticipate scenario. In both cases, a player incidentally places a card he or she is thinking about in physical contact with their hand, which is lying on the table. In both cases, the opponent, the player, and the judge can point to a distinct card that should not be included as part of the hand. If the anticipate case isn't DEC, I don't see how this could be. If this is a DEC to you, where did this player cross the line?

If it is DEC in your book, I think it creates a problem. Specifically, I worry that without a bright-line for when a card is actually drawn basically every DEC ruling is going to turn into 20 minutes of arguing about whether or not the contact between the offending card and the hand is minor enough to get a “barely” exemption.

While I appreciate that we want to avoid being rules robots who don't take reality into account, it seems to me that the bright-line of “touching your hand = drawn” was widely understood and accepted and helps reduce arguing about just how much contact was made between a card and a hand.

There are 2 questions about this situation.
1st: is “put a card on the other cards in hand” a card draw?

The rules say yes, because the touch other cards in hand for more than random small part.
2nd: so the infraction is gl which can be downgraded.
Downgrade can f.e. Be if it is only 1 card in hand.

In this case the card is known because of Ns notices.
The notes are not neccessary for N due the gameplay (like lifepoints are).
I should Not be a benefit for that N notices the cards.

So no downgrade. GL for A.

Originally posted by Nathen Millbank:

I honestly have a hard time distinguishing the scenario in this knowledge pool and the anticipate scenario. In both cases, a player incidentally places a card he or she is thinking about in physical contact with their hand, which is lying on the table. In both cases, the opponent, the player, and the judge can point to a distinct card that should not be included as part of the hand. If the anticipate case isn't DEC, I don't see how this could be. If this is a DEC to you, where did this player cross the line?

Well, I think the first problem is the use of adjectives.

The use of “incidental”, “barely”, and “casual” with regards to the amount (and type) of contact are always going to make for a challenge in understanding what is happening. Because, I suppose one person could argue the KP scenario as “incidental contact” depending on how one wanted to view placing the card on the cards comprising the player's hand.

I would not agree, because the description in the KP scenario has the player placing the entire card on top of his hand. Compared to the situation with Anticipate, where the player set the card down so that only a corner of that card was touching another, there is a big difference in the actual physical action and amount of contact. You could try to quantify this, but I think that it is best to keep it a qualitative assessment. One where it is understood that reasonable people may disagree.

I also think you need to evaluate the nature of the player's action. In the KP scenario, the player sets the card down onto his hand; the player overlooked where he was setting the card, which is why the card is on top of his hand. In the Anticipate scenario, the player set the card so a corner of the card touched a card in his hand; the player didn't overlook where he was setting the card, which is why only the corner came into contact.

I also need to point out that my concluding paragraph: "Personally, I don't see this as DEC at any point. The card is not truly 'extra' in the normal sense of the infraction. The player should put the card in hand as part of the spell resolving. It's the 'putting back' and making a different choice that is a potential issue. Which, IMO, is not that problematic here."

I would submit that I've acknowledged with the Anticipate scenario that the card has been drawn per policy. What I would point out as a potential infraction is the putting back of the card; something I do not regard as an issue in that scenario, given the circumstances. The potential GPE-GRV is rendered moot, given the players understand what is going on; it's not ideal, as we'd prefer the player complete decisions and follow through on them. But I think we'd also recognize some leeway as well, given MIPG 2 and policies like OOoS.

In the KP scenario, however, the scryed card should never come into contact with the player's hand. That element, on its own, is a pretty huge difference in the two scenarios. One that I think goes at the heart of the KP scenario versus the Anticipate scenario, and identifying what infraction has occurred here given the evaluation of the various elements in the MIPG.

I hope that more fully explains things.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

In the KP scenario, however, the scryed card should never come into contact with the player's hand. That element, on its own, is a pretty huge difference in the two scenarios. One that I think goes at the heart of the KP scenario versus the Anticipate scenario, and identifying what infraction has occurred here given the evaluation of the various elements in the MIPG.

I don't see that as being particularly relevant. In both cases, the issue is whether a card has been added to the hand or not. In the Anticipate scenario, it was ruled that since the card was never actually added to the hand (the contact being accidental and marginal), no infraction actually occurred, and it was legal for the player to take the card back and choose a different one.

In this scry example, the only difference is that the scryed card has been placed accidentally on top of the hand. If the ruling for the Anticipate was that the card was not part of the hand, then a scryed card could similarly be placed so that it's corner touched the hand, and no infraction has occurred. The fact that a scryed card should never be put into the hand is irrelevant.

So now, as judges, we have to make a call as to what level of touching constitutes a card being put into the hand. I like the definition of “as soon as it touches another card in hand” because it is simple, unambiguous, and players understand it.

If a card has been dropped onto a a pile of other cards, and that pile is not picked up, I really struggle to see the difference if a card is only touching by a corner. In both cases, both players know exactly which card is which. Does this even matter from a IPG philosophy point of view? The situation changes as soon as the hand is picked up, but up to that point the two situations seem similar to me.

I think the discussion of the similarity between this and the Anticipate situation maybe taking over this discussion. Might I suggest that for this situation that the card reaches a state to match your definition of “directly on top of her hand” and thus “in the players hand” unless told otherwise and once this has been wound up by the KP team you start a new thread discussing the differences.

DEC - GL. Explain as needed that the card was not known to both so no downgrade is possible and that the potential for abuse is high that this attracts a more stern penalty.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

So now, as judges, we have to make a call as to what level of touching constitutes a card being put into the hand. I like the definition of “as soon as it touches another card in hand” because it is simple, unambiguous, and players understand it.

Well, it's unfortunate to view my point as irrelevant, because I thought it served to illustrate why a simple, unambiguous definition can fail. Even when it may be good for this KP scenarios, or the majority of comparable scenarios.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

If a card has been dropped onto a a pile of other cards, and that pile is not picked up, I really struggle to see the difference if a card is only touching by a corner. In both cases, both players know exactly which card is which. Does this even matter from a IPG philosophy point of view? The situation changes as soon as the hand is picked up, but up to that point the two situations seem similar to me.

I think that's a question of whether you can consider the card's identity “known to all players”. Not whether the card was drawn.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Huw Morris
So now, as judges, we have to make a call as to what level of touching constitutes a card being put into the hand. I like the definition of “as soon as it touches another card in hand” because it is simple, unambiguous, and players understand it.

Well, it's unfortunate to view my point as irrelevant, because I thought it served to illustrate why a simple, unambiguous definition can fail. Even when it may be good for this KP scenarios, or the majority of comparable scenarios.

A lot of judges were happy with the unambiguous definition / “clear line” of “when a player physically touches a card to the other cards in their hand, they've drawn it” (thanks Nathen!), and did not see why that definition “failed” in the scenarios given. The statements in the Anticipate discussion took away that line, so people are now less confident in determining what constitutes “drawing”/“adding to the hand”.

My ruling on this would be DEC (not downgradable) but due to the Anticipate discussion it is now arguable that it is not DEC because the card was not “sufficiently” added to the hand as it is clearly identifiable and re-separatable.

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

A lot of judges were happy with the unambiguous definition / “clear line” of “when a player physically touches a card to the other cards in their hand, they've drawn it” (thanks Nathen!), and did not see why that definition “failed” in the scenarios given. The statements in the Anticipate discussion took away that line, so people are now less confident in determining what constitutes “drawing”/“adding to the hand”.

I think that's an issue of ensuring proper understanding the “why” behind providing the line, and that exceptions don't invalidate the line. Because it goes to ensuring a proper and judicious enforcement of policy, or the “how” that goes into the application of the MIPG.

I expect the KP answer will cover that to satisfaction.

Hey everyone, first contribution here.
Before reading any answers, here is what I came to conclusion:

The scryed card is unknown to everyone before being scryed.
Anise, hopefully for reflection purpose, puts it on top of her cards, located clause to her library.
The card is actually merged with the cards composing her hand, so it's considered drawn.
Therefor, we get a GPE-DEC, with a sanction that should be a Game Loss applied immediately.

So shall we downgrade the sanction to a simple warning or not?
Let's see:
Anise called the Judge directly after Nutmeg made notice of it. It can be considered a good intention, showing that she may not have done this to cheat.
After the explanations, Nutmeg informs us, that he played a thoughtseize the last turn and that wrote down the entire hand of Anise. Therefor, the “extra” drawn card should be easily noticeable. That's quite nice of him.
But, even with these information, we can't be a 100% sure that Nutmeg didn't made a mistake while writing down the cards in Anise's hand. And for the card to be identifiable by every players, they should have both seen it before it was drawn, which is not the case here.
So, to the question “Shall we downgrade the sanction to a warning?”, my answer is definitively no, even with all the information available and the frustration is brings to Anise.

Now, time to read ;)

GPE-DEC, GL

Players should not be penalized for taking proper notes. The card was not placed into an empty hand and it wasn't known to all players. There is no option to downgrade here.