Originally posted by Aaron Huntsman:

Benjamin McDole
No problem :) In this case we want to look at the real base cause of the problem. The player cast Think Twice, and they drew one card. Both of those things are absolutely fine, so we don't really want to go with DEC.

That is NOT fine. I am not asking for a citation of the IPG. I have them right here in front of me. I am trying to demonstrate that if Alice knows the next card she's going to draw, possibly one that will win her the game, then draws it inappropriately through some GRV, then puts a card back at random that isn't the card she's just tutored for, she's drawn an extra card with only a warning. All I want is for someone to acknowledge that this might be a Bad Thing, and that someone in charge of making the rules might be reading this.

I think what everybody wants you to acknowledge is that this is a bad thing that Alice's opponent could have prevented.

If she has done this intentionally, then it's no longer a GRV or even DEC, but it's Cheating - Fraud, and that's a completely different ballgame.

If it's unintentional, then we don't want to punish a player that harshly for a mistake that's pretty easy to make and pretty easy for an opponent to miss. No, the fix is not optimal, but it's the fairest way to fix the game state.

–
Casey Brefka
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)

Originally posted by Carsten Haese:

I think what everybody wants you to acknowledge is that this is a bad thing that Alice's opponent could have prevented.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that. Competitive players understand the seriousness of putting cards in their hand that they shouldn't. The burden of responsibility needs to fall on the card drawer here. If either Alice drew the card intentionally or her opponent ignored the error intentionally, they'd both be committing Fraud; realistically, what are your odds of proving either? Failure to Reveal got rolled into GRV with the option of upgrading the penalty; I don't get why DEC should be a special case.

Again, not arguing the text of the IPG. Just trying to get discussion going.

Drawing Extra Cards is different from GRV because it's a special case in which the first illegal action that happens is that a card ends up in a player's hand that shouldn't be in the player's hand. In this case, the root cause was a spell that was cast illegally. If Think Twice is cast legally, then it's legal for the player to draw a card; if both players miss that the spell was cast illegally (which isn't that difficult sometimes), then as far as they're concerned, the card isn't being drawn illegally.

The burden of responsibility IS falling on the card drawer here, too - they have committed a GRV, and they will be receiving an officially-tracked warning, with a description so that other judges can see what the warning was for. If it's something that becomes a pattern, we have a way to deal with that. If you question the player about how it happens and something seems suspicious, then we have a way to deal with that, as well.

I'm not sure why you are trying to get a discussion going over something that is very black and white.

Pretty much all accidental mistakes are Game Play Errors, if there were only 1 infraction for this they would all be Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation. For a number of reasons, mainly different penalties or different remedies they have been broken down into several classifications of Game Play Error.

Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards has a very specific definition that says an infraction is only GPE - Drawing Extra Cards if another Game Play Error has not occurred at the moment before beginning the instruction or action that put a card into their hand.

In this instance, whether the spell was one that just said “draw a card” or said “search for a card, reveal it and put it on top of the library” or said “search for a card, reveal it and put it into your hand” or even “search for a card and put it into your hand”. If the spell was cast incorrectly (Flashback from exile, wrong mana, wrong colour mana, a sorcery when the stack wasn't empty etc), the error or specifically the Game Play Error is in the casting of the spell, not the instruction or action.

If Player A casts a flashback spell from exile, it should be something that the opponent can stop before the card is drawn. Same with tapping the wrong amount of mana or the wrong colour of mana. The reason Drawing Extra Cards is a Game Loss and Game Rule Violations are warnings is due to the difficulty of the opponent being able to see if an extra card was drawn.

Aaron, your argument can be restated thusly: If Alice is Cheating, then that seems a whole lot more serious than a GRV. And yes, you're right.

But please keep in mind that, other than the Cheating and Unsporting Conduct sections, the IPG is written to address HONEST mistakes. And if Alice made an honest mistake when playing Think Twice, then we should find a fair remedy to the damage caused by that error.

After lots of people with extensive experience with several iterations of the IPG finished their discussions, we ended up with the current GRV vs. DEC definitions. And, while we do continue to discuss & debate, in an effort to improve, we really do have it much better than it was before. (Remember the days of PE-Minor/Major/Severe? Players subjected to the vagaries of that system sure do…)

Thanks - Scott Marshall

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

I'm not sure why you are trying to get a discussion going

I was under the impression that this was a forum for discussion.

Scott Marshall
After lots of people with extensive experience with several iterations of the IPG finished their discussions, we ended up with the current GRV vs. DEC definitions. And, while we do continue to discuss & debate, in an effort to improve, we really do have it much better than it was before. (Remember the days of PE-Minor/Major/Severe? Players subjected to the vagaries of that system sure do…)

I hear that, having judged at L1 in the early 2000s before taking a long break from the game and coming back to much greener pastures. Of course, if the rules were perfect, we wouldn't have to keep updating them.

The IPG also acknowledges that even with the best of intentions, mistakes which compromise the integrity of a match can happen. Per 2.5: “An error that an opponent can't verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was legal.” If I use Domri Rade's (we can mention Gatecrash cards now, right?) first ability, look at the top card of my library, and in the heat of the moment put it directly into my hand without first revealing it, I'd be guilty of a GRV, and my penalty would be upgraded to GL. I would really like a response or a link to a post explaining why putting an extra unrevealed card into my hand should be handled differently this way than if I drew off a Think Twice that I couldn't legally cast.

Aaron, the definition of the infractions is why not revealing the card for Domri Rade is upgraded and casting a spell illegally that results in a card drawn that shouldn't isn't a game loss.

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

Aaron, the definition of the infractions is why not revealing the card for Domri Rade is upgraded and casting a spell illegally that results in a card drawn that shouldn't isn't a game loss.

I'm getting pretty tired of this cyclical argument, but I'll bite one more time. How about if I use Domri Rade's ability and reveal a creature properly, then do some more stuff during my turn, then use Domri's +1 again, forgetting that I already used it. An “easy” mistake to make, right? But during the course of resolving the illegally activated ability, I fail to reveal and put the card into my hand. I should still get a game loss for the same reason as above, since the legality of my choice can't be verified and the game can't reasonably be backup prior to that point because the opponent doesn't know what card I put into my hand. This is precisely the same result as having drawn a card off an illegal action, while the former results in a GL and the latter in a Warning.

Repeatedly pointing to the IPG is not going to convince me that this is acceptable. If there is any other rationale for the penalties working this way, I'm begging someone to share it.

Originally posted by Aaron Huntsman:

If there is any other rationale for the penalties working this way, I'm begging someone to share it.

There are a couple of competing goals at play here; we don't want players to be able to get away with drawing extra cards but we also don't want opponent's to be able to let their opponents draw extra cards in order to get game wins.

Drawing extra cards is obviously advantageous, so we want to both remove any potential advantage as best we can and give a significant enough penalty if it happens (game loss).

In instances like the incorrectly played Think Twice, we don't want an opponent to be able to notice that it was illegally played but do nothing. If this was also still a game loss, then this player could temporarily not notice this error and then after the card is drawn feign ignorance and his opponent would get a game loss. We want to negate the potential for abuse of this penalty by opponents as well. Yes this is cheating by the player that pretends to not notice, but it's really hard to catch. Even the best players may not notice when an opponent is doing something illegal.

Originally posted by MIPG:

These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty. While it is tempting to try to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.

Aaron, I strongly recommend a thorough (re-)reading of the General Philosophy, at the beginning of the IPG.

If that doesn't answer your questions/concerns, then I urge you to sit down with a nearby L3+ judge - your RC can recommend someone nearby - as I don't see this approach as productive.

Thanks - Scott Marshall

What if you accidentally use W to cast Lightning Bolt when your opponent was at 3 and they failed to notice? THAT was definitively more advantageous than an extra card in hand since it flat out won you the game. Why is the criteria of an extra card in hand your mark for upgrade when there are hundreds of ways that an infraction could have an even bigger impact on a game than simply getting an extra card? Does it make a difference in your scenario if the card isn't tutored for, but just a random card? How about if it's a disadvantage to draw a card because the opponent's trying to mill? I could go on.

The rationale is that if you attempt to assess whether a particular infraction is more or less advantageous, you very quickly wind up in a policy quagmire that is impossible to get out of. You are applying the rationale from one section of policy to a situation where it cannot apply without breaking thousands of other things in policy.

The policy exists so that the game can be JUDGED fairly and consistently. That does not mean that the outcome of any one particular ruling will always “feel” optimal in the light of how potentially advantageous the situation is. The infraction you describe was incorrectly paying for a spell. Sometimes there is very little advantage to be gained when this happens. Sometimes it can be the difference between winning and losing. This is the case regardless of whether a Vampiric Tutor or Domri Rade are involved. ALL instances of this are treated the same way because to attempt to apply an arbitrary “abusability” clause on every possible way a GRV could be used to “run the cheats” is downright impossible.

We don't assess advantage gained. We have decided to go this way so that judges and players have some level of expectation of what happens when mistakes are made in a game, and so that if a mistake is an honest mistake, the result of that honest mistake doesn't vary from judge to judge, game to game, or board state to board state.

Please let me assure you: This very concept has been debated at serious length by many very bright, very capable judges who have years of judging and playing experience. We've been on that side of the line with respect to this rule in the past, and it was no fun for anyone. This is better.

Regards,

Jason Ness



Subject: Re: Casting a Spell, Flashback, and DEC (Competitive REL)
From: forum-2546@apps.magicjudges.org
To: snoman321@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:09:02 +0000

Mark Brown
Aaron, the definition of the infractions is why not revealing the card for Domri Rade is upgraded and casting a spell illegally that results in a card drawn that shouldn't isn't a game loss.
I'm getting pretty tired of this cyclical argument, but I'll bite one more time. How about if I use Domri Rade's ability and reveal a creature properly, then do some more stuff during my turn, then use Domri's +1 again, forgetting that I already used it. An “easy” mistake to make, right? But during the course of resolving the illegally activated ability, I fail to reveal and put the card into my hand. I should still get a game loss for the same reason as above, since the legality of my choice can't be verified and the game can't reasonably be backup prior to that point because the opponent doesn't know what card I put into my hand. This is precisely the same result as having drawn a card off an illegal action, while the form
er results in a GL and the latter in a Warning.

Repeatedly pointing to the IPG is not going to convince me that this is acceptable. If there is any other rationale for the penalties working this way, I'm begging someone to share it.

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/12561/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2546/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/254
6/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

I actually had a chat with some folks who managed to explain it in a way that made it “click” for me. I was getting hung up somewhat on the supposition that a player has an incentive to “sit” on their opponent's play error, which for all we know could have been just as intentional. The more important point here is that there is incentive for a player to point out their opponent's mistakes, given the opportunity, before they do something like draw an extra card, kill you with a Lightning Bolt cast for W, etc. (Toby's response below drills this home as well.)

Another way to look at it: do you want to game loss a player for resolving Repulse cast on a creature with shroud? Maybe I personally would, but it's probably better in general that we don't. For those of us who haven't kept up with the IPG changes over the years, it's easy to miss the subtleties. So thanks to everyone for your responses. I look forward to irritating you all again soon.

Edited Aaron Huntsman (Jan. 21, 2013 09:20:46 PM)

Originally posted by Aaron Huntsman:

Repeatedly pointing to the IPG is not going to convince me that this is acceptable. If there is any other rationale for the penalties working this way, I'm begging someone to share it.

OK, try the opposite. How could it be made acceptable?

Remember, you have to write rules simple enough for everyone to be able to apply. They have to make coherent sense and apply to a wide variety of situations. They need to encourage desired behavior, both from player perspective and opponent perspective while protecting the judge as much as possible.

Having spent many years at this, the current rules are the best answer we have found, and believe me - we've tried lots of things. If you have better ones, I'd love to hear it. Looking at your current issue, you're going to have some serious problems with causality. If someone casts Wrath of God for 3W, and I draw a card because Runewing went to the graveyard, what should the infraction be? I've drawn a card I wasn't “supposed” to. It might even be one I knew the identity of. How many levels of indirection are you willing to tolerate?

If you get deep into the philosophy of broken games, you're going to find you can do a lot more damage than someone getting a card slightly earlier. At least that one heals itself pretty quickly, and if it wasn't simply an accident, it's more obvious than most situations.