Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

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.

So according to this I would still say that putting the the card back is minimally disruptive since this fix is not complicated and afterwards the gamestate is closer to where it should be than before. Since the library was random before and now the player has a random card in his hand which his not known to his opponent although it should be.

Am I really the only one finding it disturbing to give AP the chance for an easy and hard to detect opportunity cheat and heavily disrupting the game by applying the normal DEC fix while the downgrade is applicable?

Edited Christian Genz (Sept. 9, 2015 01:56:00 PM)

So according to this I would still say that putting the the card back is
minimally disruptive since this fix is not complicated and afterwards the
gamestate is closer to where it should be than before. Since the library
was random before and now the player has a random card in his hand which
his not known to his opponent although it should be.

Is it really closer to where it should be though? There's a card on top of
his library, known to both players, that shouldn't be there, and there's a
card in the players hand that shouldn't be there. Sure you could argue that
it's close to where it should be than it would be by applying the normal
DEC fix, but I can't really see how it's closer to the ‘correct’ gamestate
than the ‘unfixed’ situation is.

Am I really the only one finding it disturbing to give AP the chance for
an easy and hard to detect opportunity cheat and heavily disrupting the
game by applying the normal DEC fix while the downgrade is applicable?

While it's obviously not ideal, I tend to be more okay with it because
everything that's happening is a direct result of NAPs actions and
subsequent inaction. NAP commited an infraction, and had every possible
opportunity to notice it and call a judge over to fix it before he drew his
next card.

Edited Cody Haines (Sept. 9, 2015 02:21:03 PM)

Originally posted by Cody Haines:

but I can't really see how it's closer to the ‘correct’ gamestate
than the ‘unfixed’ situation is.

Well the unfixed situation is with the player having a surplus card in hand which is pretty bad…

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

Am I really the only one finding it disturbing to give AP the chance for an easy and hard to detect opportunity cheat and heavily disrupting the game by applying the normal DEC fix while the downgrade is applicable?

This chance to cheat stems from their opponent making an error (drawing a card they shouldn't) so at best this is going to be a cheat of opportunity and not one they can plan to take advantage of. I don't see it as more or less likely (or hard to detect) than any situation where a player could wait to mention a mistake till a more advantageous time.

As mentioned before I don't agree that the downgrade is applicable. I'd actually agree that its minimally disruptive to put the card back on top - I'd certainly do so before the additional draw - but where this unravels for me is that you can't now put the card back in the correct place.

Christian, I think the reason many aren't showing an issue with the APs
potential to cheat here is this: if we actually took into account that the
one not committing the infraction can try and game the system when we
decide whether to apply a fix, we end up avoiding the fix for the wrong
reason.

Instead I'd argue that if you are worried about the potential, do a quick
investigation. But the possibility of someone cheating the system shouldn't
factor into our decision of minimal disruption (which I'm aware isn't your
point) nor our application of the fix. It should only factor into our
decision on if we want to investigate.

Kind regards
/Eskil
Den 9 sep 2015 21:41 skrev “Christian Genz” <

Originally posted by Eskil Myrenberg:

the
one not committing the infraction

something worries me about this statement since it was still APs trigger that led to the error. So AP attacks, his ability triggers, top card gets revealed and instead if staying on top of the library gets put into NAPs hand. This is as close to the classic Path to exile double/GRV as it can get (although I'm fully aware that in this case the card should not have changed zones but did, instead of being supposed to change zones and end up in the wrong zone, but it is still NAP misresolving APs trigger and AP having more than enough chances to spot the error…)

I agree that it was a clumsy way to make the point and I'm not disputing
that AP is not handling their ability correctly. I also would definitely
see why you would want to investigate here.

Yet my previous point still stands that we shouldn't confuse reasons to
investigate to rule out AP misplaying their ability on purpose and awaiting
an advantage with it being a reason to not apply the DEC remedy.

So while I think the discussion for what constitutes minimal disruption is
interesting to decide if we should apply that or the default DEC fix, I do
not think the risk of AP cheating should factor into that discussion,
rather than remind us that this is a situation worthy of some extra
questions :)

2015-09-10 11:18 GMT+02:00 Christian Genz <

I agree with Eskil. If your investigation leads you to believe that AP purposefully ignored the error until it was more advantageous to point it out, then the game will be over due to the USC - Cheating penalty, and you wouldn't need to apply any additional fix for the DEC infraction. So, it all boils down to the results of your investigation and how hard your judge senses tingle.