Edited john bai (Nov. 26, 2015 09:25:38 PM)
Edited john bai (Nov. 26, 2015 11:27:08 PM)
Edited Joaquín Pérez (Nov. 27, 2015 05:17:56 AM)
Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/46966/
Some time ago I read … about how to handle accusations of fake cards, but I'm unable to find it.
Originally posted by john bai:
To judge a “fair” event by make sure each single player has not break the policy, should we check 100% of the players instead?
Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:
As a judge, you have the right of (politely) asking a player to check his deck or some cards of it, anytime, for any reason (or none at all, you don't need to justify that to a player)
Edited Matt Cooper (Nov. 27, 2015 10:20:52 PM)
Originally posted by john bai:In addition to the really good points raised by Nicola, I'd like to add that being fair isn't doing the same deck check on every single player, but making sure that our deck checks targets are chosen and treated fairly: based on unbiased suspicions raised by what happened in the event, and, in absence of such suspicions, randomly amongst all players.
Even though we have a opportunity to perform a deck Check, is still hard to make game “fair” to everyone at the point we don't know who have which card is illegal, and in the tournament policy, they suggested 10% of deck check out of all the players.
Originally posted by Matt Cooper:We discovered a number of counterfeits during the Legacy Grand Prix, in Seattle/Tacoma, a few weeks ago. Some of those were pointed out by opponents who noticed something didn't look right, and called for a judge. And yes, we interrupted games already in progress to address the situation. When our investigation led us to believe “honest mistake”, we would end that game with a Game Loss. If that didn't end the match, we would give the player a few minutes to either find exact replacements, or basic lands, in order to continue playing the match.
Is there policy support for doing this in the middle of a game?
Replies have been disabled because this topic is closed.