In IPG we can read:

3.5. Tournament Error — Deck Problem (Warning)
Upgrade: If an error resulted in more copies of a main deck card being played than were
registered and this was discovered after the game had begun, the penalty is a Game Loss. For
example if the decklist has two copies of Shock in the main deck and two in the sideboard, but
there are three copies of Shock in the library, the penalty is upgraded.

I understand, that the player gets GL if in the game 1 of the match he has 3 copies of shock in the library and his decklist looks like:
Main deck: Shock x2
Sideboard: Shock x2

Could HJ choose not to upgrade the penalty and stay with the warning if the decklist looked like:
Main deck: Shock (Magic 2014) x2
Sideboard: Shock (Aether Revolt) x2

If yes, would the descriptions below allow HJ not do upgrade?
(Foil)
(Russian)
(Non-english)
(Alternate art)
(Altered)
(Signed)
(with pro-fit marked) (I assume the sleeve is not marked in visible way when the card is face-down)
(with scratched border)

If not - why not? How to explain it to the player? And - maybe we should allow this?

Let me just add how I love the new change :) I've missed this solution for some time…

Thanks

Edited Pawel Golota (May 24, 2017 02:48:25 PM)

No, the HJ could not choose not to upgrade the penalty in this situation. This upgrade has a philosophy behind it (which you obviously understand, based on your question) but it also has a clear definition (“more copies of a main deck card being played than were registered”). Be careful not to confuse the two - the definition is required in order to ensure that when we do only issue a warning, we do so consistently and safely. Sometimes drawing that clear and simple line will result in some corner cases that don't immediately make sense, given the philosophy. We still need to follow the language of the IPG.

If not - why not? How to explain it to the player?

You could note that we normally don't consider set markings (or foil, or language, or alt-art, or anything else you listed) written on the decklist to be binding. We would never consider giving him a Game Loss - or even a Warning - for showing up with M12 Shocks instead of M14 Shocks, and for the same reason, we don't take that into account here. A Shock is a Shock.

(I think there's also a line of reasoning regarding your opponent catching the error. It's a lot easier to get away with adding a 3rd copy of a maindeck card than it is to get away with adding the first copy of a good but very situational sideboard card. Your opponent will be suspicious when you play a game 1 Lost Legacy, but not when you play an Aether Revolt copy of Shock.)

You could also - instead of suggesting players to come up with arcane ways of differentiating their sideboard - suggest that players keep a copy of their decklist on their phone or in their deckbox, and make sure to always use it to double check their sideboard between rounds.

And - maybe we should allow this?

I will note that we're still basically in the first iteration of this policy. (It was introduced in AER as an exception to a downgrade, and with the reworking of D/DLP in AKH, it's now an upgrade, but it still uses the same language.) These things often go through iterations, as we become more comfortable with the idea of only issuing a Warning for Deck Problems, and as we gather more data on what works and what does not, I wouldn't be surprised to see that line move a bit in one area or another. It's important to make sure that we're focusing on the right areas, though - not writing a policy that is able to cover every corner case imaginable, but writing an understandable and digestible policy that covers most situations that actually happen at events.