This discussion gives me pause.

In Legacy, there is only one Jace anyone ever plays. Any time anyone
mentions Jace, it is Jace TMS.

Does that mean Jace is downgradable in a Comp REL Legacy event?

While people have toyed with playing Jace Beleren as a sideboard card
against other decks playing Jace TMS, I would say it is about as likely to
be played as Turn to Slag. I can't even imagine a deck running Beleren
mainboard.

“may take into account the format being played.” doesn't mean “consider the metagame”. It means format legality.

This clause exists so that, e.g., “Nissa” on a decklist should be interpreted as “Nissa Revane,” not “Nissa's Chosen.” (Similarly, “Emrakul” means “Emrakul, the Aeons Torn,” not “Emrakul's Hatcher” or “Hand of Emrakul.”) Many of the other ‘classic’ storyline examples feature Planeswalkers, which now often have multiples that are legal in a format.

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

“may take into account the format being played.” doesn't mean “consider the metagame”. It means format legality.

But what does “if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse minimal.” mean? Does that include considering the metagame?

It means that judges downgrade too much because they are afraid to give Game Losses.

I would agree with Riki. It seems to me that we would have a more fair and consistent process if we were less aware of the metagame and deck archetypes and more focused on simple format legality. On the other hand, I feel that a truncated name listed in a section of a decklist that suggests uniqueness is enough for me to downgrade. So if a decklist has a section for lands and a truncated name in that section reflects a unique possibility as a land, that's fine.

An example of one time I downgraded: Legacy GPT, player has a mono-black list. In the sideboard, it said “1 Hymn”. There are precisely 6 cards in Legacy that include the word Hymn (Battle Hymn, Haunting Hymn, Hymn of Rebirth, Hymn to Tourach, Invincible Hymn, and Serra's Hymn, for the curious or lazy), and of them, only Haunting Hymn and Hymn to Tourach are black.

Before I did a search to see what cards that might have been, I didn't even know Haunting Hymn existed, nor did I expect that some other player would readily be aware of its existence, and to me, as a Legacy player, it's immediately evident what the Pox player is playing. As such, I recommended a downgrade to the head judge of the event, and he agreed.

I disagree with the statement that “ “may take into account the format being played.” doesn't mean “consider the metagame”.” It should, at minimum, consider the deck being played. If the player is clearly playing a Storm deck, do I really think that the tournament is best served by GL'ing the person who wrote 1 Tendrils?

I don't, but maybe I'm wrong for thinking about it in this manner. If so, I'm not sure I want to be right.

In the vein of not wanting to be right, do you believe that your philosophy would be applicable in a fair way for all players generally within a given event? Not even taking into account different events at different times, it seems to me that there needs to be a specific confluence of a deck being played that is well-known, known to the staff, and having a well-established list. My worry is that one player will get a downgrade and another will not simply due to playing a different, less popular deck or happening to not be at an event where the staff knows his or her deck as opposed to another player who plays a deck well-known to the judges present.

I think that James hit this right on the head. We want consistency in
everything we do (as much as is possible). We accomplish this by relying
on the things that fluctuate the least (At least that's how I see it). In
this case the cards that are legal in a format is fairly static during each
“season” (barring bannings/unbannings of course). The metagame however is
not static and fluctuates relatively rapidly. Relying on knowledge of the
metagame for making policy decisions creates pockets of unfairness in both
directions that we should try to avoid.

I really dislike having game losses downgraded without clear criteria to
prevent the appearance of favoritism. Until now, I have only downgraded if
there were no other cards in the format or for storyline characters.
Playable with the mana the deck generates is a reasonable and objective
criterion.

Whether Chapin thinks Jace TMS is better than all….not so clear.
On May 6, 2013 8:15 PM, “James Do Hung Lee” <

I agree with Riki that judges do tend to look for ways to downgrade too often, however, my main point in furthering the discussion past Scott's initial post was to ask why this clause was there if it was not to be used?

I also disagree with Tasha as to its meaning when she stated.

Originally posted by Tasha Jamison:

This clause exists so that, e.g., “Nissa” on a decklist should be interpreted as “Nissa Revane,” not “Nissa's Chosen.” (Similarly, “Emrakul” means “Emrakul, the Aeons Torn,” not “Emrakul's Hatcher” or “Hand of Emrakul.”)

As has been shown earlier in this discussion, there is a section of the IPG that specifically addresses storyline characters and planeswalkers.

This particular passage is separate and addresses non-uniquely named cards. As in the example I gave with regards to Stomping being written with the other lands, I am ok with downgrading to a warning when it is abundantly clear what the player intention was. In situations like that, I think it is just the right thing to do from a customer service point of view. However, that warning will also come with the stipulation that another judge might rule it differently so be more careful in future when filling out the deck list. Also, if the list was not segregated clearly into land and other cards, then I would probably not downgrade as I would not feel that it was clear what the intended card was supposed to be.

Originally posted by James Do Hung Lee:

In the vein of not wanting to be right, do you believe that your philosophy would be applicable in a fair way for all players generally within a given event? Not even taking into account different events at different times, it seems to me that there needs to be a specific confluence of a deck being played that is well-known, known to the staff, and having a well-established list. My worry is that one player will get a downgrade and another will not simply due to playing a different, less popular deck or happening to not be at an event where the staff knows his or her deck as opposed to another player who plays a deck well-known to the judges present.

I do not think we should be looking to give game losses for the sake of giving game losses because there is some obscure card that makes an identifier non-unique. I cannot, in good conscience, tell the dredge player who writes “4 S. Imp” that he gets a game loss because there happens to be another card that it shares that moniker. Without a search of the database, can you think of another “S. Imp” that exists in Legacy? There is one such other card, as it turns out, but who's going to know that?

Now, if he had put “4 Imp”, that's plenty ambiguous, as both Putrid Imp and Stinkweed Imp are played in that deck. That gets a game loss.

Somehow, I don't feel that it's fair or in good service to the players in the event to be searching for a reason to game loss someone. Or perhaps conversely, why should we even have the legends and storyline characters rule if there isn't some level of interpretation that the IPG is granting? Is it really fair to say that the person who puts “Arr. Wurm” is okay (only Arrogant Wum) but the person who puts “Ar. Wurm” gets a game loss because that's not unique? (Armada Wurm and Argothian Wurm, for those at home.) I believe that stern education is important, sure, but I don't believe that, especially in Legacy or Vintage, we should be GL'ing people because the Enchantress player believed “City of S.” was unique (City of Solitude is what is meant, City of Shadows being the ambiguous card), but not the the Enchantress player who put “Confinement” (Solitary Confinement is uniquely identified).

I don't feel that the criteria for game-loss / warning should be “Can I search the database to find some card that would make what the player found here ambiguous?” If nothing else, it seems to be very much a case of customer disservice and bad feelings - I don't want to be the judge who has to tell the player some variant of: “There was another black card from Time Spiral block that you could have been referring to, even though we both know you weren't. As such, you have to receive a game loss.” It doesn't sit well with me. I don't think that there's a bright-line approach to this sort of thing, but that isn't going to make the medicine go down any easier.

I think you are getting too caught up in these examples you are coming up with . . . remember, we are not searching for a reason to give a game loss. That is policy. The game loss is the baseline penalty. We are searching for a reason to downgrade. That is the issue at hand. Do not accidentally conflate the need to search for a reason to deviate as being the same as searching for a reason to apply the penalty as stated. Downgrading here is the exception, not the norm. We are not searching for ways to give game losses, we are searching for a fair and equitable policy application to apply the exception.

So, again, without jumping at the thought that we are actually searching for some corner case reason to apply policy as written but rather to try to be fair and balanced whenever possible in any given event, can you address the concerns I cited about being able to keep a balanced ruling philosophy even within a singular event? Even using your own criteria above about “searching for a reason to give a game loss” there are some clear examples of degree of clarity. So, where do you draw the line? How clear is sufficient for you to downgrade? How out of the norm does a list have to be before you are unwilling to downgrade? How can you educate your judges and your players about when a deck is well-known enough to get the downgrade and when a player needs to worry that the staff will not give the same ruling and penalty because his or her deck just wasn't popular enough?

Originally posted by James Do Hung Lee:

I think you are getting too caught up in these examples you are coming up with . . . remember, we are not searching for a reason to give a game loss. That is policy. The game loss is the baseline penalty. We are searching for a reason to downgrade. That is the issue at hand. Do not accidentally conflate the need to search for a reason to deviate as being the same as searching for a reason to apply the penalty as stated. Downgrading here is the exception, not the norm. We are not searching for ways to give game losses, we are searching for a fair and equitable policy application to apply the exception.

So, again, without jumping at the thought that we are actually searching for some corner case reason to apply policy as written but rather to try to be fair and balanced whenever possible in any given event, can you address the concerns I cited about being able to keep a balanced ruling philosophy even within a singular event? Even using your own criteria above about “searching for a reason to give a game loss” there are some clear examples of degree of clarity. So, where do you draw the line? How clear is sufficient for you to downgrade? How out of the norm does a list have to be before you are unwilling to downgrade? How can you educate your judges and your players about when a deck is well-known enough to get the downgrade and when a player needs to worry that the staff will not give the same ruling and penalty because his or her deck just wasn't popular enough?

-sigh-

As much as I wish I could, I can't, and as much as I dislike where it leads, your point is very much valid, and no, I couldn't give you an exhaustive, clearly delineated list of every possible mistake that could be made and whether it would of sufficiently low potential of abuse to justify a downgrade. Maybe my issue is with policy as written, I don't know,but it just doesn't feel right that we should have to say “this is a game loss”, even if, for the sake of argument, the players and judges agree on precisely what happened and there is an easy fix that both players believe fair (Again, hypothetical for the sake of making my point.). It doesn't sit well with me that we have to give game losses for trivial mistakes, but you're correct that there's value in procedural fairness, even if the outcomes don't appear fair in practice. It doesn't seem fair to me as a judge when I'm certain what the card is without a doubt (the S. Imp by the Dredge player), and there's no potential for abuse. But you're right that it's not fair to players of rogue builds that I can't provide the same degree of courtesy. I wish that there was an easy fix to rectify these opposing forces, but there probably isn't one out there.

Maybe it just doesn't seem fitting that judges are supposed to be blind enforcers of written policy instead of being able to make judgement calls. But I agree that opens up many more cans of worms (or wurms, perhaps - this is Magic, after all) than it's worth.

As much as I'm not liking (as a personal statement) how policy is applied here, I feel compelled to retract my previous qualms, on the basis that there's not really a fair way to impose a more sensible (i.e. fairness in outcomes) solution.

Josh, it does lead to possible inconsistency in the application of the policy. For me, the only place I'm likely to ask the HJ for a downgrade is when the list looks like something that isn't particuarly competitive. If it's a 64 card list with a lot of 1 and 2 of's, even if I'm at a PTQ, I'm going to want to downgrade. If it's a well-known deck or looks to at least be a tuned 60, my inclination will be to give a GL.

My thought process behind this is that I am there to ensure that the event runs smoothly and to make sure that there is no perception of shady things going on (whether that be favoritism or some other sketchiness). Part of “event runs smoothly” is making sure we stay as close to on time as possible, that instructions are clearly announced, etc. But part of it is ensuring that everyone has an experience that's appropriate for them. Jim, who's at his first PTQ ever with the deck that mops the floor with the rest of his buddies at the kitchen table but wouldn't stand up in an FNM, is in need of an education, not a slap in the face that might turn him off from the competitive scene entirely. Rob, who's a PTQ grinder that was just careless in writing his decklist, at the last minute during the announcements, needs a lesson to reinforce the importance of what he already knows - namely that decklists need to be accurate.

It is my understanding that the philosophy behind penalties is two-fold. One, it discourages behavior that we don't want to see. Two, it reinforces the verbal explanation you're giving when a player commits an infraction. You're more likely to remember not to do something if a previous instance of that thing has resulted in a game loss. However, with someone simply not familiar with the way Competitive REL tournaments work, the reinforcement is probably not necessary. While we do expect players at Comp REL to be more knowledgeable than at Regular, you still have Regular level players show up to Comp events and we want to help them transition from one to the other. Pulling them aside and explaining to them that being 100% accurate (and using their best penmanship!) is important is probably enough to forestall future occurances - that is, it suffices to discourage the behavior that we don't want to see.

As someone who plays a lot of PTQs/SCGs/GPs, I am aware that if I'm careless with my decklist, I could receive a GL. I don't like giving my opponents free wins, so I am incredibly careful to write out the full name of every card and I use my absolute best penmanship (although that probably comes from tearing my hair out while trying to read other people's decklists on the judge side of things) and organize things clearly. This is the standard that we want players to stick to. I don't want to encourage someone who ought to know better (like, for instance, a Storm player who writes “Tendrils”) to be sloppy with their deck reg. If you're playing a complex deck that you've spent 30 hours over the last 4 weeks tuning for the event, you can spend the 6-8 minutes you need to write a legible and complete decklist.