Originally posted by Bret Siakel:

For me, it comes down to not playing word games with players and holding them both equally accountable. One of three outcomes occurs:

1. Players agreed on a shortcut of obvious target is the target - Ashton wants to break this shortcut, so we let Nick manually chose his target.
   
2. Ashton is playing gotcha magic by not naming a target, then expecting his opponent to be required to - GRV, rewind to before the illegal action.
   
3. Ashton did name a target, and Nick forgot/didn't know to change it on his on copy - Nothing to do here. Copy is countered upon resolution.
   

:D

Where would the "Ashton didn't name a target but did point Intuition at Nick shortly when casting it, just like one would point a Boros Charm at the opponent without saying anything" fall?

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 27, 2014 08:51:03 AM)

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

the default is not to change the target, so we
should not back up or issue any penalties.

Why do you consider this to be the “default”? Can you back it up with an applicable procedure or policy in case players do not mutually agree on such a shortcut?

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

the people who are trying to back this up and let nick get his hand held
just because they are annoyed that ashton's trick worked, you guys are
looking at judging all wrong. it's not your job to make sure everyone knew
all the rules and implications of their game actions before they made a
play that didn't work out. it's your job to make sure that the people who
DO know the rules and interactions better are able to use that to their
advantage, as it is in fact a desirable skill to test as mentioned in the
documents.

Neither is our job, in fact.
While you are right that we shouldn't play the game for somebody else, we do not make sure that somebody gains any kind of advantage from a better understanding of the rules. That advantage should be gained by that player himself within the game. If this happens to involve calling a judge, we will enforce the in-game advtange they gained though.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Where would the “Ashton didn't name a target but did point Intuition at Nick shortly when casting it, just like one would point a Boros Charm at the opponent without saying anything” fall?

Option 3. He indicated who the target is.

We aren't looking for signed affidavits from both players on each spell cast, just an indication of who is targeting what with what. Non verbal gestures are not perfect, but are acceptable.

A great deal has been said about this, but there's not a lot of NEW viewpoints being shared.

Also, the L4s are discussing this, as it does raise an interesting policy question. So far, the consensus is that Nick's intention is clear, he targeted {EDIT: his opponent}. Ashton should get a reminder not to be a jerk, and Nick's copy of Intuition should be allowed to resolve with Ashton as the “target opponent”.

So far, anyway… not all L4s have spoken up yet. When (if) we reach consensus, I'll re-open this thread for one final post.

Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 27, 2014 05:45:51 PM)