During a competitive Legacy tournament in round 1, I was checking the decklists. Some player did not write down neither his own name nor his DCI#, so I tried to find out whos decklist it was. This took me some time because I was interrupted by a number of judge calls. But finally it was obvious whos decklist it was. At the beginning of round 2, I checked that players deck and found out, that it fits perfectly to the decklist without a players name. Nevertheless, I decided to give a Game Loss for TE Decklist Problem stemming from the fact that a vital piece of information was missing.
The player became very emotional but finally acepted my decision. Later in the tournament he wanted me to show him the relating paragraphs within the IPG. I denied this demand because it would take too much time (especially if every player wants to see rules etc. immediately). But today I was not able to find a situation as described within the IPG.

So what is the right decision?
What to do if more than one player fails to write down his name?

Perhaps I am wrong in my thinking for this situation; however, I will provide my solution for this problem as a means of discussion. If anyone has had this happen to them, please provide your experience and the infraction applied. I decided to dig into the IPG and see what I could come up with for this situation and this is what I have:

Although the error of the player in question here does stem from the decklist registration, I do not believe that we have a scenario where we apply traditional decklist registration fixes here (seeing as he has not actually presented an illegal deck). I believe that following the philosophy behind the IPG guidelines would put us somewhere more in the neighborhood of “Tournament Error — Failure to Follow Official Announcements”. I always mention in the player meeting that individuals should check their decklists for name, DCI #, maindeck, and sideboard correctness. The philosophy section on this particular segment of the IPG states: “Players are required to be attentive and follow the instructions of tournament officials for the efficiency of the tournament and safety of all.”; which I believe that this infraction he has committed only interrupts the efficiency of the tournament, nothing more. My belief is that he should be given a Warning for the reasons stated above rather than a Game Loss for Deck/Decklist Problem. Perhaps my judgment is too soft, and Jan's Game Loss for Deck/Decklist Problem is correct. I would love to hear some more responses on this topic.

Not putting your name on a deck list used to be an example under “failure to follow official announcements”. It was removed about a year ago. The reason was, and I'm guessing a bit, that it wasn't really worth the penalty.

A good practice to do is have the players write their table number on the deck list during the player meeting. Then after you count/sort the lists, you need to verify you have all this lists. Print off a copy of all the players and check everyone off. Then if you have one list missing a name and all other lists are accounted for, it's easy to find out who's list is who's. this is also a good practice because otherwise, how will you know if a player didn't turn in a list?

Game Loss penalties are a “big deal” and are near impossible to undo. Even though this was a competitive event, this line from the JAR is applicable: “When answering a question, don't be afraid to double-check the rules if you aren't sure of your answer. If this means that you end up having to stop the match for more than a minute or so, give the players equal additional time at the end of their match”

If you have an opportunity in the future, you should apologize to the player and explain what the ruling should have been, and most importantly, learn from the experience.

As above I think this is at most a Failure to Follow Official Announcements and in likelihood is no infraction at all, and can be resolved by educating the player.

Nowadays we try to focus on prevention rather than penalization of issues like this, and I would encourage judges when collecting decklists to make a minimal effort to see that the name is on the list (particularly in Constructed, where the current form has players write their name up the side of the sheet and many inexperienced players may miss this). Additionally, in Limited, judges collecting decklists should make a minimal effort to see that there is something in the basic land section and something in the played column. This takes literally two seconds per list and I think it is a very good habit to get into.

Presumeably, your head judge asked the players to write their names on their decklists, right? If not, there's no infraction. If so, there's a warning here for Failure to Follow Official Announcements at most.

This infraction (if there was one) and all the work it caused you and your team (which is significant) are entirely avoidable.

In these parts, all judges are trained to NEVER accept a decklist without a readable name on it. The DCI number is optional because with the name, we can get the DCI number from the scorekeeper.

If a player tries to hand me a decklist without a name on it, I hand it right back with the comment, “Name, please.” Adds less than a second to the collection of each decklist and saves us a ton of time later.

For limited lists, I also check for something in the Basic Land area and something in the Played column. If either is missing, I hand the list right back. Adds less than two seconds per list and helps keep the number of penalties that we're awarding in round 2 manageable.

The time our judges are not spending tracking down the nameless list(s) is time they are spending on goodness like floor coverage, mentoring, chasing down slips at the end of round 1, etc. That's good for everyone, player and judge alike.

If the nameless list appears around here, the player gets a talking-to so that they don't do it again. The bigger talking-to, however, goes to the judge who accepted the list if that's known or the whole staff if it is not.

The two-nameless-list situation is even less fun. Once you narrow it down to the two names, you can pull a targeted deck check on one of them to resolve the matter.

Or you can send a judge over to the players to see what they're playing and thus which list goes with their deck. You don't even have to mess up their games. Just look at the hand, graveyard, library (preserve the order of course), and sideboard plus the battlefield. Usually the two lists are dissimilar enough that you can figure it out in only a few seconds.

Talking-tos as above.

To my mind, administering the IPG is an important, but not the most important, part of what we do as judges. Our primary duty is to see that the tournament runs smoothly, fairly, and quickly. Players sitting in front of cards are happy. Players waiting between rounds, waiting for judge calls to get answered, or waiting for anything else get grumpy. If we can take a little care in collecting the lists to save us time in counting and accounting for the lists, we should take that opportunity to free ourselves up to work on our primary mission of keeping the tournament running well.

Will
—– Original Message —–
From: Jan Brinkmann
To: wcc3@cs.oberlin.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 6:56 AM
Subject: Players name missing on decklist (Competitive REL)


During a competitive Legacy tournament in round 1, I was checking the decklists. Some player did not write down neither his own name nor his DCI#, so I tried to find out whos decklist it was. This took me some time because I was interrupted by a number of judge calls. But finally it was obvious whos decklist it was. At the beginning of round 2, I checked that players deck and found out, that it fits perfectly to the decklist without a players name. Nevertheless, I decided to give a Game Loss for TE Decklist Problem stemming from the fact that a vital piece of information was missing.
The player became very emotional but finally acepted my decision. Later in the tournament he wanted me to show him the relating paragraphs within the IPG. I denied this demand because it would take too much time (especially if every player wants to see rules etc. immediately). But today I was not able to find a situation as described within the IPG.

So what is the right decision?
What to do if more than one player fails to write down his name?

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/279973/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4548/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4548/

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

Long ago and far away, we would give out Game Loss penalties for failing to write names on deck lists, because it was so disruptive, extra work, etc. That was then, this is now: it is no longer a Game Loss.

Get the scorekeeper to print an list of all players, in alphabetical order; check off the names of the lists you have, leaving you with the name or names that should match the unnamed list(s). (A player who didn't turn in their list is a separate topic.)

Now, it doesn't matter how many lists you have without names - you just go to all those matches, probably at the start of round 2, and check the deck against the list(s); you'll quickly sort out who's who (in almost all cases - yes, there's been situations with two players playing 70-74 of the same cards, and that slows things a bit).

Caution those players, and carry on. If you were clear in an announcement to all players, to put their names on their lists, you can go ahead with the Warning for Failure to Follow Official Announcements - but don't be militant about this, it's usually just a silly mistake, not something that needs an official Warning.

If one of your players repeatedly ignores your instructions, then you have a failure to follow direct instruction (UC-Major). Also a separate topic…

Thank you all for your advice.
Could learn much from this.