Greetings my fellow Magic Judges! Today I am bringing you this wonderfully crafted Silver Knowledge Pool Scenario! As a reminder, this is for moderately difficult IPG scenarios aimed at Level 1 judges seeking to gain a better understanding of the IPG. If you are a Level 2 judge or higher, please wait until Friday, May 9th before adding to the discussion to allow the Level 1s ample time to see the scenario and weigh in with their assessment of the situation!

Good luck and have fun!

Drake The Type Of Card That Darkslick Shores - SILVER

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1060

In a Modern PTQ you are head judging, your Deck Checks Team Lead brings you a decklist. At the bottom of the lands there is an entry of “4 Darkslick”. You confirm that there are only two cards legal in Modern with Darkslick in the name: Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake. She believes that the player intended Darkslick Shores because it is with the lands and not likely to be Darkslick Drake. The decklist is otherwise legal.

What do you do? What infraction, penalty, and fix does this situation require, if any?

In this KP scenario we have a D/DP - Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist. The prescribed penalty for this error is a Game Loss. However the IPG states: “The Head Judge may downgrade the penalty for an ambiguous name or obvious clerical error if they believe that the error could not be used to gain an advantage in the tournament.” As the HJ in this scenario I would downgrade this penalty. It wasn't too hard to do a quick Gatherer search to confirm that there are only 2 cards could realistically be represented by “Darkslick”, and Darkslick Drake is not a card that I would see a player trying to sneak in somehow, therefor I don't see the player gaining any advantage over having the ambiguous term.

That stated, I would still deck check this player (hopefully in round 1 or 2) and I would have a talk with them that I am choosing to downgrade the penalty, but other judges may not have choosen to do so and that they should ALWAYS write out the full name of every card in their deck.

D/DP - GL, downgraded to Warning.

As above: D/DP, Warning. Additional remedy: Targetted deck check for this player to ensure which “Darkslick” is being played.

Since the decklist contains a ambiguous/unclear name and there are multiple cards with similar names we have a Deck/Decklist Problem. Its the players responsibility to write the whole card name into his/her decklist so there is no possibility to gain any unfair advantage.

To fix the situation I would perform a deck check on the player and look which of the two cards is really inside the deck. The decklist will be altered to reflect the played deck, since we consider the cards in his deck to be the cards he wants to play. I would also talk to the player and remind him that he needs to write down the whole card name on his deck list, especially at a event with such a huge potential card pool to build your deck.

Now comes the tricky part: Penalty. The usual penalty für D/DP is a Game Loss. The IPG does give the Head Judge the option to downgrade the penalty to a Warning if the error could not be used to gain any advantage in the tournament. Since Darkslick Shore is a U/B Land and Darkslick Drake is a blue creature, there is a possibility that both cards can be played in the players deck, asuming he has the option to generate blue mana with other lands (if he only has Swamps in his deck and no other option to genereate blue mana then Darkslick Shore we can rule out gaining any advantage). It might be easy and doesnt take much time to narrow down the two possible cards, but with the possibility that both cards are playable (if the player has sufficient mana resources, and there are“worse” cards printed then Darkslick Drake) I would stick with the Game Loss. Its a close call and i do understand that other judges might have a different opinion here (you can even call me meticulous :-) ) but i wouln't downgrade here.

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

At the bottom of the lands there is an entry of “4 Darkslick”. You confirm that there are only two cards legal in Modern with Darkslick in the name: Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake. She believes that the player intended Darkslick Shores because it is with the lands and not likely to be Darkslick Drake. The decklist is otherwise legal.

Nicholas Brown hit the nail on the head, and the fact that “Darkslick” is listed with the lands (and thus presumably away from other cards) emphasizes the lack of ambiguity.

This is a pretty basic deck/decklist and target for a deck check. I'm somewhat curious how many people would catch that on a a glance through the deck list but we're assuming we caught it, so, good job us.

The big question here is the downgrade and the definition of "could be used to gain an advantage“. I'd want to take a fairly broad definition of that sentence here. Adding four Darkslick Drakes to your sideboard in a deck with blue mana could be used to gain an advantage. It might be a small one, but the option remains. I don't want to have to go through the deck to find out if it is a Recursion, Pod, or some other strange new combination. However, Darkslick Shores is commonly played in modern and Darkslike Drake isn't.

Taking Toby Elliot's post as an extrapolation point. If Scavenging Ooze wouldn't be consider Game Loss worthy when stating ”Scavenging", even with Scavenging Scarab in the format, I'm inclined to be flexible here and just go with the warning.

Clearly we have a Deck/Decklist Problem here - the player's decklist includes a line which could refer to either of two cards, both of which are legal in the format. We're definitely going to be issuing the D/DLP infraction, the question is whether or not we can downgrade. Under old rules, the answer would be “no,” but here, at our discretion, we can downgrade if we think it's clear which one the player meant and there's no possibility for advantage.

A few pieces of information help us make the decision - first off, the “Darkslick” is written “with the lands.” If the player has clearly represented all of his or her other spells above his or her other lands, then this makes it much easier to downgrade.

My awareness of the format suggests that the Drake isn't played, but I think it wouldn't hurt to do a quick internet search to see if there are any decklists that have received any recognition running the card. A cursory google search reveals no such list.

Bearing these factors in mind, I'm ready to downgrade this penalty provided the card being played is Darkslick Shores, not Darkslick Drake. I'd instruct my team to deckcheck this player at the start of the next round, and educated him or her about the need for clarity in the decklist and the game loss that he or she barely dodged. Then I'd get to work on breaking the modern metagame with Darkslick Drake.

I'm also of the view that a downgrade is warranted here. The card is *overwhelmingly* likely to be a Darkslick Shores. We know it, the player knows it, so it's hard to argue that there is any advantage gained. The player needs to be educated, and a targeted deck check is in order, of course.

Originally posted by Steve Guillerm:

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:At the bottom of the lands there is an entry of “4 Darkslick”. You confirm that there are only two cards legal in Modern with Darkslick in the name: Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake. She believes that the player intended Darkslick Shores because it is with the lands and not likely to be Darkslick Drake. The decklist is otherwise legal.

Nicholas Brown hit the nail on the head, and the fact that “Darkslick” is listed with the lands (and thus presumably away from other cards) emphasizes the lack of ambiguity.

I would like to point out that eventhough it IS presumable that the listed “Darkslick” is the land because of its location within the list and the like items therein, we must follow Reagan's advice - “Trust, but verify”.

As such, I would check his deck as early as possible and most likely downgrade the penalty as most of us have already agreed.

Before reading other answers:

I suspect that this scenario is meant to test the newly updated deck/decklist rule. This rule allows the judge a downgrade path for minor clerical errors that a player couldn't take advantage of.

I don't think that applies in this case. While Darkslick Drake might not be very competitive in the current metagame, it is on-color, and the ability to swap out lands for a creature could be taken advantage of. This player has a Deck/Decklist problem, and will receive a game loss in their current match. The decklist will be fixed to match whatever is actually in the deck.

Double-checking the IPG:

The IPG's wording is “ambiguous name or obvious clerical error if they believe that the error could not be used to gain an advantage in the tournament”. This issue pretty much hinges on the subjective call of whether a player could gain advantage from the ambiguity in naming Darkslick Shores vs. Darkslick Drake. In my opinion, since Darkslick Drake isn't obviously a ‘would never see play at all in this deck’ card, this potential exists.

After reading other responses:

Most other responders chose to go with the downgrade. Assuming the player meant Darkslick Shores (a reasonable assumption), writing ‘darkslick’ at the bottom of lands instead of ‘darkslick shores’ is a fairly obvious clerical error. The question is - can a player gain advantage of this error?

This depends on other portions of the decklist - could a player cast the Drake, or otherwise make use of a 4-mana 2/4 flyer? Is there a good reason in the format to be able to side out nonbasic lands? While Drake might not see regular competitive play, a player intentionally using ambiguity to take advantage has only a limited palette to choose from. My opinion remains - unless a player obviously cannot take advantage of a card (wrong colors, card is completely junk, etc.), it's not eligible for the ‘cannot take advantage’ downgrade.

Hey everybody! Sorry about the late post on this.

We had a lot of great answers this week! Thank you again for all of the discussion you put in on this topic and check back later today for the next Knowledge Pool Scenario! And now on to the solution!!!

Judges gonna judge! Do you believe this was a clerical error or could it be used to gain an advantage? We strongly feel that this is a clerical error and should be downgraded to a warning, assuming that the player does indeed have 4 Darkslick Shores in his deck. Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake are the only legal cards in the format with “Darkslick” in the name and the “Darkslick” was listed at the bottom of the other lands in the deck. You should have your deck check team lead or the swooping judge explain the error to the player and educate them that they need to make sure that they write down the entire name of the card to avoid ambiguity and a situation that in the future might not be as clear and could result in a Game Loss. Lastly, make sure to edit the deck list to match what the player is playing.

This downgrade has been available to head judges in the past, but the recent small change to D/DLP has made it more clear for head judges that it is acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to downgrade in this kind of situation. It was a simple mistake and was not intentional by the player with the aim of gaining an advantage.

So just one clarification for myself:

Most of the judges feel a downgrade is appropiate here because of the circumstance that the card is listed at the bottom with the other lands and the potential for gaining an advantace is less likely. But i also feel like there is a possibility for inconsistency here, depending on the point of view there might be judges who would rule different. From the exact wording in the IPG is it intented to be like this (one judge could see a potential advantage while others doesnt see one)?

Of course, in the end its the players responisbility to write the whole card name at the decklist to prevent a infraction (and hoping that he/she only gets a warning).

While it's true that different judges can reach a different conclusion re: potential for strategic advantage, your final point really overrides any concerns we have about that. Yes, we want consistency - it's fairer for the players, and avoids suspicion of judge bias - but it's the player's mistake that puts them at risk of “suffering” this possible inconsistency.

d:^D

Thank you very much for the answer :-)