Originally posted by Scott Marshall:No, but if I discover while doing DC that player have 56 cards marker on their decklist and four tokens, then they presented 56 cards. In OP situation, player have 56 cards marked on their decklist and 4 “not-yet approved proxies”, basically, 56 cards and 4 cards that are not on their list.
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?
Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (March 15, 2019 07:46:54 PM)
Originally posted by Isaac King:
This isn't quite the same though- if we treat the proxies similar to tokens and just ignore them, the deck will only have 56 cards in it.
Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:Correct - I just wanted to see who was paying attention. :)
if I discover while doing DC that player have 56 cards marker on their decklist and four tokens, then they presented 56 cards
Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:This part, I don't agree; the fact these proxies are “not-yet approved” is a bit of a red herring (translated: an interesting but distracting fact that's not as relevant as it might seem). The fact that the player didn't seek approval of these proxies is the important point - and we've already covered that, above.
player have 56 cards marked on their decklist and 4 “not-yet approved proxies”, basically, 56 cards and 4 cards that are not on their list.
Edited Adam Höstman (March 16, 2019 05:35:16 PM)
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:Adam, this is very nearly the opposite of what we want judges to do.
While I agree that IPG 4.8 isn’t a good fit, I argue it’s the best fit at least as a first step that you have to go through and actively dismiss if your investigation turns up without support, before you move on to the other infractions.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:In that same GP where a player was DQ'd for intentionally using counterfeit cards, we handled a number of other instances of counterfeits. I recall one instance where it became immediately apparent that the player both had no idea he'd acquired fakes, and was horrified to discover it when his opponent noticed and called me. We gave him the opportunity to correct the problem - i.e., find replacements - with the option of replacing them with basic lands. That same approach was used for some of the other instances, when it was determined by talking with the player that they had no idea their cards weren't legal.
Will you allow a person with fake cards to replace those cards with the same cards? … should they all be replaced by basic lands?
Originally posted by IPG 3.1 Tardiness:This is the guiding principle for such a situation. Once we confirm an issue such as a fake card, we grant permission to the player to correct the issue. (A judge may assist in this process, if feasible, but it remains the player's responsibility to correct the problem.)
If … a player requests and receives permission from a judge for a delay for a legitimate task, such as … finding replacements for missing cards, that player has up to 10 minutes to perform that task before they are considered tardy
Edited Scott Marshall (March 16, 2019 05:55:19 PM)
Edited Johannes Wagner (March 16, 2019 07:22:23 PM)
Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:
Player - “Do I have too? I got those from a judge at my last event, I thought they are still fine”
-> No intent.
It's way less hassle to just allow those proxies. And way better customer service to NOT DQ the player for such things.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:This is not true; please review the latest updates to the policy documents.
The player might be new, and not know that rolling a die to determine a winner is prohibited; that player is still going to be Disqualified regardless of whether you think it is ‘fair’ or not.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:I won't disagree with this, but I am trying to explain why you're not correctly applying policy. This player is still complying with policy to the best of their knowledge. Do not “reverse engineer” - i.e., find reasons to apply the infraction you want to assess - but instead consider what's actually happened (or happening), and determine if there is an infraction. (In this case, there isn't.) If there is an infraction, assess the appropriate penalty (if any) and apply the remedy.
Judges are neutral arbiters and enforcers of policy and rules.
This is probably the single most important concept in the document.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
Judge - “Did you know these are proxies?” *looks at sharpied mountains*
Player - “Yes” (If they answer “No”… I don't what to think about that - lying to an official maybe?)
Judge - “Did you ask the HJ for this tournament to issue them for you today?”
Player - “No”
= Proven intent.
Originally posted by Jason Riendeau:Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
Judge - “Did you know these are proxies?” *looks at sharpied mountains*
Player - “Yes” (If they answer “No”… I don't what to think about that - lying to an official maybe?)
Judge - “Did you ask the HJ for this tournament to issue them for you today?”
Player - “No”
= Proven intent.
There's another requirement - “The player must be aware that they are doing something illegal.” (IPG 4.8 - USC Cheating). This is also true at Regular REL - “intentionally and knowingly breaking … rules” (JAR - Serious Problems).
In the quoted example, we have established that the player did something illegal (illegal proxies). Let's assume that the player did it on purpose to avoid the “grabbed wrong cards” corner case. The head judge doesn't ask the question “Why not?”. We have no idea whether the player knows that proxies need to be issued every event.
(spoilers: probably not - I've been judging for a decade, and the first time that I thought about proxies from a previous tournament was earlier this week)
Edited Adam Höstman (March 16, 2019 11:29:25 PM)
Originally posted by Daniel Ruffolo:
I'm just curious Adam, as an arbiter of the rules of the game, whose primary goal is the integrity of the event, which do you think is more disruptive to tournament integrity:
1/ You take the 4 legal proxies made for them by the judge of a previous event, duplicate them exactly only with today's date on them, and they continue playing.
2/ You disqualify the player, removing them from the tournament in the middle of a round, because their deck was 100% legal potentially as few as 6 or 12 hours ago, and would be rendered legal identically by 10 seconds of work by the head judge.
I understand the issue you take with the strict letter of authorized cards including that a proxy is only legal for the event in which it was created. But if you consider the -intent- of the rules around proxies, especially as regards premium-only treatments, why do you seem so unwilling to consider, in a judging system where we actually have quite a lot of explicit leeway to determine how to rule given the particulars of the situation, that somebody who had 4 proxies made of a marked premium-only card in a tournament last week could have decided they could save the head judge some hassle by just continuing to use the judge-issued proxies they already had?
Why do you want to assume malicious rather than completely considerate and generous intent on the part of the player?
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
The problem here is where do we draw the line what knowledge the players are assumed to have.
The IPG supports that players should have knowledge about some information, and will be penalized for not complying this.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
My point being, is that they should know that if they use proxy the head judge of this tournament have to issue them for them to be “legal” (MTR 3.3) and that they are only valid for this tournament (MTR 3.4)
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
If the policy guidelines says that its enough to DQ a player if they knew they played with fakes. The same holds true for proxies because both fakes and proxies are unauthorized cards.
Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
But the problem is MTR 3.3 is a HARD rule with little leniency.
Edited Johannes Wagner (March 17, 2019 12:05:51 AM)
Originally posted by Julio Sosa:Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
The problem here is where do we draw the line what knowledge the players are assumed to have.
The IPG supports that players should have knowledge about some information, and will be penalized for not complying this.
If you are referring to “Players are expected to know the game’s rules and be familiar with the policies and procedures, but unintentional errors are not punished severely” from the definition of Competitive REL per the MTR, expectations are a very different thing from assumptions. We expect that players are familiar with the rules and policies involved, but we don't take it for a fact.Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
My point being, is that they should know that if they use proxy the head judge of this tournament have to issue them for them to be “legal” (MTR 3.3) and that they are only valid for this tournament (MTR 3.4)
They are expected to know that, not required to know that. If we assume that all players in a given event know every single comp REL policy, then why do we have the “ must be aware that they are doing something illegal” clause in Cheating? We should DQ right away based on the assumption that they know their Competitive REL things.
Originally posted by Julio Sosa:I answered this situation in my longer post. Please refer to it i wrote multiple situations where an advantage could be gained and proved without a doubt that awareness was there.Originally posted by Adam Höstman:
If the policy guidelines says that its enough to DQ a player if they knew they played with fakes. The same holds true for proxies because both fakes and proxies are unauthorized cards.
And I would like to take this quote from one of you previous posts and give it an interesting twist.
We might DQ that player because they might probably know that they cannot use counterfeits, and use them anyways because they don't own the real cards and are needed on the deck. So we have a rules-break (not using real Magic Cards), intention of getting advantage of it (not owning the real cards and playing them anyways), and awareness (they knew they couldn't use counterfeits). In this case we have a rules-break (playing proxies that were not authorized for the event), but do we have the other two? If they have the physical copies of Nexus of Fate, which is the advantage gained for not playing them?
Edited Adam Höstman (March 17, 2019 12:33:26 AM)