Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Some discussion among L4+ judges on this interesting topic… none of us feel this is Outside Assistance.

and some more discussion - a number of us feel this CAN be OA, depending on how it's handled, what the intentions of the player were, etc.

Examples, based on the original post (A plays Rancor, N controls Eidolon of the Great Revel):

1) Sam - who happens to be N's friend/brother/teammate - yells “Judge! N forgot his Eidolon trigger!” Seems pretty clearly OA, and I'd definitely investigate - intentional infraction? advantage (helping friend)? knew better? - for Cheating.

2) Shelly, who is studying to become a judge - says “hey, guys, wait a minute - Judge!” and, when you arrive, says “is that a detrimental trigger?” Seems pretty innocuous, no harm intended, probably done with the best of intentions.

Sure, there's all sorts of permutations that result in a slightly different “answer” - but let's not clutter everyone's inbox with demonstrations of how imaginative we Judges can be. (heh!) Instead, I hope the philosophies expressed here can help YOU with difficult decisions, when one of those near-infinite permutations actually happens to you.

d:^D

Thank you for your input, Scott!
I thought a lot about the scenario. And now I have some thoughts and questions I want to share.

1. It seems we take into consideration spectator's intentions. I'm not sure why are we doing it because intention does not matter in case of OA — match is compromised in the same way despite the spectator's intentions. IPG does not mention intentions as well.
2. Cheating. Why would it be cheating? Can we consider a friend's victory as an “advantage” a player is trying to gain via breaking the rules and giving advice? I always thought such cases could not be treated as cheating.
3. Speaking about encouraging spectators to call a judge if they see a rule broken. That's not an obligation. Yes, we are trying to encourage spectators to do that, but they should not fail to comply with real obligations (like being passive and silent during matches). Why would we pay attention to calling a just instead of paying attention to disrupting the match.

I think OA is the least described infraction in IPG and it raises a lot of questions lately. In this topic, for example, we are talking about intentions, which is not described in IPG at all.

Edited Alexey Chernyshov (June 19, 2015 11:22:12 AM)

Originally posted by Alexey Chernyshov:

It seems we take into consideration spectator's intentions

“Gives play advice or reveals hidden information” is the definition of OA that applies to this discussion. In my 2nd example, the “judgeling” is neither giving play advice, nor revealing hidden info - he's simply trying to do what he thinks he should.

Originally posted by Alexey Chernyshov:

Can we consider a friend's victory as an “advantage”

Yes, absolutely. Advantage doesn't have to be tied to personal gain; it's an objective that motivates someone to take certain actions.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Advantage doesn't have to be tied to personal gain; it's an objective that motivates someone to take certain actions.

As an offtopic: it turns out this “advantage” part in USC — Cheating IPG description is straight up redundant. If a player intentionally breaks a rule, they are cheating. There always will be a reason driving such type of behaviour, which could be considered as an “advantage”.

Alright, wrapping up. OA is:
1. Revealing hidden information. In this case we don't mind intentions (things like "Wow, a textless terminate!“ are definitely fall under OA despite spectator is not going to assist players in any way most likely).
2. Play advice. This is more tricky, we should use our own judgement on was it really a play advice. There might be no real difference between an advice and ”not-really-an-advice“ in wording, intentions might matter.

And another offtopic. Speaking of OA. I'm quite confused by the following: ”A spectator points out the correct play“. What is ”correct play“ really? Should it read ”optimal play“? The thing is: ”correct play“ might be treated as ”correct from rules perspective" and this is clearly not we are giving an OA for.

Originally posted by Alexey Chernyshov:

As an offtopic: it turns out this “advantage” part in USC — Cheating IPG description is straight up redundant. If a player intentionally breaks a rule, they are cheating. There always will be a reason driving such type of behaviour, which could be considered as an “advantage”.

This is not true. Players do things because they think it is the correct (or acceptable) thing to do and are sometimes wrong.

For example, Player A controls Spirit of the Labyrinth. Player N casts Brainstorm. Player N has just learned from another judge call that he is not required to remind his opponent of triggered abilities and doesn't understand exactly what that means. He think that means A has to point out the Spirit for its ability to work. Player N intentionally breaks the rules by resolving his Brainstorm as normal, and player A doesn't stop him. The next turn player A recognizes the error and calls a judge. Player N tells you that he thought Player A missed his trigger and he didn't have to help him remember it.

This is not Cheating. This is knowlingly breaking a rule because you think that rule is acceptable to break, not because you think that breaking it will gain you an unfair advantage and you don't care that it isn't acceptable.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

This is not true. Players do things because they think it is the correct (or acceptable) thing to do and are sometimes wrong.

For example, Player A controls Spirit of the Labyrinth. Player N casts Brainstorm. Player N has just learned from another judge call that he is not required to remind his opponent of triggered abilities and doesn't understand exactly what that means. He think that means A has to point out the Spirit for its ability to work. Player N intentionally breaks the rules by resolving his Brainstorm as normal, and player A doesn't stop him. The next turn player A recognizes the error and calls a judge. Player N tells you that he thought Player A missed his trigger and he didn't have to help him remember it.

This is not Cheating. This is knowlingly breaking a rule because you think that rule is acceptable to break, not because you think that breaking it will gain you an unfair advantage and you don't care that it isn't acceptable.

While I completely agree this is not cheating, that's not what I was talking about. In your example player A doesn't know they are doing something wrong, so they do not break a rule intentionally.

What is my point about? Current definition of USC Cheating is:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

I meant the first point is somewhat redundant. There always will be a reason driving rules violation, which could be considered as an “advantage”.

Ok. If you want to interpret it that way, that's fine. Let's take a different example:

Andy is 8. He's playing against Norris on the last table during a late round of a competitive event. Neither player is eligible for prizes. Andy is just there because his older brother is playing too and is clearly in over his head. Norris has had a bad day and doesn't want to lose to a kid to top it off, so he's being very competitive and not doing things like assisting Andy with adding up the power and toughness of creatures with counters and pump spells on them.

Sandy the spectator doesn't know either player, but she's playing a casual game a couple tables away. Sandy notices Norris's behavior and is watching the match. Andy is counting up the power and toughness of his creatures out loud and gets the total wrong. Norris doesn't say anything. Andy is about to attack and Sandy corrects him regarding the actual total. Norris calls a judge.

When you talk to Sandy, she knows that she isn't supposed to do things like that, but she says “The match doesn't really matter. Norris is being a big jerk. I just don't want this kid to have a bad time because that guy won't help him count.”

Sandy has nothing to gain here. So this is intentional OA. But it isn't Cheating.

Edited Joshua Feingold (June 19, 2015 06:26:12 PM)

Originally posted by Alexey Chernyshov:

There always will be a reason driving rules violation

I think your use of “always” is too general, and like all generalizations - including this one - there's many exceptions.

For a player to attempt to gain advantage, they have to perceive that there is advantage to be gained. Sometimes a player will break a rule just because they don't think it matters - i.e., their perception is there's no advantage either way. They aren't attempting to gain advantage, they're just being disrespectful of the rules.

Your underlying point is a good one for people to consider, however - inaction might not require motivation, but action almost always does - and seeking advantage is a very common motivator. Asking ourselves “why would she do that?” as part of our investigation is a good practice.

d:^D

It seems I just don't get it.
What is the big difference between “I just wanted my friend to win this and thus I broke the rules” and “I don't want this kid to have a bad time and thus broke the rules”. In both cases violating player gains some kind of emotional “gain” (empathic joy, feel of justice, etc), in both cases this player don't really benefit from their violation in terms of some in-game advantage or material stuff (money, prizes, etc) and Scott states this is a valid example for an “advantage”

I assumed in the case of the friend which is based on the original scenario the friend is in contention and has material benefits?

Here's a different one I encountered a while ago: AP attacks, states how much damage and NAPs new life total, NAP now notices a life total discrepancy but doesn't speak up because he thinks it does not matter; he'll win on the backswing and AP is tapped out/hellbent. Maybe that helps as a more clear example of no advantage?

Edited Toby Hazes (June 20, 2015 11:56:36 AM)