Hello everyone,

I am launching this topic to see if some part of Deck Error fix should be changed.
Before the changes of Mulligan Procedure Error, a player who found a sideboard card in their opening hand got a forced mulligan. It was a downgrade of the Game Loss in the case the mistake was caught when the game had started.
Now, if the game has started, there is no longer the Game Loss, just the removal of the cards (and the library gets fixed).

On the other hand, the Mulligan Procedure Error evolved in order to avoid players preferring to point the error after the procedure to get a HCE fix: Before, the player had a forced mulligan if they drew too much cards. Now, the player chooses between this fix and the HCE fix.

I am wondering if, by consistency of the evolution of the policy, we should do the following:
When a player realizes that they failed to desideboard while watching an opening hand, we fix the library accordingly, and they get the choice between:

• A forced mulligan.
  
• The sideboard cards from the hand are removed.
  

This way, we also avoid to give players incentive to point the mistake after the mulligan procedure finished, if they like the rest of their hand.

Originally posted by Mikaël Rabie:

This way, we also avoid to give players incentive to point the mistake after the mulligan procedure finished, if they like the rest of their hand.

The bad behavior you're worried about us incentivizing players toward is cheating. Player's are expected to call attention to Deck Problem errors as soon as they are noticed. If a player waits until after mulligan procedure, that is breaking a rule knowingly to gain advantage (a less severe fix). They're risking a DQ in this case for that less severe penalty. To me that seems to push players in the direction we want (call attention immediately).

Edited Jeff Kruchkow (Jan. 30, 2018 06:53:22 AM)

Jeff, you're right. However, we can always craft policies in a way that won't tempt players with cheating: most of cheaters are people who have a momentary lapse of judgement and take advantage of something they shouldn't.
The less situations we make players face that could lead to that lapse of judgement, the less cheating we encounter.
It's in that context I understand Mikaël's proposition.

- Emilien