Hello all.

Over the past few years, I have seen what seems like a steady trend of reducing the number of in-game penalties which result in a game loss or worse. Insufficient Shuffling (formerly Insufficient Randomization) was reduced to a Warning, Failure to Reveal ceased to be its own penalty, and we stopped upgrading repeated penalties beyond a game loss.

This makes a lot of sense. We want players to play Magic, and we should let them complete their games this way if the infraction does not make that impossible. However, there is one infraction which seems like a remnant of the older, more punitive philosophy: Outside Assistance.

I wonder whether we could safely reduce Outside Assistance to a Warning. In cases where a player knowingly seeks outside information against the rules, the appropriate infraction is Cheating, as with other deliberate rules violations. In the more common case, where spectators start to comment on the game state more than they should, a Match Loss feels like overkill. When a spectator steps over the line just a little this way, I know that I am more likely to verbally caution them than to assign a Match Loss. Unfortunately, such cautions aren't tracked, and players are likely to take them less seriously.

I have no objection to harshly penalizing a spectator who deliberately gives play advice during a match. The case where a player snaps a photo of the standings on his cell phone, and then refers to the photo while the match is ongoing, is more awkward. But I think that reducing the penalty to a Warning for the most common cases will help us reduce those, while reminding players to stay clear of the red lines.

What do you think?

I've given out more than my fair share of Match Losses for OA. The
most memorable of them was to a player who'd just made the final of a
PTQ, and while I did call a friend to confirm that I was doing the
right thing, it felt like the right penalty even though the player was
only attempting to console a friend for a bad beat in game 2 of the
other semi final.

When they reduced OA from a DQ to a ML that was a fantastic day. But
that wasn't that DQ was too harsh for OA*, it was that because it was
such a serious penalty few judges ever pulled the trigger for it
unless it was the blatant cheats variety. Now that we have OA a lot
more of them are being given out and players are learning the lesson
much better.

It needs to be a very serious penalty because there is so much
potential for abuse. Yes, there is more potential for abuse than in
Drawing Extra Cards. Players should instinctively know that talking
about a game in progress is a bad idea when there are prizes in play.

* I do think that the gradual decrease in severity of penalty that
Oren mentioned is relevant and OA wouldn't still be a DQ even if
judges were pulling the trigger more often. But a ML it should remain.

Originally posted by Oren Firestein:

I wonder whether we could safely reduce Outside Assistance to a Warning. In cases where a player knowingly seeks outside information against the rules, the appropriate infraction is Cheating, as with other deliberate rules violations. In the more common case, where spectators start to comment on the game state more than they should, a Match Loss feels like overkill. When a spectator steps over the line just a little this way, I know that I am more likely to verbally caution them than to assign a Match Loss. Unfortunately, such cautions aren't tracked, and players are likely to take them less seriously.

While it's an interesting idea, I think that it seems to lean towards a philosophy of creating an Outside Assistance - Minor (Warning) + Outside Assistance Major (DQ) division of the current penalty. And, as Gareth stated, the potential for abuse is tremendous. If I, as a player, could “accidentally” slip a piece of game-winning advice for just a Warning, then the penalty itself loses the major reason behind its harsh penalty.

I know where you're coming from, especially from the recent changes to things such as the Cheating definition to protect innocent players, but a ML is still a world away from a DQ. In addition, it already serves its purpose well. Even if a player solicits advice, the ML negates any possible benefit from it. If a non-playing spectator gives it, then they receive a harsh, tracked penalty to warn them to stop. In either case, I see little reason to drop the OA penalty below the Match Loss.

If a non-playing spectator gave an OA, how to actually deliver the ML? I suppose I have to get that player's DCI number and enroll him into the event, but what should I do if the spectator is pissed off and declined to comply with judge's instruction (such as leaving the venue)?

Edited Hao Du (May 27, 2013 04:21:59 AM)

Involve the TO.

If the TO says “Person XY has to leave the venue” the person has usually to leave the venue because the TO rented the venue and has the right to do so. If he still doesn't leave the venue the TO has normaly the right to call the police and get the police to remove that guy from the venue (I hope that this never happens, but who knows).