Here is a hypothetical scenario a player challenged me with.

AP attacks with Goblin Guide.
NAP reveals the top card from her deck. It is a non-land card, but NAP puts it into her hand anyway.

Simple scenario: the error is caught immediately. What would you do?

Not-so-simple scenario: AP passes. NAP untaps, draws, then the error is caught. What would you do now?

Worst scenario: as in not-so-simple, plus NAP has a fetchland she can crack.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Sept. 8, 2015 04:36:30 PM)

If the identity of the card(s) was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and can be put in the correct location with minimal disruption, do so.

a) put the card back on top
b) put the card back on top
c) put the card back on top (we don't take the game situation into account when determining how to fix the situation, so we don't really care what he could do - although that may influence our decision whether he was trying to cheat)

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

If the identity of the card(s) was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and can be put in the correct location with minimal disruption, do so.

a) put the card back on top
b) put the card back on top
c) put the card back on top (we don't take the game situation into account when determining how to fix the situation, so we don't really care what he could do - although that may influence our decision whether he was trying to cheat)

While I agree with your answer to the simple scenario, I disagree with your other two. Interestingly, you've already quoted the section of the MIPG that specifically informs my opinion, here. That is:

and can be put in the correct location with minimal disruption

Since the NAP has already drawn the next card from his library before the issue is discovered, it's really not fair to say that putting that card back on top of the library now (the card that was revealed due to the Goblin Guide), and letting NAP keep the entirely different card (and not to mention unknown-to-AP) would be minimally disruptive. There's been some quantifiable impact on the game as a result of this error, so “minimal” is not a word I would use.

I think you need to assess DEC and apply the reveal-and-choose remedy for the “not-so-simple” and “worst” scenarios, instead.

Thanks.


Abe

Edited Abraham Corson (Sept. 8, 2015 06:18:16 PM)

Originally posted by Abraham Corson:

There's been some quantifiable impact on the game as a result of this error, so “minimal” is not a word I would use.

I think you need to assess DEC and apply the reveal-and-choose remedy for the “not-so-simple” and “worst” scenarios, instead.

Putting a known card from my hand to the top of my library maintains a legal game state with the correct number of cards in my hand. While I might have drawn the “wrong” one on the next turn, the fact that there is some “quantifiable impact” shouldn't discount the fact that returning a card known card from my hand to my library is minimally disruptive.

If an opponent reveals a card and puts it into their hand or draws a card into an empty hand, we shouldn't be rewarding the other player failing to catch it right away. To me if the card is still in the hand, putting it back is minimal disruption. If the card has been played or discarded, we're looking at more than minimal disruption. If the first answer is put the card back on top of the library, they all should be.

Asking if we can put the card back in its correct location with “minimal disruption” means: can we put the card back, and have the gamestate look like it should have looked, if this error hadn't been made? In both cases B and C, something weird has happened that wouldn't have normally happened. The player wouldn't have had the opportunity to draw the second card from the library while leaving the top card in place.

As another guideline in determining “minimal disruption,” the AIPG gives us this piece of wisdom:

As a rule of thumb, if it takes more than two seconds to completely consider all the impacts of moving the card, and decisions that may have been made based on that card being in its owner’s hand, then it is not minimally disruptive.

Case A is minimally disruptive- if we fix it, the game looks like it should. Cases B and C are each disruptive, and would result in situations that shouldn't have happened. In those cases, the ‘reveal and choose’ remedy needs to be applied.

Originally posted by Nate Hurley:

Cases B and C are each disruptive, and would result in situations that shouldn't have happened. In those cases, the ‘reveal and choose’ remedy needs to be applied.

I strongly disagree on this one. Especially since the player controlling the Goblin Guide had more than enough chances to catch the error since the card was revealed and several things happened afterwards.
Allowing him the free thoughtseize would encourage the player to actually opportunity-cheat by not mentioning the error and not calling a judge immediately when he sees NAP putting a nonland into his hand and instead waiting a turn.
I think that having him putting the revealed card back on top of the library gets the game state as close to the state as it should be as possible without encouraging shady behaviour.

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Nate Hurley
Cases B and C are each disruptive, and would result in situations that shouldn't have happened. In those cases, the ‘reveal and choose’ remedy needs to be applied.

I strongly disagree on this one. Especially since the player controlling the Goblin Guide had more than enough chances to catch the error since the card was revealed and several things happened afterwards.
Allowing him the free thoughtseize would encourage the player to actually opportunity-cheat by not mentioning the error and not calling a judge immediately when he sees NAP putting a nonland into his hand and instead waiting a turn.
I think that having him putting the revealed card back on top of the library gets the game state as close to the state as it should be as possible without encouraging shady behaviour.

You are making a good argument here about the potential for abuse with this infraction. However, it is a good argument for an update or rewording of policy, but not one I see as being a valid argument for handling this differently from what the MIPG prescribes now.

This particular remedy might well encourage shady behavior, as you say, but that alone shouldn't somehow change your interpretation of “minimally disruptive.” And a potential solution that essentially swaps a card in hand for a card on top of the library is just not this.

In other words, please don't “legislate from the bench.” Consistency is important, too.

Thanks.


Abe

This is the point. I don't really agree that I handle it differently from what the IPG says. I couldn't find any definition of “minimally disruptive” in the official documents. I think it is way more disruptive to the game to apply the “normal” fix for DEC and that this scenario falls under the “downgrade”-clause but I see your point Abraham. It essentially boils down to how you define minimally disruptive. What are other peoples opinions on this? (or can we even get an fficial definition?

For scenario 1, minimal disruption is needed. I'll go ahead and put it back to top.

I don't feel like scenarios 2 & 3 are “minimal disruption” and would probably choose the standard new DEC fix. Since it's not a Game Loss, feels less problematic that it would have been in the past.

I would apply the new DEC fix in scenarios 2 and 3 simply because you cannot put the card back in the right location.

Originally posted by IPG:

If the identity of the card(s) was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and can be put in the correct location with minimal disruption, do so. (emphasis mine)

The correct location is not the top of the deck now - it's the top of the deck before the last draw. I'd also agree with previous comments about the level of disruption created by placing a card out of sequence on top the library.

Christian Genz
I think it is way more disruptive to the game to apply the “normal” fix for DEC and that this scenario falls under the “downgrade”-clause

We're not asked if putting the card back is less disruptive than the appropriate fix, we're asked if putting the card back causes ‘minimal disruption’. It's almost always going to be more disruptive to have an opponent see a player's hand and select a card from it to be shuffled away, but this is not part of the calculation of how disruptive putting the card back is.

Let's rise the bar a little more …

AP attacks with Goblin Guide.
NAP reveals a game-breaking card, say a Languish, and puts it into her hand.

AP passes, NAP untaps and draws, then the error is caught.
When the judge applies “reveal and choose”, AP chooses Languish.

NAP complains: “my opponent shouldn't be allowed to choose Languish. Yes, I have a card more in my hand, it is the last card I drew … you don't know which one it is, but you know it is not Languish”.

What would you answer?

The IPG fix does not state to exclude any known cards. All cards are fair
game to be chosen. If the NAP does not want to lose the Languish, then
they should have been more careful so as not to commit DEC.

I would come up with a better way to word that when explaining to a
player. But infractions come with penalties and fixes and some of the
fixes truly are punitive, such as DEC and ID@SoG. An advantage was gained
by committing the infraction, so now their opponent gains an advantage with
the fix. I believe that is the intent of the fixes.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

What would you answer?

“While I understand your issue, the additional remedy outlined in the MIPG as published is very clear. We do not consider known cards exempt when applying this remedy.”

Note that the situation probably bears a lot of need to investigate that AP is truly not paying attention to what is happening here. Especially if this has hapened previously in one of AP's earlier matches.

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

or can we even get an (O)fficial definition?

Generally, I'm not going to attempt to define something as variable as “minimally disruptive”; it really is something you have to determine each time. Think of all the creative ways players make mistakes, and you'll understand why such an (O)fficial definition is impossible.

I try to look at how the game state should be, if no error had occurred, then compare that to the game state that would result from applying a fix; if the fixed state is closer to what should be, and “better” than the way things are, then it might be minimally disruptive. (“Better” is yet another arbitrary judgment call…)

Also, is the fix complicated, with lots of moving parts? If so, it's likely to be fairly disruptive.

d:^D

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

NAP complains: “my opponent shouldn't be allowed to choose Languish. Yes, I have a card more in my hand, it is the last card I drew … you don't know which one it is, but you know it is not Languish”.

What would you answer?

At this point we're not trying to correct the error - we're applying a fix to the error. While some fixes focus on returning the game state to where it was, because drawing extra cards is so serious (it previously resulted in a game loss) this fix also seeks to ensure, as much as we can, that there is no incentive or benefit to drawing extra cards deliberately. As a result the opponent is allowed to choose from any cards in your hand.

In actual fact the additional card in this player's hand is the Languish - because it is the card that was drawn when no card should have been - I might not vocalize this.

<edit for grammar/readability>

Edited Marc Shotter (Sept. 9, 2015 04:52:54 PM)