A player in a comp rel event, before game 3 knocks his opponents sideboard divider revealing parts of his opponents sideboard. It is confirmed as “accidental” in as much as the player wasnt trying to seek an advantage.

Is this LEC or is the OA?

Moved to the Competitive REL forum.

Well the player didn't request or receive anything from a spectator, so it can't be OA. What's your reason for not wanting to call it LEC?

Because the penalty is really underwhelming.

The player it happened to was a former level 2 judge and wanted me to double check.

Surely the wording of LEC should include the SB?

LEC just says deck.

Edited Alex Gershaw (Aug. 27, 2017 05:35:10 PM)

Your deck is your mainboard+sideboard in this case, I believe.

Ok, could they just write that it's both instead?

Technically, LEC speaks about only “a deck” or “a library” all the time, as opposed to for example TE-Deck Problem mentioning “a deck or sideboard”.

It looks like LEC philosophy could be applied in the case. Although there is no remedy to fix this (besides some creative things like allowing the player to change their sideboard plan in case we are in the window after the deck was presented and before the game actually begun). At least we have an infraction to log this behavior into WER.

BTW,

Originally posted by Alex Gershaw:

Because the penalty is really underwhelming.

I do not think it is underwhelming. It is the same as if the player saw, let's say, the bottom card of the library.
If you believe the player did it intentionally, DQ them.

Originally posted by Alex Gershaw:

Because the penalty is really underwhelming.

If that is your reasoning to assume OA you should really read the IPG again. It's about finding the right infraction with the attached penalty. It's not about giving out the desired penalty and finding an infraction that gives out this penalty.
Also, the former L2 that it happened to should have known what the definition of Outside Assistance is.

I should have clarified it “feels” underwhelming to me.

I went with LEC i just wanted to double check.

If you believe it to be a simple mistake and not intentional, why is it underwhelming?

So you are saying, you are fine with giving out a match loss(the penalty for outside assistance) for a simple accident/accidental mistake?

He's not saying that at all. If I understand it correctly, he merely wants some more input on why the LEC penalty fits here.

Originally posted by IPG2.2:

A player can accidentally look at extra cards easily and this infraction handles situations where a dexterity or rules error has led to a player seeing cards in a library they shouldn’t have.

As you've already ruled out the intentional part, this fits verbatim under LEC policy.

While the policy does explicitly mention deck, that's because 99.99% of times it will apply to the deck. Look at the underlying philosophy, like Milan brought up

Originally posted by IPG2.2:

A player takes an action that may have enabled them to see the faces of cards…that they were not entitled to see.

(shortened for purposes of this argument).

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Aug. 28, 2017 12:31:19 AM)

Its underwhelming because like a player spilling my library on the table accidentally before game 1… we cannot take the information out of the players head and there is no fix to even the score for that mistake.

The potential for abuse is high… why is this only a warning.
Surely a LEC with upgrade path would fit better for these situations or even a fix on giving the wronged player equal information.

Please remember that i enforced this rule as written, but it doesnt feel right to me.

This player lost the match and it could have beem because his opponent had access to information that they shouldn't have had.

Edited Alex Gershaw (Aug. 28, 2017 03:51:00 AM)

If you believe that the incident was intentional, you investigate for cheating. Otherwise issuing anything higher than a warning is too harsh in my opinion for a simple dexterity error.