Originally posted by Adam Höstman:This is most definitely not Cheating. I'm disappointed that anyone might reach that conclusion.
all intentional violations of the tournament rules fall under the provision of Cheating
Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:Is it? If you do a Deck Check and discover that a player has shuffled a token into their deck, is that a TE-Deck Problem?
By the rules this is TE-Deck Problem
Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:I agree with this - the root issue is that the player probably believes they're doing the right thing, and had no idea that they needed to jump through this particular hoop every time. I think Jonathan is getting at something that I really want to stress, here: the important thing is that the player is probably trying to comply with policy.
The issue here is that a player is using proxies that were allowed in the last tournament they played in, because the Head Judge for that tournament issued them.
Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:We no longer have generalized phrasing for “fails to follow a direct instruction”; it was too widely applied, and we needed to be more specific. That example in the IPG now reads “A player fails to follow the request of a tournament official to leave the play area.”
would it be reasonable to start applying USC Minor if they do the same thing next tournament with full knowledge that they should have spoken to the HJ?
Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:*DING* Winner!!!
I think it falls under the nonexistent Tournament Error - Miscellaneous infraction with player education as a remedy.
Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:and that perfectly sums up my thoughts on this!
No need to overthink this IMHO.
Originally posted by Brock Ullom:What advantage could this player have gained by using old proxies instead of getting new ones from this event's HJ?
I would issue a penalty in this scenario.
Originally posted by John Carter:
I'll note that at the Star City Open in Dallas a month ago, a few players brought up Nexus proxies from either previous Opens or GPs. So this isn't just an LGS or region thing.
Edited Adam Höstman (March 15, 2019 06:57:07 PM)
A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents…
Additionally… The player must be attempting to gain advantage from their action. and The player must be aware that they are doing something illegal.
Originally posted by Eli Meyer:
What'd the infraction (if any) and remedy?
MTR 190121
3.4 Proxy Cards
A proxy card is used during competition to represent an otherwise legal Magic card or checklist card that can no
longer be included in a deck without the deck being marked. For a proxy to be issued, the card it is replacing must
meet at least one of the following criteria:
• 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.
• The card is a foil card for which no non-foil printing exists.
Players may not create their own proxies; they may only be created by the Head Judge who has sole discretion as
to whether the creation of a proxy is appropriate. When a judge creates a proxy, it is included in the player’s deck
and must be denoted as a proxy in a clear and conspicuous manner. The original card is kept nearby during the
match and replaces the proxy while in a public zone as long as it is recognizable. A proxy is valid only for the
duration of the tournament in which it was originally issued.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:This is most definitely not Cheating. I'm disappointed that anyone might reach that conclusion.
all intentional violations of the tournament rules fall under the provision of Cheating
Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:Is it? If you do a Deck Check and discover that a player has shuffled a token into their deck, is that a TE-Deck Problem?
By the rules this is TE-Deck Problem
Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:I agree with this - the root issue is that the player probably believes they're doing the right thing, and had no idea that they needed to jump through this particular hoop every time. I think Jonathan is getting at something that I really want to stress, here: the important thing is that the player is probably trying to comply with policy.
The issue here is that a player is using proxies that were allowed in the last tournament they played in, because the Head Judge for that tournament issued them.
Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:We no longer have generalized phrasing for “fails to follow a direct instruction”; it was too widely applied, and we needed to be more specific. That example in the IPG now reads “A player fails to follow the request of a tournament official to leave the play area.”
would it be reasonable to start applying USC Minor if they do the same thing next tournament with full knowledge that they should have spoken to the HJ?
Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:*DING* Winner!!!
I think it falls under the nonexistent Tournament Error - Miscellaneous infraction with player education as a remedy.
Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:and that perfectly sums up my thoughts on this!
No need to overthink this IMHO.
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
Is it? If you do a Deck Check and discover that a player has shuffled a token into their deck, is that a TE-Deck Problem?
Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:
Assuming they know they're breaking MTR 3.4, I can't see any advantage to even try to gain from not asking the HJ for new proxies. So it can't be cheating.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.