Originally posted by Jack Doyle:

Honest question here, do you not think that conveys a lack of confidence in your ruling? Personally, I reserve the option to appeal for when I can see the player is visibly bristling or clearly unhappy with the ruling (you know, greater than “I just got a game loss” or whatever).

I think a player asking “You're giving me an actual penalty for this?” could very easily meet your criteria of ‘clearly unhappy with the ruling’ (depending on tone, body language, etc)

That's fair, Lems. I had assumed Sean was responding to the original scenario, reading is hard. Even so, I feel like prefacing any part of your ruling or explanation with "you can appeal this, “ is shaky ground. Perhaps that's just a difference in player base/reactions between regions.

In addition to the above, I think explaining the philosophy behind a Warning (as Sean and Adam mentioned) is good practice; i.e. ”this is just something that we track to ensure proper play“, ”nothing bad will happen as long as this isn't repeated", something like that.

- Jack.
L2, London, UK.

Edited Jack Doyle (Jan. 7, 2014 01:50:09 AM)

“Yeah, it's a warning, but it's just a warning. If it happens a couple more times, then we start talking penalty. What if the scry caused your opponent to do something? Not doing it would have caused them to miss an opportunity to react. Thinking about the same kind of problem in reverse… lets say someone played Read the Bones and forgot to pay 2 life? To the game it's the same sort of thing. You really don't want them to keep doing it throughout the day, so we need to track these things. Same thing… But like I said, a warning isn't anything to worry about. If you don't keep making the same mistake, it won't hurt you.”

This discussion made me look in the dictionary for the definitions of “penalty”. Seems like there are more than one, and that it could open the door to some confusion that would need to be clarified…

I had noticed similar, actually considered that in my response, and tried to use it to pivot the situation from “talking about something bad happening to you” to “this is a good thing we do for you” without dismissing their concern.

This week, we discussed a scenario that highlighted that player education doesn't end with the rules. You also have opportunities to teach players more about policy and what it should mean to them.

To approach this sort of question, a judge must first understand a little policy philosophy - in particular regarding Warnings and GRVs this week. Fortunately, Toby has recently written a blog post on this very subject. I encourage everyone who hasn't already done so to go read it, but there are three main points I want to hit when talking to the players, and I would present them like this:

“You were required to Scry by your spell, and you didn't. That's a violation of the game rules, plain and simple. So, you get a Warning for a Game Rules Violation.
Warnings aren't actually a form of punishment. They don't count against you in any way unless you keep getting more of them today.
I'm mostly making things official so that you pay extra attention and remember what we talked about. I don't want you to keep resolving spells incorrectly, and I bet you'd rather remember that Scry anyway.”

Now, after this point I'm also going to be “rewinding” the untap step to have Nonplussed Scry correctly. And Ambivalent is going to get Failure to Maintain Game State. However, the focus for this Personal Tutor scenario is making sure both players understand what a Warning really is, and why they have no reason to be anxious.

We had a couple people bring up the right to appeal. My experience regarding such reminders is that when a player questions my ruling, it is usually because I have not explained it well enough. If, after I've given a little more detail, the player still seems dissatisfied, then I will tell them that they have the option to appeal or to come talk to me after the match. The overwhelming majority of the time, though, the player will be satisfied by a bit more detail.

Whenever you venture into the realm of explaining policy philosophy to players, you are taking on a tough job. This is a murky area even for many judges, and it is doubly so for players. However, this also makes being memorable, concise, and conversational even more valuable. I want to thank everyone who posted this week for the thought and effort they put into it, especially given the nature of the challenge.

Personal Tutor will be back next month to challenge you again to think about how you can utilize opportunities for education. If you have a topic or scenario that you feel would be a good fit for a Personal Tutor discussion, or if you would like to to join the Personal Tutor team, please contact me via forum message.