A problem has been brought up by competitive players in my region, and I would appreciate some guidance.

N controls a Kinjalli Sunwing. A plays a generic creature, and puts it into play untapped. N doesn't notice. A passes the turn, N untaps, draws a card, realises the creature is untapped and calls a judge.

By the GRV documents, both of these players are responsible for this infraction, and both players could receive GRVs.

The competitive players are complaining that they want to call judges in these scenarios because they want to ensure players aren't cheating, but receiving warnings themselves for something that they (almost certainly) can't gain advantage of, especially those that can be upgraded, means they are less likely to call a judge.

The other query they have is when to call a judge. If N calls a judge at the immediate point that the creature enters the battlefield untapped, they will not receive a warning, but this is the point when we would expect them to remind their opponents of the replacement effect.

Is the solution one about if the player cannot gain advantage of a replacement effect, they can only receive FtMGS?

Originally posted by Guy Baldwin:

By the GRV documents, both of these players are responsible for this infraction, and both players could receive GRVs.

Not so cut-and-dry, indeed.
A few eminent judges I know would go for GRV-FtMGS, another faction goes for double GRV.
(For the record, I personally am on GRV-FtMGS side).

reference: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-5/

Originally posted by Guy Baldwin:

The competitive players are complaining that they want to call judges in these scenarios because they want to ensure players aren't cheating, but receiving warnings themselves for something that they (almost certainly) can't gain advantage of, especially those that can be upgraded, means they are less likely to call a judge.

In this specific scenario it's ok to issue a double GRV for me: AP controls the effect so he/she has to be sure that NAP is doing the thing correctly. If we issue GRV only to NAP we are giving AP the chance to take an advantage from remaining silent about his/her effect, hoping for an upgrade of the penalty for the opponent. Same if we do the opposite. A double GRV makes both players more responsible in handling those kind of effects.

Anyway I must admit that, recently, I thought about the possibility to apply the “generally detrimental” philosophy used for triggers also for some GRVs.
I like the idea but I'd like to hear different opinion too about it.

Players should stop angle shooting.

Remind your opponent to put it in tapped and call a judge if you need to remind them often - let judges do the investigating, not the players.

I'm inclined to use double GRVs only for situations where both players are acting - i.e., the classic example of Path To Exile - and not for a static effect that the controller missed during another player's action.

Also, if you're playing with a card like the Sunwing, it's because of the effect it has on your opponents, and it's in your best interests to remember it. Forgetting that is almost never going to benefit you, when you Fail to Maintain the Game State. Receiving a GRV for your forgetfulness seems like “piling on”, to me.

Many of us remember when double GRV was strictly for Path to Exile, and perhaps a few odd corner cases. The frequency with which this list was dragged into those dark corners, to ask "is this double GRV?", led us to relaxing the firm boundaries around the concept. (We also considered that there were other situations where it might be an acceptable outcome.)

However, it's good to keep in mind the original intent: both players are taking actions to resolve an effect, and it goes wrong - i.e., Path to Exile.

d:^D

Originally posted by Norman Ralph:

Players should stop angle shooting.

Remind your opponent to put it in tapped and call a judge if you need to remind them often - let judges do the investigating, not the players.

I don't think I'd like to ever refer to calling a judge for a GRV as “angle shooting”.