(To clarify, I'm no longer convinced I'd be able to investigate this
successfully after enough rumination over Scott's post, but…)

The offense is not calling a judge on the opponent's offense (5 pile
twice), the benefit (only post 3-pile) is potentially stacking the
opponent's deck in a beneficial way to you. Acknowledgment would require
you being aware that you should call a judge on an opponent's offense.

2017-01-20 9:14 GMT-05:00 Lev Kotlyar <forum-32874-cdfc@apps.magicjudges.org

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

The offense is not calling a judge on the opponent's offense (5 pile
twice), the benefit (only post 3-pile) is potentially stacking the
opponent's deck in a beneficial way to you. Acknowledgment would require
you being aware that you should call a judge on an opponent's offense.

- Not calling a judge is not an offense. Never has been.

- The benefit is only applicable if the opponent has indeed double nickel'd his deck. If he hasn't, then all you've done is a weird cut. Since (by Riki's comment earlier) it is difficult to show with 100% certainty that a double nickel has been performed, it is similarly difficult to show that any benefit was gained.

- “Should” and “Must” are 2 different words. Players “should” call a judge, yes, but how many times have you accidentally activated Cranial Plating into a Stony Silence (using an example of particular relevance to decks I know you play, although I'm not sure this particular example has ever happened to you) and your opponent was just like “oh, back that up, no problem” without calling a judge (which they *should*, but not *must*).

EDIT: Upon rereading Uncle Scott's post, it seems to me that, while it is an offense to not call a judge when you see your opponent execute a double nickel, it is a) sufficiently hard to prove conclusively that a double nickel was executed and b) difficult enough to infract for not doing so (not calling a judge) that it practically doesn't matter.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 20, 2017 09:58:12 AM)

1. Let's replace my “call a judge” with “call attention to the error”, so
we can be pedantic, but actually discuss my point.

3. If your GRV example were beneficial to them, and they failed to call a
judge (or call attention to the error, to be pedantic), that would be
Cheating. My example is analogous, though you could argue that it's only
Cheating if you know for sure that your opponent has double nickeled.

2017-01-20 10:35 GMT-05:00 Lyle Waldman <

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

1. Let's replace my “call a judge” with “call attention to the error”, so we can be pedantic, but actually discuss my point.

I think that is what Lyle still ultimately drives at. Specifically what defined infraction is there for “not calling attention to the error”?

We've defined this for GPEs with Failure to Maintain Game State where applicable. But that doesn't apply here, as I don't see where there is a game rule being violated. We've not defined a comparable TE or UC for failing to “shuffle” your opponent's deck after it has been presented, nor have we defined a comparable TR or UC to require a player to “randomize” their opponent's deck. Let alone a comparable “Failure to Maintain Tournament Rules” that would apply when your opponent committed Insufficient Shuffling.

And while I think most of agree that it would be very reasonable and sporting to alert a judge, especially to educate the player if their shuffling is that bad… But, at most, you'd be pushing for some kind of intentional violation of MTR 3.9 to call this Cheating. Even though we have no defined infraction for an accidental violation.

I mean, it seems we're looking at something that is probably disallowed on an almost technical, rather than truly functional level, if we're not going to be pedantic. In which case, this might be more appropriately called “competitive” behavior if we want to be generous. (I'm inclined to call it distasteful personally.) But illegal might be a stretch.

That being said, Lev has pointed out when the philosophy shifted on this being called Cheating and the rationale behind that change. My own personal feelings aside, I'm not seeing that we can philosophically call this Cheating without some pretty significant technicalities.

There's no infraction for “not calling attention to an error”, but there is
for “noticing an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match
and not calling attention to it. Additionally, with the intent to gain
advantage, etc.”, to quote/paraphrase the IPG.

In any case, outside of attempting to make that one point clear, I've been
sufficiently convinced that I'm stretching things.

2017-01-20 13:10 GMT-05:00 Brian Schenck <

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (Jan. 20, 2017 02:09:45 PM)

Technically, Lyle's 3rd example would have to be something beneficial for
the opponent who then, rather than calling a judge, just had him undo it,
which is more the direct example he was using. In that case, I doubt very
much that we could argue Lyle's opponent was cheating simply because she
didn't call a judge.

I do think that “call attention to the error” does not require calling a
judge. AP starts to initiate 2nd pile shuffle, NAP goes “hey, you can't do
that,” AP picks up his piles and starts riffling, nobody calls a judge.
This scenario I'm sure happens time and again, and probably has already
happened somewhere in the world by the time I post this, and while AP has
technically violated the MTR, no judge was called. Surely we can't say NAP
didn't “call attention to the error.”

At the same time, however, I'm not sure Brian's reasoning is completely
correct here. While we don't have Infractions for many Tournament Error -
Other incidents, I'm equally confidant that many of those could be
considered Cheating if they met the requirements of UC - Cheating. For
instance, if AP convinced his opponent to just keep playing through the end
of time b/c he felt he could win Game 3 if he had a few extra minutes but
not within 5 turns, and he knew he shouldn't do that, then we'd have
potential grounds for UC -Cheating. It's not difficult to imagine other
cases. My point is, the fact that we don't have an infraction for an
accidental violation of MTR 3.9 doesn't mean that an intentional violation,
done knowing it was illegal and for advantage, isn't UC - Cheating. I
don't think it's as clear cut as that.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

At the same time, however, I'm not sure Brian's reasoning is completely correct here.

Well, yes, if you apply it more broadly than I intended. My line of thinking was meant to be specific to this situation and an examination of how difficult it would be to call this Cheating via what may applicable rules/policy.

But I am happy to acknowledge that my argument does fall apart outside of this circumstance. Or may not be the best argument in general.

I see, Brian, thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure I agree, as it
seems to me that if we can call out a specific MTR rule that the player is
violating intentionally to gain an advantage, then that seems like enough
to warrant Cheating, but obviously the case specifics are what's in
question here. I'm also with you that it feels slightly pedantic to go
that far in this case, although I also agree that the behavior is one I'd
rather not encourage (Lyle makes great arguments for why it's better value
for the player to call a judge than to undo his opponent's double-nickel
anyway). On the other hand, pedantry can certainly lead us astray. I'm
thinking particularly of the examples you gave.

Judge: “Hey, you should shuffle your opponent's deck. We are at a Grand
Prix, after all.”
Player: “Yeah, I know, but shuffling takes a lot of time, and this way I
can save the time for the match.”
Judge: “That sounds quite…advantageous…”

And now we're down the rabbit-hole of pedantry from which only bad things
can be found.

The long run around my thought-process here is that, while I think the
letter of the law would enable us to call UC - Cheating to the player
trying to undo the double-nickel, I'm uncertain it's an avenue we
philosophically want to go down.

Hmm. My takeaway from today's flurry of responses seems to be that a) yes, the MTR changes now permit us to issue a penalty for performing two piles shuffles in a single game (regardless of whether a double nickel was performed), but b) we probably shouldn't be doing this (given the opportunities for education and alternate preventative solutions).

Also, c) Dave's being too pedantic over technicalities with wordings and such again.

I don't think that's true. The MTR changes did nothing to change there
being no infraction in the IPG for that unless the player ignores
instructions to stop doing so or it ventures into slow play.


2017-01-20 18:46 GMT-05:00 David Poon <forum-32874-cdfc@apps.magicjudges.org