Is a warning here really warranted? I mean absolutely no action of their game has been taken. A simple caution and some talking to would work. Good customer service and the player would most likely be thankful.

Like when you get pulled over for going 7 miles over the speed limit, technically it's wrong but everyone ‘ knows ’ there's a10 mile gap. Then the cop just asks you to show down, you end up saying ‘ thanks ’ and going about your day knowing the cops aren't all asses.

I would just advise him to reshuffle using a different pattern, as everyone else suggested, talk to the other judges so they are aware. If he continues to do this then actual ‘ penalties ’ can (re:should) be given. But as is. .. a caution would do.

Edited Darren Horve (July 3, 2014 12:25:21 PM)

Everything is pretty much said already and I agree with TE-IS if shuffling their own deck and LEC if shuffling their opponents deck this way although hopefully we caught this before they managed to switch decks. Also thanking the spectator is a good point since if spectators know we welcome their input it's easier for them to notify us in the future too.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

It's a warning here really warranted? I mean absolutely no action of their game has been taken. A simple caution and some talking to would work. Good customer service and the player would most likely be thankful.

Like when you get pulled over for going 7 miles over the speed limit, technically it's wrong but everyone ‘ knows ’ there's a10 mile gap. Then the cop just asks you to show down, you end up saying ‘ thanks ’ and going about your day knowing the cops aren't all asses.

I would just advise him to reshuffle using a different pattern, as everyone else suggested, talk to the other judges so they are aware. If he continues to do this then actual ‘ penalties ’ can (re:should) be given. But as is. .. a caution would do.

This is a competitive event and as such should be treated that way. This action warrants a warning penalty and should be recorded as such otherwise we get to the situation of random judgements for the same infraction.

Personally, I am never very likely to downgrade an infraction that only
carries a Warning in the first place. As long as the player listens to our
instructions to change their shuffling pattern, then the Warning will not
impact them in any way. If they don't, then there may be upgrade
implications…however, in that case, they chose not to follow our
instructions and thus they get to live with the consequences.

A Warning just has so little direct impact on the player if they are
cognizant of it that I see very little reason to downgrade one. Is it
better customer service? Technically, sure, but all we're doing from a
customer service standpoint by downgrading to a Caution is allowing the
player to make the same mistake again later without having their penalty
upgraded. I don't know about you, but I don't really think that's a
“service” I am willing to extend to a player. They broke a rule,
unintentionally and/or without realizing it was illegal, so they get the
prescribed penalty for the infraction. What purpose does a downgrade
really serve here?

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

It's a warning here really warranted? I mean absolutely no action of their game has been taken. A simple caution and some talking to would work. Good customer service and the player would most likely be thankful.

If such downgrades would be intended I think there would be a note in the IPG because a lot of Improper Shuffling happens at the start of a match. We should only deviate from the IPG in corner cases with good reason. I don't think this is a corner case so we should keep the penalty of the IPG to ensure consistent rulings.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Like when you get pulled over for going 7 miles over the speed limit, technically it's wrong but everyone ' knows ' there's a10 mile gap. Then the cop just asks you to show down, you end up saying ' thanks ' and going about your day knowing the cops aren't all asses.

The point is, that there is no “10mile gap” (aka optional downgrade) in the IPG and like Justin already mentioned the warning shouldn't have a lot of impact on th eplyer unless he ignores your tips.

On 02/07/2014 20:03, Scott Marshall wrote:
>
> derf… forgot to add: Pile shuffling is a valuable tool when counting
> to 60 (or 40). I believe I will continue to recommend “a combination
> of riffle, mash, and pile shuffling”.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/69495/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10960/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10960/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
Agree Uncle Scott :)

Graham

Originally posted by Graham Theobalds:

On 02/07/2014 15:54, Joaquín Pérez wrote:
>
> As long as after all the shuffling the deck is pseudo-randomized when
> it's presented to his opponent, I don't see any problem on that :)
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/69424/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10960/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/10960/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
I think that is the point it is not. He has not used different types of
shuffling methods and by looking at the cards when shuffling at least
some of them are known to him. The deck is not randomized so we would
penalise accordingly.

Graham

Oh, thank you, I didn't understand well :) In that case, TE-Insufficient Shuffling, Warning, and education on how to shuffle properly. I don't know how to tell that in English, but you know, you make piles (usually six or five), so you can verify you have 60 cards (or whatever quantity according to format and your deck), and then a normal shuffling, so “lower” cards possibly known don't end up in the same “low” positions. Just randomize everything and it's fine :)

Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:

you make piles (usually six or five), so you can verify you have 60 cards

We call that “pile shuffle”,
and as Uncle Scott has said,
it's a good way to check that your deck is complete
(not missing any card, or having extra cards)

Before reading others: I would give him warning for TE-IS and instruct him, that one riffle after facing deck up-side-down is not enough because you know then what cards are on the bottom of library therefore it's not shuffled sufficient. If he want to keep his deck straight, he can do that before or after match, but in pre-game procedure he need to riffle cards faced down.

Originally posted by Markus Dietrich:

I would explain him that his shuffle method can be used for cheating,

I wouldn't do that. It send some weird message in my opinion like “That's what cheaters do, so I think you are a cheater even if I'm not saying it to you in face”.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

Markus Dietrich
I would explain him that his shuffle method can be used for cheating,

I wouldn't do that. It send some weird message in my opinion like “That's what cheaters do, so I think you are a cheater even if I'm not saying it to you in face”.

Of course you have to be careful how you say that. The next part about not thinking he does it to cheat still belongs to the things I would tell him. I think it is good to tell someone who “always does something this way” why we don't want him to use his standard procedure. Otherwise he might do it again at the next tournament because he didn't understand why he shouldn't do it.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Is a warning here really warranted?

Well… the player did present his deck to the opponent after he shuffled it.

I've read the OP and there is a crucial piece of information missing - We watched the player shuffle correct? Once towards himself, once away from himself. And then repeat process a few more times.

The question I have is - where was the player looking when he was doing this? Was he watching his deck? Was he looking at his opponent? Staring up at the ceiling?

First and foremost, if he's not looking at his deck - he's not seeing the deck positioning.

NOW, lets look at the way he is shuffling - once TOWARDS himself and THEN away. If he DID know a position of his deck because he was looking at it, his next shuffle (the one away from himself) has changed that and it is no longer ‘known’.

My point is that, this is an easy enough fix that doesn't need to be a thing. I've seen this situation at IQs and such and a simple fix to it was that the player shuffled differently. A simple caution was all that was needed.

That being said and all, if the situation were a bit different I would say something else - for example if it were specifically stated that we observed him watching his deck while shuffling and that he was shuffling in the opposite order. I could, then, see an argument for TE-IS. But as it is written, I don't see it.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

First and foremost, if he's not looking at his deck - he's not seeing the deck positioning.

This part I might buy, but all it takes is a glance out of the corner of your eye to recognize a card by art.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

NOW, lets look at the way he is shuffling - once TOWARDS himself and THEN away. If he DID know a position of his deck because he was looking at it, his next shuffle (the one away from himself) has changed that and it is no longer 'known'.

Try it out. If you see the bottom card and then cut and shuffle face down or away from you, you can probably tell where that card went just based on feel, without looking at your hands at all.

By that logic, when in a 60 card format playing 4-ofs you can generally say a particular card is in a specific section of the deck and be right. Try it out….

But that seems to be splitting hairs. We can go back and forth saying ways one could potentially know the placement of their cards, but it will get us off the point.

Additionally, in COMP REL and higher isn't the final shuffle from the opponent? I mean MTR 3.9 states that players are required to shuffle their opponent's deck after the owner has.

So, once that is complete the deck is randomized and any potential for the owner to ‘know’ where a card is has been removed from the equation.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

By that logic, when in a 60 card format playing 4-ofs you can generally say a particular card is in a specific section of the deck and be right. Try it out….

There's a pretty significant difference between knowing that the bottom card is X and knowing that your 4 copies of X are randomly distributed throughout you deck. In fact, the difference is that one of these things is illegal, and the other is exactly how you're supposed to shuffle.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

But that seems to be splitting hairs. We can go back and forth saying ways one could potentially know the placement of their cards, but it will get us off the point.

I agree.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Additionally, in COMP REL and higher isn't the final shuffle from the opponent? I mean MTR 3.9 states that players are required to shuffle their opponent's deck after the owner has.

This is correct. In fact, the Philosophy section of the IPG for Insufficient Shuffling calls this out as a reason why the penalty is a Warning, not a Game Loss. The fact that both players are responsible for shuffling the deck does not mean that failing to shuffle it is not an infraction. The IPG specifically states that it is an infraction to present a deck that is not completely randomized, as defined later in the section. I suspect that the people who write the IPG are aware that the opponent is then required to shuffle the deck, however they chose to make this an infraction anyway.

IPG
A player unintentionally fails to sufficiently shuffle his or her deck or portion of his or her deck before presenting it to his or her opponent.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

So, once that is complete the deck is randomized and any potential for the owner to 'know' where a card is has been removed from the equation.

If and only if the opponent does truly and sufficiently shuffle the deck. Many players do not, and (presumably for this reason) the IPG places the burden of actually randomizing a deck on the deck's owner. The IPG does not say that a player can't be able to identify the exact location of a card after the opponent's shuffle, merely that they can't “know the position or distribution of one or more cards in his or her deck”.