I'd like some feedback on continued difficulties with a specific player. We're on friendly terms and I'd like to keep it that way, but while I'd like to believe that our LGS has no problem players, he'd be at the top of my list if I did have a list. I believe he's a basically OK sort of person but he's impulsive, competitive and socially awkward. Recipe for disaster.

I know there's a lot of Had-To-Be-There involved, but I could really use some feedback.

Two weeks ago, Standard Showdown, he is my opponent:

(Note that he has won a couple of Showdowns already, so he's not exactly new to Standard, and he plays Glorybringer himself.)

• Me: Exert Glorybringer, blow up your <some creature>, take 4.
  
• Him: Now that revolt is enabled… I'll give it a push! *points Fatal Push at Glorybringer*
  
• Me: OK. That does nothing.
  
• Him: Oh, I thought Glorybringer cost 4. *puts Fatal Push back in hand*
  
• Me: Wait… you cast it, it just doesn't do anything when it resolves.
  
• Him: I only showed it to you. I'm allowed to show you my card, right?
  
• Me: Choose your next words very carefully. Are you trying to tell me that you did not cast Fatal Push?
  
• Him: Well… I guess I did.
  
• Me: Good, because if you lied to a tournament official, I would have to disqualify you. Please be honest with me, and with yourself.
  

After the tournament, he tells me that he understands and that he'll try to be more careful.

Was I being overly strict for a Regular tournament? He understands perfectly well that Fatal Push does nothing to Glorybringer. At some point he even Fatal Pushed for no value, explaining that he knew it did nothing, just so he could curve into Hazoret the Fervent. He just brain farted (possibly because of perceived pressure, even though we were both guaranteed a prize pack already.) I know it's not CompREL, but I don't like the idea of backsies for plain dumb misplays, and there would probably be riots at our Showdowns/FNMs if I started allowing that. It's different when a player isn't familiar with the cards/rules. In those cases I would go by intent.

Was I being overly lenient regarding his attempt at misconstruing the situation? Should I have let him finish digging his hole and then disqualified him?

Fast-forward to this Friday, Unstable draft, he is my opponent:

• Me, attacking with an unblockable Defective Detective: Take 2.
  
• Him: *grabs ballpoint pen in right hand, clicks it, turns to his notepad on his left side, reaches over and puts pen to paper, 0.01 second away from changing his life total*
  
• Spectator: No attack with your Partycrasher?
  
• Him: *looks up*
  
• Me (to the spectator): Please do not provide outside assistance!
  
• Spectator: Oh… you're right, sorry! *scampers off*
  
• Him: I attack with Partycrasher.
  
• Me: You can't. You were about to change your life total, so you chose not to attack.
  
• Him: I can't just click my pen? *demonstrates clicking pen on his chin*
  
• Me: You did more than just that. You also reached all the way over to your notepad. If <the spectator> hadn't opened his mouth, you would have simply changed your life total.
  
• Him: So?
  

At this point I would like to know how you would have proceeded.

Here's what I did:

• Me: Choose your next words carefully. Are you trying to tell me that you were not about to change your life total when you were interrupted?
  
• Him: Why are you so salty?
  
• Me: I need you to be honest. If you lied to a tournament official, I would have to disqualify you.
  
• Him: … OK, yes, I would have taken the damage, but I wanted to attack with Partycrasher after that.
  
• Me: That's not how it works. You have to declare your attack right after I declare mine, before blocks.
  
• Him: I did not know that.
  
• Me: That's OK, and I believe you when you say you intended to attack with it, so let's back up to Declare Attackers and try again.
  

Was I being harsh on someone who understandably didn't know how a crazy card worked? (Though note that I did rule by intent here.) Or once again lenient on someone who was clearly(?) about to lie to a judge? I honestly don't know and would like your opinions.

(Note that I know about the “notepad Jedi mind trick” where you grab your notepad and *pretend* not to block. I don't think that kind of trickery is appropriate for Regular, so my default assumption is that this is not what's going on. If he had explained that he was trying to trick me, then the rest of the conversation would have been about the spirit of Regular.)

I thought about it for the rest of the night. Then, the next day (Unstable Draft Weekend), I take him aside:

• Me: I thought about yesterday some more. I feel you've been dangerously close to the line twice now. I know you can get a little competitive at times, and then you try to present the situation to your advantage.
  
• Him: Yes, I know I can get a little competitive.
  
• Me: These are Regular tournaments, so ruleslawyering and angle-shooting are not appropriate here, but more importantly, you're putting me in a very difficult position. Let me explain: Judges can't read minds, so when someone gets investigated for, say, cheating, it's impossible for a judge to know exactly what happened. There is rarely any actual evidence, so judges can't ever really be 100% certain. The important thing to know is that they don't need either of those things. If a judge is, like, 51% certain that someone cheated, that judge has to disqualify that player. That means that if I think you're lying to me, regardless of whether I have any proof whatsoever, and regardless of whether you actually did, I have no choice but to disqualify you. That means paperwork for the both of us, and possibly a suspension for you. I don't want either of those things. If I had not cut you off and warned you about what you were about to do, I think you would have lied to me. And then I would have had no choice but to disqualify you. So please do us both a favor and stay as far away from that line as you can, because I really do not want to disqualify you.
  
• Him: Thank you, I will take this to heart. I won't argue anymore.
  
• Me: It's OK if you argue. I just need you to be honest. To me, and to yourself.
  

The next day, in a private message:

• Him: I wanted to tell you that I don't feel welcome anymore because of the things you said, and that's not right. Please respond.
  

What do I tell him? Part of me feels like saying "dude, I saved your ass from a DQ twice, so maybe you should take a good look in the mirror" but that's perhaps not the most diplomatic option available.

Should I file a report after all? (What/how?) Should I have done so earlier?

Should I apologize? (Why/for what?)

Should I ease up on Regular altogether, letting my opponents take all the backsies they want?

When it comes to regular REL, whether you should allow “taksies-backsies” is just up to the atmosphere your store wants to foster. If your store is fairly competitive, as it sounds like it is from what you've said, then it seems that you did the right thing in the first scenario by holding him to casting the Fatal Push. That said, you should probably talk to the other players and/or the store owner to see what kind of atmosphere they prefer. Making yourself the “bad guy” in the eyes of the players is not going to help anything.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Should I have let him finish digging his hole and then disqualified him?

No. Unless you're doing an investigation for cheating, you should never be trying to get a player disqualified. We are here to help the players, not to punish them whenever they step a toe out of line.


For the Unstable scenario, I think you were out of line. Unstable is not sanctioned and is about having fun, not about winning. The spectator should not have helped your opponent, but trying to hold him to not attacking as though it were a Comp REL tournament goes against the whole idea of Unstable.

Two thoughts:

1) In the second scenario, sure, he was probably going to take damage and write down a change in life total… but he didn't. As described, there didn't appear to be any confirmation on anyone's part that the game had progressed beyond the declare attackers step. I think that holding him to an action he had not yet taken nor confirmed is not correct. The fault lies in the spectator, and it is up to the player whether or not to use the unsolicited advice or not.

2) The way these scenarios have been worded, I feel that were I in your opponent's situation, I would have felt intimidated by the “lying could result in disqualification” clauses. It feels like you are implying, “say the wrong thing, and I have the power to DQ you,” even if that is not your intent. Statements made under duress (e.g. via intimidation) are far less reliable (if at all) than those offered freely. I would guess that the player currently feels intimidated and thinks you are abusing your power as judge over him in games he plays with you.

Personally, I would suggest avoiding the phrases “choose your next words carefully” and “I would have to disqualify you” when interacting with this individual; instead, just ask him to confirm whether he is speaking honestly, in a friendly manner. If he lies to your face, you can either let it slide and monitor him, or you can press further; but I think talking about a DQ as a possible consequence is not going to be helpful.

I complete agree with David Poon (and mostly with Isaac King). Also I think you should talk to the store owner/manager/etc, and (since you asked about it) yes should apologize to the player. I also would like to add:

1)
Before I was a judge, I read an article about the why/how of becoming a certified judge. It mentioned: “if you want to become a judge in order to win rules arguments with your friends or the local players at your store, please reconsider becoming a judge”. I internalized that, and now on the occasions I ask an L1 candidate “why do you want to be a judge”: that is one of the few answers I'll respond strongly negatively to. I also consider the same thing for attaining a higher judge level.

But isn't enough to not try to win arguments by using judge status/level: it's also important to try to not give that appearance. I recommend judges, when asked about rules or policy, just answer (giving citations when appropriate, and not say “trust me I'm a judge”). (*Edit to add: Including “And I'm a (lvl X) judge” in the answer might give the impression you are using that as the main argument as to why you're right, so best to leave it off unless necessary (or specifically asked about).)

Your situation is a much much more intense variation of that. Regardless of what your intention is, regardless of what the facts are, there is a danger that the opponent (and others) gets the message “When I am paired against the judge I can't take back things that I might otherwise be able” and “When I am paired against the judge I am not even allowed to suggest that it be permissible for me to take something back” (Even at comp REL there are plenty of times we fully allow players to take things back: but the distinction is something that is often difficult to explain). This a perception that you should make great efforts to avoid.

2)
All lies are not equal. You might consider lies of fact (“Did you see that card?”), lies of perception ("Did you realize that you failed to pay the Thalia, Guardian of Thraben tax?“), lies of intention/motivation (”What were you going to do?“/”Why did you do that?“). I would be very wary of trying to DQ in this last circumstance. (A)Players often have multiple motivations (and their intention could be to PROBABLY do X, but maybe do Y) and (B)Humans, in general, are very good at fooling themselves REALLY QUICKLY about what their intentions or motivations really are. I'm not saying to never DQ for this category, just to be very cautious about it.

I'm also not exactly sure if they're lies. It'd depend a little on how he's saying it. Is he saying that he (A) clicked his pen for absolutely no reason at all or is he saying (B) because it is possible that he could be clicking the pen for no reason: that is why as a rule he should not be bound to no blocks. Maybe you already clarified this before talking about DQs, and maybe it was ”I had to be there“. I would recommend a straightforward followup question to distinquish between these 2 (”Do you mean that it was possible you had no intention, or did you actually have no intention?“). (This ties with my point (1) above).

3)
Normally players can lie to their opponent.
Imagine you're playing FNM and your opponent draws for turn, sighs and says ”Jeez, 3rd land in a row! Go!" (but you later found out they were bluffing and hadn't drawn a land at all in any of those turns, and they did it because they wanted you to play into Settle the Wreckage). Do you DQ them? They lied to a tournament official in order to gain an advantage. (Sadly I can't point to any line in the JAR or MTR that says not to. But………….. please don't.) Now clearly this isn't the type of lie we're talking about here. But from your opponent's perspective not much has changed from a couple of seconds prior (to when they could outright lie to you about many things, let alone be slightly obstuse about their intentions). Did you do much to “reset” yourself in your opponent's eyes? Did you put on a judge nametag? Put on a physical hat that says “Judge”? Keep in mind that this type of “Has a player committed to something” dispute is often handled by players without calling a judge. In your opponent's eyes were they still talking to their opponent, or were they now talking to the ‘Judge’? You might try things like “As the judge for the event I want to ask you: (had you intended ‘no blocks’)”

4)
I don't consider picking up a pen, moving it towards a life pad, and even touching it to the paper, to by itself necessarily mean that the player has decided not to block. I agree it is likely the player had made that choice, and certainly a question or two is in order.





(*Edit to add: on the topic of humans fooling themselves: here is a well known psychology experiment from 1931 where humans were terrible at identifying what caused them to think of something:

Originally posted by http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/12/why-problem-solving-itself-is-puzzle.php:

he would apparently accidentally brush against one of the ropes and set it swinging.

Almost invariably people would work out the solution above in under a minute of this apparently accidental clue.

How did you solve it?
The experiment is a neat way of showing how effectively we can be primed with a solution to a problem. But the question we’re really interested in is whether we know where the solution comes from. Did Maier’s participants realise they’d been given a hint?

The answer was, on the whole, no.

When they were interviewed afterwards only one-third of his participants realised he’d given them a massive clue by setting one of the ropes swinging

Edited Aaron Henner (Dec. 11, 2017 02:18:31 PM)

I admit I'm a bit off-put by the whole narrative. I think there's better ways to handle this than what appear to be threats or intimidation, if I am interpreting the text correctly. I agree with David Poon's other comments as well.

We seek to play the game, not perform or enforce exacting play especially at Regular REL events. I feel we are first and foremost gamemasters before adjudicators when at our LGS. As a judge, I am reminding my opponents of their triggers, helping them compute damage totals, and so forth with the intent to delete the technicalities to enable fun play. I understand that not every judge plays like this. I assume it's not fun to do for some judges. Maybe there's a good point with you to teach him about his behavior you find disruptive from him, and then consider your own reactions as well. I apologize that I don't know you, so i can't offer specific advice there.

As for your friend, if you wish to keep him as a friend, then you can tell him that you commit to helping not during a match and to help him understand the purpose of gaming for fun, rather than to only equate winning to fun. This is to me a key point for dealing with the urge to cheat or gain other competitive advantage such as stalling, if that's an issue.

As for take-backs, that's up to where you want to draw the line. I try to use the rules in the CR to bound this; for example, they can announce a spell, but if they figure out they shouldn't cast it, or can't, they can always choose not to activate mana abilities to pay for it since the rules allow you to do so, and back up the casting of the spell using the CR (CR 720.1, CR 117.3c, CR 601.2g). If they are a new player, I would tell them about this. Maybe for a player who doesn't want this information to force themselves to learn it for competitive play, I would have them learn rules the hard way, which appears to my eyes in the text you wrote. For a player who plays Regular REL exclusively, then I think somewhere in between where you are and toward a line you can logically derive from our rules that enables their kind of play with softer boundaries, and jump in before they pay for stuff, or whatever you see as fair and fun for that environment. Folks want to play the game, not get tilted by rules and policies; but if they are being disruptive, then do act.

I applaud your courage to ask for help here! Well done, and continue your path forward in making a safe space for everyone!

Should I apologize? (Why/for what?)

Talking more in general here, always yes. You don't have to be wrong to apologize.
Even if you think your point is valid, was it your intention to make that player feel not welcome? It probably wasn't so you could always apologize for the way you phrased that point or for the way it came across.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Me: These are Regular tournaments, so ruleslawyering and angle-shooting are not appropriate here, but more importantly, you're putting me in a very difficult position. Let me explain: Judges can't read minds, so when someone gets investigated for, say, cheating, it's impossible for a judge to know exactly what happened. There is rarely any actual evidence, so judges can't ever really be 100% certain. The important thing to know is that they don't need either of those things. If a judge is, like, 51% certain that someone cheated, that judge has to disqualify that player. That means that if I think you're lying to me, regardless of whether I have any proof whatsoever, and regardless of whether you actually did, I have no choice but to disqualify you. That means paperwork for the both of us, and possibly a suspension for you. I don't want either of those things. If I had not cut you off and warned you about what you were about to do, I think you would have lied to me. And then I would have had no choice but to disqualify you. So please do us both a favor and stay as far away from that line as you can, because I really do not want to disqualify you.
Him: Thank you, I will take this to heart. I won't argue anymore.
Me: It's OK if you argue. I just need you to be honest. To me, and to yourself.

I think this exchange in particular is very worrisome. I think you're giving too much information about how judges make decisions about cheating/lying, and it's obscuring what's important in this interaction. The fact that the player thinks you're trying to get him not to argue with you should be an indication that he isn't receiving the message you're intending to communicate.

What's important is that this player is making stetchy-looking plays and then taking them back when he is called out on it. Regardless of his intentions, this makes it look like he is being dishonest, and it's not acceptable behavior at this tournament. If he makes a play mistake, he can learn from it and play better next time, but he can't try to take back plays that he's already made.

That's all you need to say here. Don't be confrontational about it or mention a disqualification (doubly so if you stood to gain as another player by disqualifying him) and absolutely don't explain to him your process for determining at what point you'd disqualify him. Be diplomatic and keep the focus on encouraging clean play.

At regular REL, judges can also play in tournaments they judge. That does come with a risk though: it's difficult to appear impartial as a judge in a match you're playing. Because of this, if at all possible, I would try to have someone else handle judge calls in my matches. If that's not possible, I tend to be lenient to my opponents, because they might not be able to tell the difference between my roles as player and judge. Similarly, any cheating investigations can generally wait until after the match is over, to avoid the player and judge roles getting mixed up.

In the two scenario's you described, I would not have invoked my judge status during the match. Assuming no other judges were available, I would have let his “I'm allowed to show you my card” stand with no further complaint. Then, after the match is over, I would explain to him that he can't take back plays he already made, and that I would rule in favor of his opponents when called for such a situation. Since I'm encouraging players to call a judge in situations like this, that should take care of most of the problems.

Furthermore, lying to a tournament official is only a DQable offence when you're clearly acting as a tournament official. When you're called to a different match and are investigating, you can consider whether you DQ a player for lying, though if you don't, friendly telling them that they need to tell you the truth when you're investigating will likely have better results then threatening a DQ. However, when you're playing in your own match, there is a serious risk of mixup between the roles of player and judge. Because of this, I would never have this conversation with my opponent during a match.

Communicating well is difficult at the best of times, doubly so when you're trying to educate someone. It seems that what you wanted to tell this player is “I need you to tell the truth when I'm investigating”. What the player potentially heard is “I'm highly likely to disqualify you”, and I could see how that would make him feel unwelcome.

Originally posted by Michel Degenhardt:

At regular REL, judges can also play in tournaments they judge. That does come with a risk though: it's difficult to appear impartial as a judge in a match you're playing. Because of this, if at all possible, I would try to have someone else handle judge calls in my matches.

That seems like a good idea, especially when atmosphere is fairly competitive even at FNM.
If there are no other judges around, the TO may work as a second judge. Of course, this may raise accusations of TO being partial, and so. But come on, we are talking about FNM here.

Historical note: many many years ago, judges weren't allowed to play events they judged - even at Regular. Still, an exception called “the three-judge system” existed.

If you had a Regular event, and three judges, judges could play the event.

Judge A would take all calls, except the “Judge A vs everyone” table.
Judge B would take calls from “Judge A vs everyone” table.
Judge C would take calls from “Judge A vs judge B” table.

I'll echo the sentiments of Michael and Francesco, but with perhaps stronger wording. You can play and judge at Regular REL, but it is my strong belief that you should NOT judge your own match. Have the TO answer the questions. Especially at more competitive FNMs, it is basically impossible for opponents to tell the difference between “I know this is how it works and am telling you so that our game can be correct” vs. “I'm the judge so it's going to work how I say no matter what”. If you think this player is shady, watch them at other tables when you can and if the behavior persists then by all means intervene. But if they're shady/sloppy/accidentally break a rule against you then I say let it go. Winning a match of Magic is not worth losing the appearance of impartiality, even to just one player, and especially when accusations like “This judge is being unfair” tend to spread like wildfire in Magic communities.

Edited Jeff Kruchkow (Dec. 11, 2017 09:06:55 PM)

I agree with what has been said. If you feel the role of both judge and player creates a conflict of interest because of your competitive nature I suggest you don’t do both at the same time.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Dec 2017, at 06:52, Matt Sauers <forum-40255-d7e2@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-40255-d7e2@apps.magicjudges.org>> wrote:


I admit I'm a bit off-put by the whole narrative. I think there's better ways to handle this than what appear to be threats or intimidation, if I am interpreting the text correctly. I agree with David Poon's other comments as well.

We seek to play the game, not perform or enforce exacting play especially at Regular REL events. I feel we are first and foremost gamemasters before adjudicators when at our LGS. As a judge, I am reminding my opponents of their triggers, helping them compute damage totals, and so forth with the intent to delete the technicalities to enable fun play. I understand that not every judge plays like this. I assume it's not fun to do for some judges. Maybe there's a good point with you to teach him about his behavior you find disruptive from him, and then consider your own reactions as well. I apologize that I don't know you, so i can't offer specific advice there.

As for your friend, if you wish to keep him as a friend, then you can tell him that you commit to helping not during a match and to help him understand the purpose of gaming for fun, rather than to only equate winning to fun. This is to me a key point for dealing with the urge to cheat or gain other competitive advantage such as stalling, if that's an issue.

As for take-backs, that's up to where you want to draw the line. I try to use the rules in the CR to bound this; for example, they can announce a spell, but if they figure out they shouldn't cast it, or can't, they can always choose not to activate mana abilities to pay for it since the rules allow you to do so, and back up the casting of the spell using the CR (CR 720.1, CR 117.3c, CR 601.2g). If they are a new player, I would tell them about this. Maybe for a player who doesn't want this information to force themselves to learn it for competitive play, I would have them learn rules the hard way, which appears to my eyes in the text you wrote. For a player who plays Regular REL exclusively, then I think somewhere in between where you are and toward a line you can logically derive from our rules that enables their kind of play with softer boundaries, and jump in before they pay for stuff, or whatever you see as fair and fun for that environment. Folks want to play the game, not get tilted by rules and policies; but if they are being disruptive, then do act.

I applaud your courage to ask for help here! Well done, and continue your path forward in making a safe space for everyone!

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/244836/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40255/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/40255/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

They lied to a tournament official in order to gain an advantage. (Sadly I can't point to any line in the JAR or MTR that says not to. But………….. please don't.)

Aaron, you're allowed to bluff (i.e., lie) about Private information, and the cards you drew or have in hand are very much Private - so there's your Policy support. (MTR 4.1)

Originally posted by Jochem:

Should I ease up on Regular altogether, letting my opponents take all the backsies they want?

Yeah, you probably should. Do you want players - esp. your friends - to see the pairings and think “oh, crap, I have to play THAT GUY”?!??

While it's true that “take-backs” tolerance varies greatly, from player to player and event to event, I'm of the opinion that judges should be more forgiving when playing, and unforgiving when judging. Here's what I mean by that. When playing, I want to be the friendly, helpful, enjoyable opponent that others look forward to playing against - win or lose. I want players to think “hey, maybe judges are people too” (heh).

When judging, however, my line on “take-backs” is simple: if the opponent allows it, I won't know about it; if the matter is brought to my attention, I can't allow it. (There's nothing in Policy that allows take-backs.)

Remember that Regular REL is meant to encourage fun among friends, encouraging the social aspects of Magic; why not simply say “sure, you can take that back - but at a PPTQ, I'd make you stick to it”. Help them understand that line, but there's no reason to enforce it at Regular REL. (Note, however, that I typically enforce these things VERY strictly on myself, when playing - I don't want anyone thinking “the judge is sketchy” or something!)

Should you apologize? Well, only if you want to retain the respect of that player, and others that may know of or hear about this situation.

d:^D

TLDR: Let it go~~ Don't talk about DQ unless you're actually going to DQ someone. Don't tell player's how we do our Investigations. ALWAYS speak in a friendly manner with players and instead of giving them a “ultimatum” inform them of what they did/are about to do wrong, let them take it back if they want, and give them a friendly remark that you'll be a bit stricter next time. Tell them that if they ever are unsure about anything regarding the game they can talk with you about it and you'll try to help. Use Gatherer or something else to show the players the “official” rulings on problems so they can read it themselves and know you're not just making things up or try to gain an advantage. If players are repeating mistakes or break rules take them aside AFTER the tournament and have a FRIENDLY chat with them. Telling them what they're doing wrong, why it's a problem, and ask them why so you can try and help them avoid it in the future.

I think it's good that you're being clear about things with your friend but can from personal experience tell you that the way you put things will be interpreted as intimidating and “evil”. Someone can be competitive and still have a bad or muddy understanding of the rules. Especially on RegularREL. The first thing i would do id ask the player if you two could perhaps meet up so you could apologize and explain yourself - because you defensively need to apologize.

Many have given great advise above me and i think you should really follow up on them. Talk with your story owner/TO and ask them about what kind of environment they want to foster on FNMs. Ask them how they want you to handle things, do they want you to be strict on players or lenient?

I always try to be very relaxed when reminding or “warning” players about misplays. In your first case it just let it slide. NEVER threaten or even inform someone of DQ. If a player should be DQ:d they will otherwise it just becomes unnecessary tension witch seems to have been the case for you. Explain to him that Fatal Push actually allows you to target a creature even if it can't destroy it unlike a card like Walk the Plank. Inform him that he that you won't allow a taksies backsies next time if you feel that you want to foster a more competitive environment, this will give the player a reason to play it correctly next time without looking like you're threaten him or try to get a unfair advantage in your game.

In your second scenario -let it slip again. Explain to him how Party Crasher works, maybe even pull up the oracle with rulings on Gatherer so he can read it himself. Unstable is a really weird set with a lot of things that don't work like normal magic so the players shuoldn't be punished for not understanding how all the crazy cards work.

I'd also have a chat with the spectator after the match or tournament - just like a friendly reminder that the aren't allowed to comment or help players in matches, if they see someone doing something wrong or misplay they should always ask the players to pause and call for you (or another judge) to fix the problem. Tell them that they can of course talk with the players after the match/game is finished. Tell the spectator that what they could've done was to inform the player after the game that they could've attacked with the Crasher at that point.

This helps foster a better understanding about the game between players as they communicate and help each other improve. Our competitive player would've remembered that turn and go “Ah! I could've done that!” and will now have learned something fro the next game.

Allow me to clear up a few things…

1: Competitiveness

Several people have commented on my supposedly competitive nature and unwillingness to allow backsies. I would like to point out the following:

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

• Me: That's not how it works. You have to declare your attack right after I declare mine, before blocks.
  
• Him: I did not know that.
  
• Me: That's OK, and I believe you when you say you intended to attack with it, so let's back up to Declare Attackers and try again.
  

Isaac was the first to comment on this, but apparently assumed I did not allow the backsie. (Sorry, Isaac, I know I posted a huge wall of text, so I completely understand if you missed this bit.) Perhaps some other posters read Isaac's reply, concluded that I must be too competitive for backsies, and it kind of snowballed from there.

Am I too competitive? You be the judge…

I believe that Regular is not Casual. Skill testing might not be a big deal but it is still the reason we host tournaments instead of just playing random games of Magic. Any given Saturday, half the players at the LGS will enroll in the Showdown while the other half continues to play kitchen table Magic. If a player chooses the Showdown over the kitchen table games (often showing up specifically for the tournament), then that's not just because they love Standard. It means winning matters at least a little bit to them. Not enough to go full CompREL with increased prize support, but it's not negligible either.

I strive to be sportsmanlike and lead by example. I will point out my opponents' triggers. I try to shield them from misplays based on inexperience or insufficient rules knowledge. In that case I will explain and let them take it back as needed. I also believe that Regular is a safe place to learn from your mistakes, so if my opponent is being sloppy, I might just let it happen.


2: “Let it slide”

I'm surprised to hear that the prevailing opinion is what I perceive as “holding players to a lower standard.”

I would like to hold players to the same high standard that I hold myself to, and that includes honesty. Bluffing about the game state is an altogether different matter and totally fine, but that's so not what happened here. This player was clearly trying to bullshit his way out. (You-Had-To-Be-There(TM) but trust me.) That's not appropriate at Regular or even acceptable behavior for human beings in general.

Suppose you, dear reader, had been judging instead of me, and you had been standing there the whole time and seen/heard everything, and you let my opponent continue to fabricate a story that you know is not true, but you “let it slide” anyway… Then I, the player, would most certainly take you aside and ask why you let my opponent lie to you like that. What would you say to me?


3: Double standard

Should I judge differently when I am one of the players? This was suggested several times but I don't see how that's fair to anyone.

I know that there's a conflict of interests, or at the very least a perceived conflict of interests, and that bothers me, but I still don't want to treat myself differently and/or become “The Other Judge” (from ye olde “the other judge said it was OK.”) Imagine I let something slide when it happens to me, and then the next round I get called over because the exact same thing happened to a different player. And then I'd have to give a different ruling? How could I possibly justify that?

In an ideal world, maybe we would not play and judge at the same time even at Regular. In the real world, at least in my case, not an option. I go to the LGS to play Magic. I judge because I'm happy to do it while I'm there anyway and because nobody else will do it. If I can't play, please don't blame me for staying home. I'm the reason our LGS even has Game Days/Store Championship and Showdown, so if I'm staying home, that's the end of those as well.

I believe some nuance of the replies was lost here.

1) The general “no takebacks” was wrt the Fatal Push on Glorybringer, not the Partycrasher.
2) Most of the replies were not “let it go completely” but rather, “let it go until your match is over”. Obviously we want to explain and educate players, but waiting until after the match removes the conflict of interest. You already won or lost, so they can trust your explanation more afterwards.
3) A double standard absolutely exists, and for good reason. We as judges have the trust of players and store owners placed in us to maintain the integrity of events. So we are absolutely held to a different standard, and I believe that includes occasionally losing out on some game win % equity in order to keep that trust.

Regardless of if you decide to stay more or less competitive in your judging of your match at FNM, the important take away is that diplomacy is of the utmost importance here. You can be strict with the opponent without threatening them with DQs. And taking a more diplomatic route will keep things from escalating to the point where a player no longer feels welcome.