I think it wouldn't be too difficult to codify an acceptable rule:

“When answering a question about a specific quality of a card or zone, a
player cannot give an incomplete answer.”

This way, “What does that do?” can be answered in any way, but “What colour
is that creature?” or “What card types are there in your graveyard?” will
give a proper answer. This could even be extended to the Tarmogoyf example,
since
listing card types in graveyard directly relates to making a complete
answer about P/T.


2013/4/18 Brian Schenck <forum-3874@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to codify an acceptable rule:

“When answering a question about a specific quality of a card or zone, a player cannot give an incomplete answer.”

This way, “What does that do?” can be answered in any way, but “What colour is that creature?” or “What card types are there in your graveyard?” will give a proper answer. This could even be extended to the Tarmogoyf example,
since listing card types in graveyard directly relates to making a complete answer about P/T.

Except I didn't say that it was “too difficult” to codify a policy, I said it was problematic. And it's problematic as you may not get players to understand what they can or can't ask, or even what a player can understand is consider a “specific quality” of a card. Consider the difficulty on educating players on the recent Missed Trigger policy changes; consider that we're still having difficulty on ensuring that judges enforce the policy correctly. (Take a look at my recommendations for L2 candidates for the last several months, and see what recommendations related to policy repeat every so often.)

Again, I'd certainly be happier with a higher standard of behavior. I'd like to see the game played at a higher standard, and support a much friendly approach to playing the game. As I said, it's far easier to just answer the question asked rather than dance around the answer, and it is socially what most people would do. Some “gamesmanship” elements aren't about a game of Magic at all. But, at Competitive REL, we do allow for behavior that isn't truly “sporting” provided it isn't actually “unsporting”. And many of these communication situations do fall into that middle behavior.

Exactly this: Some “gamesmanship” elements aren't about a game of Magic at all. But, at Competitive REL, we do allow for behavior that isn't truly “sporting” provided it isn't actually “unsporting”. And many of these communication situations do fall into that middle behavior.

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I agree that there is a grey area of things that are neither sporting nor unsporting.

However, I think we're including some unsporting responses in our game. Sebastian Rittau on the previous page pointed out the distinction that I'm trying to get at here.

When I ask ‘What creatures are in your graveyard?’, I expect the same response as Ido to the question ‘What are all the creatures in your graveyard?’. However, answering the first question incompletely is fine, while omitting some answers in the second case is an infraction.

Yes, knowing the question that gets you the answer you want is a skill. So is stacking your deck. It's not a skill that has anything to do with Magic, and how often does this interaction make anyone happy? Yes, it makes people win games in tournaments, but that doesn't mean that it made people happy to come to tournaments. Players will do what it takes to win, even if they don't enjoy it.

Brian, you were one of the people I was hoping would respond to this thread. Thanks. Also thanks to Philip Böhm for Toby's old article.
That said, I think the current policy surprises a lot of players, especially new ones. Players are told to not lie to their opponent, but I think that to most people these responses ‘feel’ like lying. I think we can hold the players to a higher standard, and cut out this kind of behaviour, with a low to negligible cost in overhead; I also think it'll keep people happier.

The thing I would like to see changed is something along the lines of “If you start something, complete it”. If you're going to answer that Nighthawk has Flying, include that it has Lifelink and Deathtouch. If you're going to say that there's an Instant and a Sorcery in your graveyard, include all the types. If you're going to say that there's a mana dork in your graveyard, include Griselbrand. (If you're going to say that Ancestral Recall lets you draw two cards, mention that it also lets you draw a third one?)

Someone was worried about people catching warnings for inadvertently leaving out information, but we already warn them if a player screws up when providing information.

If I ask you how many types are in your yard and you don't notice one, that's a CPV. If i ask you which types are
there and you don't notice one, that's no foul. If I ask you what creatures are in your yard, and you have exactly one and you miss it, that's a CPV, but if there's two and you miss one that's no foul. In both cases the harm to the opponent is very similar.

If a player wants to refuse to help their opponent, they can. But I don't like being allowed to mislead them.

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I agree that there is a grey area of things that are neither sporting nor unsporting.

However, I think we're including some unsporting responses in our game. Sebastian Rittau on the previous page pointed out the distinction that I'm trying to get at here.

When I ask ‘What creatures are in your graveyard?’, I expect the same response as Ido to the question ‘What are all the creatures in your graveyard?’. However, answering the first question incompletely is fine, while omitting some answers in the second case is an infraction.

Yes, knowing the question that gets you the answer you want is a skill. So is stacking your deck. It's not a skill that has anything to do with Magic, and how often does this interaction make anyone happy? Yes, it makes people win games in tournaments, but that doesn't mean that it made people happy to come to tournaments. Players will do what it takes to win, even if they don't enjoy it.

I would point out that in MTR 4.1, the policy does specify that game rules knowledge is part of what is being tested, especially in understanding the rules better than your opponent, as well as the expectations for behavior. Again, I agree that is the “bare minimum” expectation at Competitive REL, but the point remains that the policy does express what is expected from a player.

Still, comparing the Player Communication policy to “stacking your deck” in terms of skill is incorrect. There's no rules knowledge that gets tested via “stacking your deck”, and we've defined quite the opposite what the expectation is when you present the deck. There's not even a skill tested when “stacking your deck” except for who can arrange the cards best and/or not get caught.

That also being said, I think that what qualifies as “sporting” or “unsporting” behavior is going to differ base on perception. Where we draw the line currently is going to be seen by some as allowing “unsporting” behavior. And that's especially true when judges view that kind of behavior. But, IMO, part of that is influenced by our own perception of how events should run. I would offer that not every player sees it that way, and not even judges see all these behaviors as being “unsporting”.

My point being that this issue is a very complicated one, and the list of competing concerns I offered is just the tip of the iceberg.

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

That said, I think the current policy surprises a lot of players, especially new ones. Players are told to not lie to their opponent, but I think that to most people these responses 'feel' like lying. I think we can hold the players to a higher standard, and cut out this kind of behaviour, with a low to negligible cost in overhead; I also think it'll keep people happier.

I know that people say it “surprises a lot of players, especially new ones”, but does it really? We acquire most of our new players at Regular REL events, where this policy already is designed to protect them. As such, are people surprised by the policy at Regular REL? Do we really acquire that many new players at Competitive REL that get burned by these kinds of things?

I do hear about the anecdotal incidents that occur, and do understand that it leads to a feeling of being “cheated”, “robbed”, or even “lied to”. And those incidents are very unfortunate to such players. But, at the same time, there's also the incidents of “Great play!” or “Totally legal mindtrick!” from the player community about many of the behaviors that would be disallowed by a more strict approach.

So, there's a large range of perception when it comes to some actions. Some actions will get more people than not to feel the behavior is “wrong”. Some actions will get more people to feel that the behavior is “okay”. And some actions will get more people to feel the behavior is “exceptional”. And it all still falls into this same small area of the policy.

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

The thing I would like to see changed is something along the lines of “If you start something, complete it”. If you're going to answer that Nighthawk has Flying, include that it has Lifelink and Deathtouch. If you're going to say that there's an Instant and a Sorcery in your graveyard, include all the types. If you're going to say that there's a mana dork in your graveyard, include Griselbrand. (If you're going to say that Ancestral Recall lets you draw two cards, mention that it also lets you draw a third one?)

Again, go back to the list of competing concerns I offered initially. There are certainly some people who will feel, and perhaps legitimately, that this kind of policy “forces” one to help their opponent play the game. From our perspective, we see it as just being “rules”. But, for some players, it isn't just “rules”. It's about the techy play, or the read from one's opponent. Some of that is the kind of behavior that the entire community goes wild about, in a positive way, and leads to famous stories told about the play.

So, be careful about the kind of communication and answers you want to require. You might be cutting out some of the “human drama” of the game.

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

If I ask you how many types are in your yard and you don't notice one, that's a CPV. If i ask you which types are there and you don't notice one, that's no foul. If I ask you what creatures are in your yard, and you have exactly one and you miss it, that's a CPV, but if there's two and you miss one that's no foul. In both cases the harm to the opponent is very similar.

That depends on the answer. And yes, in that respect, you can get people to behave in a very, very “careful” way in order to provide a legal answer, despite it being unreasonable to some people. Or even the majority of people. That is a very unfortunate side effect of the behavior, and a lot of people (judges or players), will find that very disagreeable and something that needs to be removed from the game.

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

If a player wants to refuse to help their opponent, they can. But I don't like being allowed to mislead them.

Again, go back to the list of competing concerns I offered. The “human drama”, like it or not, is part of the game. Especially part of the competitive aspect of the game, where a player does want to gain an advantage over their opponent. General communication is already very tricky. Do you want to make it more tricky in an effort to cut out the “bad”, and potentially remove some of that “human drama” that creates great stories for the community?

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

The thing I would like to see changed is something along the lines of “If you start something, complete it”.

If you would like to see something changed, then feel free to propose a change. We'd love to see it. However, “something along the lines of” isn't useful. The Communication Policy is very carefully balanced, and we've found that when we poke at some of these parts, bad things happen - it's easy to talk about what we'd like to happen ideally, but actually defining them precisely in ways that don't cause all kinds of problems turns out to be very complex. But there's definitely room for people to take a run at alternative frameworks if they're so inclined.

It should always be more dangerous to ask questions than answer them. Otherwise, you disrupt how players communicate with each other.

Edited Toby Elliott (April 22, 2013 11:38:12 PM)