Adam provided wrong derived informations here. First thing I would ask why.

If I judge nothing shady is going on then this is a TE-CPV -> Warning to Adam

Then my second question would be addressed to Nate: “were you going to concede due to that supposedly 8/8 doing 8 damage?” (remember they didn't scoop, he just offered an handshake that's not “finalized” yet).

So I would rule: play on (you are in declare blockers step, Omenspeaker just died due to SBA and Adam has priority).

EDIT: I also see a lurking GRV here as communicating Omenspeaker stats Adam either is trying to cheat or brain farted resolving Polymorphous Rush. BTW you will have two infractions and one warning and still nothing to backup. And no FTMGS for Nate either, as he stopped the action exactly on the error.

Edited Andrea Mondani (April 30, 2014 03:43:27 AM)

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

Adam provided wrong derived informations here.

What Derived information has been provided?

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Question to all: what CPV or GRV is there here?

When Adam says “You take 8” then something must be happening.
It's a CPV if Polymorphous Rush is still on the stack and unresolved; it's a GRV if the spell is resolved and we're going to count (or we have already counted) the combat damage.

On a side note, I'd like to thank who pointed out the difference between “conceding” and “admitting defeat”, but nevertheless I'd like to understand better how to deal with a player who loses the game (conceding, or not) with a corrupted or misinterpreted game state, assuming that such game state is still available on the table.
This was the main goal of the scenario I tried to create :rolleyes:

“This is now a copy of my Heroes' Bane until end of turn, do you take 8?”

Since Nate cannot take 8 just because and he's only unblocked creature is a copy of an 8/8 (sadly for the copy that's a 0/0 with 8 counters) one can start asking “what was that 8 in your sentence?”.

He either believe he has an 8/8 (and would say so) or trying to convey that message (and would say so). Either way, he was misrepresenting derived informations. Worst case he was just cheating knowing he can't do this. Best case he thinks he can (but still cannot). Or he just doesn't have a clue, wich is fine and a GRV would be added.

(edit for grammar)

Edited Andrea Mondani (April 30, 2014 03:55:12 AM)

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

“This is now a copy of my Heroes' Bane until end of turn, do you take 8?”

Since Nate cannot take 8 just because and he's only unblocked creature is a copy of an 8/8 (sadly for the copy that's a 0/0 with 8 counters) one can start asking “what was that 8 in your sentence?”.

He either believe he has an 8/8 (and would say so) or trying to convey that message (and would say so). Either way, he was misrepresenting derived informations. Worst case he was just cheating knowing he can't do this. Best case he thinks he can (but still cannot). Or he just doesn't have a clue, wich is fine and a GRV would be added.

(edit for grammar)

The damage taken later during the combat phase is not derived information and Adam while implying derived information hasn't made a statement about any derived information.

My reading of this situation is Adam is saying what is happening during the resolution of the spell and then making statement/enquiry about the future game state non of which is a grv or cpv

There is no question that Nate has conceded.

From the description: “Nate says that Omenspeaker has no +1/+1 counters and should die as the copy of a 0/0 creature without dealing combat damage, so Adam somehow tricked him into concession with his game error.”

I know that a lot of judges have a sense of what's right and sporting, and I feel like some people are using that to try to reverse-engineer the situation so as to allow for the possibility that he did not concede. But he did.

Now, if anyone wants to back up the concession and talk about CPV or cheating or other errors, those are great talks. But the scenario is 100% clear that there was a concession.

Eric Shukan
Woburn, MA

Edited Eric Shukan (April 30, 2014 05:48:20 AM)

AP: *turns stack of Soldier tokens sideways*
AP: Take 12?
NAP: I guess.
NAP: *adjusts life total*
AP: Ha ha, tricked you, it's only 11. Judge!

What do you do? What if it wasn't a trick but an honest mistake? What if NAP was at 12 life?

Stating NAP will be taking 12 damage - fine

Allowing NAP to take 12 damage when only 11 - not fine

Originally posted by Eric Shukan:

Now, if anyone wants to back up the concession and talk about CPV or cheating or other errors, those are great talks. But the scenario is 100% clear that there was a concession.

Yep, I presented the scenario as a concession and the thread title is clear enough to confirm it.

However Nate is conceding because the game state is mistaken and/or misinterpreted: must I, as a Judge, validate that concession and take the final result? If I investigate the situation, do I have other options available? If so, only if that the board state is unaltered or easily reconstructable, are these options allowed even if the game is / was considered closed at some point?

Would your answers be different if he had simply acknowledged the loss instead of saying “I concede” or other similar words?

Edited Stefano Ferrari (April 30, 2014 07:10:20 AM)

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

Then my second question would be addressed to Nate: “were you going to concede due to that supposedly 8/8 doing 8 damage?” (remember they didn't scoop, he just offered an handshake that's not “finalized” yet).

I was going to s correct you on this, but I did a quick double check and I see that the words “scoops” have been struck out.

SO, with this being new information - I would update my previous post and say that until someone actually makes a move destroys the current game, he had not conceded. I have seen many people say that they are going to lose, but stuck it out in order to ‘see what happens’.

I should note, though, I would seriously be considering how it went down -

Nate says “You got it” and extends hand, they shake, they release shake, they pick up cards, Nate realizes his mistake - I would say that it was a concession.
Nate says “You got it” and extends hand, they shake and while shaking Nate looks at the board and realizes the mistake - I would still have to say that it was a concession.
Nate says “You got it” and extends hand and while in the process, realizes there is something wrong - No, no concession.

What I would like to avoid is the scenario where Nate says “You got it”, no handshake offered, no move to ‘scoop’, and then Adam (thinking that it was a concession) picks up his cards and Nate goes “Oh, cool - you conceeded”.

While all the rules of MTG do not cover this, the fact is that a handshake closes a deal.

As an aside: A VERY similar scenario happened at a GPT I judged at a few weeks ago (it involved Poison Counters, but still the end result was the same).

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

the fact is that a handshake closes a deal

Many players decline the handshake, for whatever reasons; does that mean they can't concede?

This scenario is actually rather neat & clean, and might have made a great Knowledge Pool scenario. (Shameless hype for one of my favorite projects!)

Too often, subtle differences complicate things. Nate says “wow, that's game, huh?”, Adam starts scooping up his cards; Nate then realizes he isn't dead and says so - but Adam's already scooped, thinking Nate conceded. Sadly, cases like that do NOT make for a good Knowledge Pool scenario, as the “answer” can only be “you had to be there” (i.e., investigate, determine what you believe really happened, and judge accordingly).

Just to confirm, Eric Shukan is spot-on in his assessment; Nate has conceded, and the match is over. He's also right that there's room for investigation.

As presented, Adam did not cheat; Gareth Tanner nailed that. Predictions about a future game state have always been an acceptable bluff. (Note that “always” is a period of time roughly equivalent to the length of my ever-shrinking memory…) If Adam really presented it in such a carefully-worded manner - “Do you take 8?” - then he clearly wasn't making a statement about derived information, just setting up a trap for Nate (which Nate then jumped into, head first).

But, subtle differences in wording are critical here, and that's why investigation is definitely appropriate. Keep in mind that it's probably critical in such a situation to separate the two ASAP, to get their version of the story; those stories tend to morph as they're told & re-told, especially when other versions of the story are heard and realization sets in that “OMG I might be in trouble here”.

Here's a very subtle shift that (a) should result in a DQ, but (b) might sound an awful lot like the original scenario after one or two re-tellings:
Adam “…is now a copy of…”
Nate “oh, so I take 8?”
Adam “yep!”
Nate “OK, concede. <scoops> … hey, wait!”
Talking to Adam, he relates that he meant “yes, you would take 8, but…” - and wiggles further and further away from that fine line he was walking. Talking to Nate, he becomes more & more convinced that Adam was absolutely clear in saying “you WILL take 8 and be dead and lose the game and the match”… well, you get the idea.

Thank you, Stefano, for starting this - fun, educational discussion!

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Darren Horve
the fact is that a handshake closes a deal

Many players decline the handshake, for whatever reasons; does that mean they can't concede?

Absolutely!

But seriously, my point was that when discussing an outcome, a deal, or what have you - if a handshake is offered and accepted, as a man (non-gender specific), its done.

Edited Darren Horve (April 30, 2014 12:14:36 PM)

I'm sorry for necro'ing this thread..
(Btw, is there any limit to how long a dormant thread is considered “locked” and shouldn't be replied to? I couldn't find it in the Protocol)

but I was referred to this thread when reading http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/9844
And something is confusing for me..

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If Adam really presented it in such a carefully-worded manner - “Do you take 8?” - then he clearly wasn't making a statement about derived information

why is that not considered as stating a false derived information?
“Do you take 8?” is inferring that he's dealing 8 damage, which is a wrong derived information.

Is it because the sentence didn't state explicitly about “damage” or “combat damage”, so 8 could be anything.. Thus it's not considered a statement about derived information??

Originally posted by Maykel .:

why is that not considered as stating a false derived information?
“Do you take 8?” is inferring that he's dealing 8 damage, which is a wrong derived information.

Is it because the sentence didn't state explicitly about “damage” or “combat damage”, so 8 could be anything.. Thus it's not considered a statement about derived information??

A statement like that is going to matter in context, which could depend a lot when the statement is made as well as the game state. Let alone what the player has actually said. That's the point of the rest of Scott's comment. There's a fine line here, and the nature of the communication could vary between the different types specified in policy, let alone be on the somewhat fuzzy and grey line that separates the different types.

I feel the point here to really get from Scott's post is “Predictions about a future game state have always been an acceptable bluff.” because, in the context in which the statement is made, the players aren't currently in the combat damage step. The statement is made just after resolving Polymorphous Rush, with Adam representing what could happen in the combat damage step. (Especially given that Adam is playing fast and may be presuming Nate isn't going to do anything else before damage.) That's what makes the statement an acceptable bluff. Because of that context.

Sometimes “Do you take 8?” is a valid statement. Other times it won't be. Understanding the context in which the statement is presented is the important underlying takeaway, in my opinion.

Also, I created the mentioned thread because of what I was hearing other judges took away from this thread. They interpreted that; if a concession is made, the game is over no matter what. (GRV, CPV, etc.) I felt that they totally missed the point.

This game was over because the player conceded due to a bluff (which is allowed). However, had he conceded or lost the game to do an actual infraction, a rewind is definitely on the table. Ultimately, a concession is a game action. Like all other game actions, if it is preceded by an illegal action, we see what we can do.

Brian said it best:

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Sometimes “Do you take 8?” is a valid statement. Other times it won't be. Understanding the context in which the statement is presented is the important underlying takeaway, in my opinion

This guy is smart!

Edited Bret Siakel (May 19, 2014 04:12:10 PM)