I let you know that I was not the judge in the tournament but a player: Norman.
My thoughts at the moment were:
1. Adam dosn´t remember a very important detail (morph cost) and he is asking it to Spectator.
2. If Spectator corrects what Adam thinks he is helping him to play better.
1+2=3: Adam asking that info to Spectator is asking him help to play better.
These are the reasons why I called the judge (Mitja Bosnic, who did a great job the whole day and in this particular match specialy) and suggested OA. His ruling was “no infraction commited”.
I didn´t agree with the ruling at all (of course I respected it). Now I am not so sure.
But still thinking that if Adam could not identify completely the card so he could get the oracle text from the judge, he was asking to spectator an information he should not. Is different “hey Spectator, what is the morph cost of Shieldhide Dragon?” than “hey Spectator, what is the morph cost of the crit I controlled before and I can´t remember the name or anything that identifies it?”.
Thanks for your comments. This is being very dificult to understand.
Cheers,
Javier.

Edited Javier Martin Arjona (June 29, 2015 09:20:58 AM)

Getting correct Oracle text might help someone play better, but that doesn't make it strategic play advice, nor hidden information. Outside Assistance isn't about “help play better”, it's about creating an unfair advantage.

Getting correct Oracle text is a FAIR advantage (if you're experienced enough to actually ask for it).

* * *

As long as you're wandering off into the hypotheticals and dark corners, I'll throw one back at you - in hopes of helping you understand.

Same scenario, but the morph doesn't say “Shieldhide Dragon”, but instead “Panzerhautdrache” (the German name); Adam doesn't speak or recognize German. He looks at the card while he controls it and says “hey, what does this mean?”, pointing to “Wenn der Panzerhautdrache aufgedeckt wird, lege eine +1/+1-Marke auf jede andere Drache-Kreatur, die du kontrollierst.”

Or, after he loses control, he says “hey, that said something about +1/+1, but I'm not sure - is that every creature you control? or just Dragons? or??”

Javier, I'm sorry that the correct ruling wasn't in your favor, but I assure you - it sounds like Mitja nailed it.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

As long as you're wandering off into the hypotheticals and dark corners, I'll throw one back at you - in hopes of helping you understand.

I do. Thank your very much.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Javier, I'm sorry that the correct ruling wasn't in your favor, but I assure you

Don´t be sorry. Adam not commiting any infraction, he was the fair winner of the match.

In this situation, I'd probably go for a caution along the lines of “In future, don't crowd-source what should have been a judge call”.

Problem solved all around. They haven't done anything directly wrong, but if it's a habit or pattern, you've instructed them not to do it again, letting you give a penalty if it continues.

This way, you remove the (fairly low) potential for abuse, without stepping outside the boundaries of the IPG.

Unless, of course, someone older and wiser tells me that this is incorrect.

Older, yes - but the rest is, as the Magic 8-Ball might say, “Outlook not so good”… :)

Very well put, Josiah - I often gloss over the things I just take for granted in my own player interactions. You're right, though - if a player does something they really shouldn't, and it's not an infraction, then we should educate them on the correct way to handle it in the future. (We should also educate when there is an infraction!)

d;^D