Sebastian, discovering the rules problem is part of the fun! This topic is
about communicating well with players, and that means I don't want to give
you information the players won't know they need to provide.

But, since you bring it up… is it worth mentioning to the players that
Nexus has Infect even though Melira makes all creatures lose Infect?

Like Aric pointed out earlier, Neurotoxin seems to be asking the question as if Inkmoth Nexus had infect. If his response to my “ask more specifically to make sure I understand” request backs that up then I'll assume he either already understands that part of the interaction or has landed on the correct result as a happy accident.

“Technically? Yes.”

I'd ask the player: “What do you exactly mean by ”will it still do damage“?”. That gives the player a chance to clarify his question to me. Then, if he won't do that (e.g. “Well, you know, just - will it deal damage? How don't you understand, silly judge?”), I'll tell that “Using formal definition of ”deal damage“ from Comprehensive Rules, it will deal damage”.

Is it possible/allowable to say something like “Walk me through what you think will happen.” and then tell him if that's really going to happen or not? (You could do that aside from the table if he asks.)

From the way the question was asked, specifically mentioning the inability to place -1/-1 counters, makes me think N is aware that Inkmoth Nexus does, in fact, still have Infect, so I'd let him walk me through the steps.

He'll probably say something like “Okay, so I block with the Nexus. Then, at damage, Melira does 2 to the Nexus and the Nexus does 1 to Melira. Melira can't get a -1/-1 counter, but afterward, I could…” and talk about some spell he has for postcombat that is relevant to creatures having been dealt damage (like… Crushing Pain?).

There are a few basic options available at Comp REL when a player asks a question using the wrong technical language:
1) Give an answer which is technically correct, but misleading (in this case, “Yes”).
2) Ask the player to reword the question and give hints until the player figures out the correct incantation to allow me to answer the intended question.
3) Directly answer the question which the player intended.

Which of these is the correct choice depends a lot on the specific situation. I think that #1 is very rarely appropriate - only if a player phrases the question very precisely, when there is no reasonable other way for me to interpret the question. #2 makes the most sense if the player is asking a very broad question, in which case I will try to help the player narrow down what he/she actually wants to know. If I can tell what the player wants to know, then #3 is usually the best choice.

In this case, everyone knows what the player is actually asking. Neurotoxin used the wrong phrase - “do damage” instead of “mark damage” - but I can still answer the intended question. I would say, “Technically, Inkmoth Nexus does deal damage, but that damage will have very little effect.”

I don't believe that hinting around the problem actually accomplishes anything, since I would have to continue until Neurotoxin catches the hints and phrases the incantation correctly. Choosing option #1 in this case seems unnecessarily punitive for a player's poor choice of words. Players should not expect that judges will trick them.

I think a lot of the responses here indicate concern for the player in a lopsided way. The opponent deserves equal concern.

Many judges have said that they would say “yes, but……” However, I feel that this is a disservice to the opponent. Anything after the “yes” is gratuitous, IMO, and compromises the opponent's interest in the matter. I.e., coaching.

If the player asks whether it will deal damage, you know exactly what the answer to that question is… “Yes”. If you continue with extra, you are doing it because you feel bad for him about what may happen based on his lack of understanding. And you should feel bad for him.

But, his lack of understanding is a testable skill check in competitive. And his opponent is entitled to an advantage if that guy screws it up.

So, for me, if i don't understand what he is asking, I may seek clarification but if I DO understand the question as asked, then I answer ONLY that.

My answer is “yes, It still deals damage”

Eric S.


On 10/04/13, Alex Zhed wrote:

I'd ask the player: ?What do you exactly mean by ?will it
still do damage???. That gives the player a chance to
clarify his question to me. Then, if he won't do that (e.g.
?Well, you know, just - will it deal damage? How don't you
understand, silly judge??), I'll tell that ?Using formal
definition of ?deal damage? from Comprehensive Rules, it
will deal
damage?.


???????????????????????????
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/417590/

Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/6280/
Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/6280/?onsite=yes

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

Originally posted by Michael Sell:

Is it possible/allowable to say something like “Walk me through what you think will happen.” and then tell him if that's really going to happen or not? (You could do that aside from the table if he asks.)

From the way the question was asked, specifically mentioning the inability to place -1/-1 counters, makes me think N is aware that Inkmoth Nexus does, in fact, still have Infect, so I'd let him walk me through the steps.

He'll probably say something like “Okay, so I block with the Nexus. Then, at damage, Melira does 2 to the Nexus and the Nexus does 1 to Melira. Melira can't get a -1/-1 counter, but afterward, I could…” and talk about some spell he has for postcombat that is relevant to creatures having been dealt damage (like… Crushing Pain?).

This is essentially why I don't find cause to elaborate any further than “Yes” - the problem seems both simple and largely irrelevant without other effects in play that matter for contextual reasons. I don't feel like we're misleading anyone by simply saying “Yes” here, as there's no apparent assumption being made as a result of the affirmative response.

To everyone who wants to just answer “Yes”, isn't that putting a bit of an unreasonable expectation on Neurotoxin? Ninety percent of the time, “dealing damage” and “marking damage” are synonymous in the parlance of the game, and it's very plausible, at least in my mind, that Neurotoxin meant “mark damage” in this scenario.

It seems to me that both simple answers, “Yes” or “No”, are likely going to guide Neurotoxin's decision, which will benefit one player over the other. “Yes” is technically correct, but so is “Yes, but…” which, as Eric argued, is likely going to be a coaching scenario as well. Isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid with regard to coaching the players?

To me the player has demonstrated more than enough knowledge about what is
happening that I'm not concerned about coaching here.

He asked if it would “do” damage. That's not a technical term - it could
mean ‘deal’ it could mean ‘mark’. Marking damage is not common verbiage
from Magic players as far as I know. We're at a Grand Prix so I'm
expecting an international audience. I'm not going to hold a native
English speaker to a higher standard than a non-native speaker.

So, my answer is: “It will *deal* damage, but the damage will have no
effect.”

I don't believe I'm violating any rights of the opponent here. N has done
exactly what I want him to do - realised that he doesn't understand exactly
what will happen when he blocks, and done his best to ask a rules question
that covers this, after all, MTR 1.8 says

“Judges will not generally assist players in determining the current game
state but can answer questions about the rules, interactions between cards,
or provide the OracleTM wordings of relevant cards.”

I'm answering a question about the interaction between Melira and Inkmoth,
nothing more.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk


On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Aric Parkinson <
forum-6280-ea6a@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> To everyone who wants to just answer “Yes”, isn't that putting a bit of
an unreasonable expectation on Neurotoxin? Ninety percent of the time,
“dealing damage” and “marking damage” are synonymous in the parlance of the
game, and it's very plausible, at least in my mind, that Neurotoxin meant
“mark damage” in this scenario.
>
> It seems to me that both simple answers, “Yes” or “No”, are likely going
to guide Neurotoxin's decision, which will benefit one player over the
other. “Yes” is technically correct, but so is “Yes, but…” which, as Eric
argued, is likely going to be a coaching scenario as well. Isn't that
exactly what we're trying to avoid with regard to coaching the players?
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/417589/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/6280/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/6280/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

——————————-
So, my answer is: “It will *deal* damage, but the damage will have no
effect.”
———————————-
I hope this doesn't lead him into thinking that damage triggers won't trigger. Sounds like it could. I'm not confident at all that this is ONLY an interaction between those two cards and not linked to something else - like possible triggers.

Also, it is very possible that he doesn't know what marked damage is at all. To him, dealing damage may be all there is. In fact, I'd say that that is likely, because if he knew what marking damage was, he may well have phrased his question differently.

And whether he knows that distinction - about dealt damage vs marked damage - is a type of skill check that we specifically have said is important. Superior rules knowledge IS tested.

The stated question was clear: does it do damage? Answering more than “yes” is, IMO, coaching, in that you are suggesting to him that more is going on than he thinks or understands. And if more IS going on than he thinks, then the fact that his LACK of rules knowledge will be his downfall is something we should embrace and allow.

“Does it do damage?” doesn't mean, with any reasonable probability, “Does it mark damage on it?” Even judges don't use that phrase that way. So, I don't see this as a communication issue. I see it as him having asked a clear but useless question.

Eric S.

————————
It seems to me that both simple answers, “Yes” or “No”, are likely going to guide Neurotoxin's decision, which will benefit one player over the other. “Yes” is technically correct, but so is “Yes, but.” which, as Eric argued, is likely going to be a coaching scenario as well. Isn't that exactly what we're trying to avoid with regard to coaching the players?
———————–

If “Yes” or “No” guides the players actions, that is ok, because he specifically asked for that information. Therefore, that info we expect to guide him, one way or the other.

If we put in the “….but…”, then WE are guiding his actions with stuff that we think he needs to know but didn't ask for.

-Eric S.

Originally posted by Michael Sell:

Is it possible/allowable to say something like “Walk me through what you think will happen.” and then tell him if that's really going to happen or not? (You could do that aside from the table if he asks.)

This is how I usually answer this kind of tricky question. This way, I only answer on a rules level (telling him if what he wants to do is allowed by the rules or not) without providing him any play suggestion. If he can't think by himself about some lines of play, this will not help him on that level.

While Eric raises really good points about the fact that customer service toward a player should never become customer disservice toward another, I really don't want to punish a player because he doesn't speak “judgese”. While his rules knowledge and his strategic skills are, his ability to speak technically correct Magic when interacting with judges is not one of the skills that is tested.

I also don't want to undermine players confidence in judges and make them reluctant to call us, which is a high risk if we answer him in a way that will “trick” him because he misinterpreted our answer.

Hence why I want to provide an answer that doesn't give any coaching and still doesn't trap the player because of his poor choice of words.

I'm wondering if opinions on this topic will neatly divide between the
Americans who are used to playing/judging in an environment where crystal
clear English is the norm, and the Europeans where ambiguous use of
imperfect English is the norm.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Given the choice of two evils, my official answer is “yes”, then to walk away slowly enough that the incorrect play is made and I can step back in. Left to my devices, my answer would be, “I'm sorry, I can't answer the question in that form,” and leave it at that. The coaching danger here is assuming that Neuro understands the distinction between dealing damage and marking damage, which he probably doesn't since he's asking the question in the first place.

I'm not buying into the choice of words argument. Magic is a game of many discrete concepts, and as long as you demonstrate some awareness of the concept then the language is much less relevant. “Will this do normal/regular damage?” would demonstrate a distinction between -1/-1 counters and marked damage, and I could correctly answer “No” and move on.