I had a policy question come up today at the SCG modern open involving myself as a player that I believe highlights a problem with the overlap of the IPG and MTR.

I want to stress that the HJ and his assistant were nothing but understanding and diplomatic in addressing what was a very uncomfortable situation and I have a lot of respect for how they handled it and I understand and agree with their interpretations of policy; this is not a witch hunt, I commend Abe for his handling of the issue.

The situation is as follows. Prior to the player's meeting, I go to the judge's area and ask to speak to the HJ to get my deck checked; it was 50/60 foiled cards so I was concerned about marked cards in the opposite way from what is usual. I was directed to his “appeals judge” as it were. He gave the deck a thorough check and let me know that it was fine as-is at that moment in time. This is key, because I had a separate entirely nonfoil deck of a different archetype if it came up as unplayable (8 of the cards had arrived recently and hadn't had months packed tight with a dessicant).

In round two, my opponent and I were selected for a mid-round deck check before game 3. The deck check team determined that seven cards in my deck were now “marked”. Customer service issues with the TO aside, my options were to take a game loss and make my deck unplayable, or find replacements, or try to un-warp the cards and risk escalating tournament errors/cheating investigations.

Here is where I believe the hole in policy exists. In the IPG section for additional remedies to TE: marked cards, it specifies that the HJ may issue proxies for cards that “become marked” over the course of the event. Given that prior to the start of the event, my deck was confirmed legal and not marked by an authoritative figure, this in my mind should qualify me for proxy replacement of those cards for the remainder of the event, right?

Turns out the MTR has more to say about proxies that appears to limit the intention of their scope further than that, as interpreted by Abe, and I do agree with him.

However, I feel that policy in either the IPG or the MTR needs to be clarified with respect to this case, serious feel-bads/customer service issues aside.

Am I off base here? Or does anyone else agree that the language should maybe be tweaked in one or the other of these documents to address potential repeats of this situation? Is this way too much of a corner case to address?

Originally posted by Michael Warme:

Am I off base here? Or does anyone else agree that the language should maybe be tweaked in one or the other of these documents to address potential repeats of this situation?

What's your actual suggestion? What specifically do you think needs to be changed?

Edited Isaac King (Aug. 26, 2018 06:48:02 AM)

Two options.

If we think this is a reasonable situation in which we would want to issue a proxy (player had a legitimately legal-to-play deck at the start of the event), leave the IPG alone and modify the MTR–3.3 is fine, but 3.4 paragraph

The card has been accidentally damaged or excessively worn in the current tournament, including damaged or misprinted Limited product. Proxies are not allowed as substitutes for cards that their owner has damaged intentionally or through negligence.

Could be edited to something like

The card has been accidentally damaged, excessively WARPED OR worn DURING the current tournament, including damaged or misprinted Limited product. Proxies are not allowed as substitutes for cards that their owner has damaged intentionally or through negligence.

This avoids abuse by still invoking warnings but leaves a space to avoid similar situations to mine, and by specifying a change in status over the tournament only covers situations for which it is clear the playability of the physical card changed from playable to unplayable over the course of play in the event.

If we decide that issuing a proxy in these circumstances is not the desired outcome, modify the IPG to match the language from the current MTR 3.4

Edited Michael Warme (Aug. 26, 2018 07:09:55 AM)

I don't see any meaningful difference between those two passages. Warping is a type of wear, and “during” means the same thing as “in” in that context.

So then you disagree with Abe's decision to not issue a proxy for my foils that became warped and thus marked between start of tournament and round 2? As I understand the intent of the rule in the mtr and past practices, I think Abe's ruling was consistent with what I would expect, but I reserve the right to be wrong.

Edited Michael Warme (Aug. 26, 2018 07:58:09 AM)

I don't know the details of that situation or why Abe ruled the way he did, and I'm not going to speculate on that.

I think issuing a proxy in the specific situation you described is probably reasonable. The cards were legal at the beginning of the event and illegal at some point during the event. Logically, they must have become that way during the event, qualifying them to be proxied. (Assuming it wasn't due to negligence on the player's part.)

Michael, I see a couple problems with your proposed wording.
1) most players don't show their foils to judges at the start of an event, to prove that they're starting the day out un-warped; that's actually a good thing, because judges don't really have the bandwidth to examine every deck with foils in it. This is also true of alters - many, many alters are shown to judges in burgundy shirts, prior to every GP (esp. Legacy format), and that eats up a lot of our time - but far more are never shown to a judge, at least not until an opponent questions it (and then it may be ruled inadmissible, which is … awkward). Some players also want us to check their foils and/or sleeves - and it's a rather pointless exercise, since our answer can change every time you handle your deck. Again, most don't ask - and that's the key point, here; your wording requires, or at least rewards, a new behavior - one that's not necessarily an improvement, overall;
2) it's not just foils that become warped due to player handling during an event. I once had an issue in the Top 8 of a premier event, where a player had such an aggressive shuffling technique that his entire main deck was warped - rendering his sideboard useless, unless he could either un-warp his main deck cards, or bend his sideboard to match exactly. (He couldn't do either, and thus wasn't able to sideboard effectively.)

But even beyond those concerns, I still believe that it's a player's responsibility to:

• make sure their deck matches their list
  
• make sure they have opaque sleeves (or checklist cards)
  
• make sure none of their cards and/or sleeves are, or become, marked
  

All of this can be addressed well in advance of the event, and that last point can be verified between matches or even games. I'll note that my expectations are not only quite reasonable, but all of them are fairly simple responsibilities; I don't feel that I'm being tyrannical in those expectations, at all.

As Isaac said, it's not our place to second-guess another judge's ruling. I will, however, point out that - as you explained it - I agree with Abe's interpretation of the IPG (and MTR). I will also be quick to point out, this absolutely varies from case to case, and even from game to game, varies by weather conditions, varies by shuffling techniques, etc., etc.

I do extend my sympathies, Michael, because you did all of those things that I demand(heh), but conditions changed during play and that cost you. I encounter a lot of players who aren't as diligent as you were, and it's a shame that your diligence wasn't successful - but I believe that policy, as worded, is correct.
(I am, however, sharing this thread with the Policy team, so they can consider possible improvements in the wording.)

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Michael, I see a couple problems with your proposed wording.
1) most players don't show their foils to judges at the start of an event, to prove that they're starting the day out un-warped; that's actually a good thing, because judges don't really have the bandwidth to examine every deck with foils in it. This is also true of alters - many, many alters are shown to judges in burgundy shirts, prior to every GP (esp. Legacy format), and that eats up a lot of our time - but far more are never shown to a judge, at least not until an opponent questions it (and then it may be ruled inadmissible, which is … awkward). Some players also want us to check their foils and/or sleeves - and it's a rather pointless exercise, since our answer can change every time you handle your deck. Again, most don't ask - and that's the key point, here; your wording requires, or at least rewards, a new behavior - one that's not necessarily an improvement, overall;
2) it's not just foils that become warped due to player handling during an event. I once had an issue in the Top 8 of a premier event, where a player had such an aggressive shuffling technique that his entire main deck was warped - rendering his sideboard useless, unless he could either un-warp his main deck cards, or bend his sideboard to match exactly. (He couldn't do either, and thus wasn't able to sideboard effectively.)

But even beyond those concerns, I still believe that it's a player's responsibility to:

• make sure their deck matches their list
  
• make sure they have opaque sleeves (or checklist cards)
  
• make sure none of their cards and/or sleeves are, or become, marked
  

All of this can be addressed well in advance of the event, and that last point can be verified between matches or even games. I'll note that my expectations are not only quite reasonable, but all of them are fairly simple responsibilities; I don't feel that I'm being tyrannical in those expectations, at all.

As Isaac said, it's not our place to second-guess another judge's ruling. I will, however, point out that - as you explained it - I agree with Abe's interpretation of the IPG (and MTR). I will also be quick to point out, this absolutely varies from case to case, and even from game to game, varies by weather conditions, varies by shuffling techniques, etc., etc.

I do extend my sympathies, Michael, because you did all of those things that I demand(heh), but conditions changed during play and that cost you. I encounter a lot of players who aren't as diligent as you were, and it's a shame that your diligence wasn't successful - but I believe that policy, as worded, is correct.
(I am, however, sharing this thread with the Policy team, so they can consider possible improvements in the wording.)

d:^D

Thanks for kicking it up. I just feel like when all your listed conditions are met, a player shouldn't have to go buy replacement cards–we should have a way to issue proxies, not be penalizing proactive players.