Originally posted by Pi Fisher:

I agree with John Trout that the HJ will have to decide if this falls under “some infractions that have a higher probability for a player to gain advantage.” I would not feel comfortable giving out more than GPE-GRV Warning to Nissa without doing an investigation and involving the HJ.

For the purposes of Knowledge Pool, assume that you are the HJ and assume no Cheating. What would you need to know in order to give something other than a Warning, and what infraction would that be?

Originally posted by Chase Culpon:

Sebastian, to your point–if improperly resolving Xathrid Necromancer's trigger or Fleshmad Steed's trigger caused irreversible damage to the game state, I would give out a GRV.

Does the definition of GPE-GRV depend on the amount of damage done to the game state? That is, should whether or not something is a GRV be dictated by the impact the error has on the game (according to the IPG)?

It's important not to lose the forest for the trees. Judges are there to improve the quality of the event. In an imaginary world where there's a judge at every match and issuing penalties for every infraction, we're giving out a LOT of penalties, and being more of a nuisance than an aid. If I'm standing next to a match where an infraction technically occurs, but the players are able to quickly fix it effectively, there's no need for me to step in and “be that guy.”

The world where a player calls a judge for his opponent dropping a zombie token on the board before he's responded to the Xathrid Necromancer trigger or tapped his Fleshmad Steed before the trigger's correctly played just isn't this one. Those players would fix it themselves, because the fix is obvious and there's no damage to the game state.

This scenario is bad feels all around. This is one of those calls that feels awful for the “victim” and for the judge.

Reading this knowledge tree scenario I am reminded of the exact same situation I came across last year at GP Sydney.

I initially gave the GRV-warning, and leaving the gamestate as is. It was appealed, and the warning was upgraded to a game loss as it turned into an error the opponent cannot verify the legality of.

Way late here, but without reading much of the posts I'd be going for an investigation for USC - Major (Cheating) and, assuming that I find that Nissa to not have done this intentionally somehow (something that I find myself doubting in this particular scenario, but whatever) and that Ajani was indeed not given any time to respond, I'd give Nissa a GPE - GRV with the associated… upgraded warning into a game loss due to high potential for abuse.

Ajani did nothing wrong and receives no penalties.

Originally posted by Benjamin Bandelow:

Way late here, but without reading much of the posts I'd be going for an investigation for USC - Major (Cheating) and, assuming that I find that Nissa to not have done this intentionally somehow (something that I find myself doubting in this particular scenario, but whatever) and that Ajani was indeed not given any time to respond, I'd give Nissa a GPE - GRV with the associated… upgraded warning into a game loss due to high potential for abuse.

Ajani did nothing wrong and receives no penalties.

Do we get to upgrade just for high potential of abuse?

Originally posted by Alan Peng:

It was appealed, and the warning was upgraded to a game loss as it turned into an error the opponent cannot verify the legality of.

I'm not a fan of that, to be honest. It's like forcing the Game Loss and trying to find an infraction for it, that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Alan Peng:

Reading this knowledge tree scenario I am reminded of the exact same situation I came across last year at GP Sydney.

I initially gave the GRV-warning, and leaving the gamestate as is. It was appealed, and the warning was upgraded to a game loss as it turned into an error the opponent cannot verify the legality of.

I'm really curious about this. Until now I thought the upgrade mentioned in the IPG is for everything that was Failure to Reveal before and is only applicable if there is any hidden information in a position were it is not clearly identifiable. This does not seem to be the case here, because Emrakul enters the graveyard which is a open zone. Or was ‘Nissa’ to fast for ‘Ajani’ to even notice the Emrakul in that scenario?

I can't quite remember what the exact details were, but I'd assume it would have been hard to verify the number/types of cards that should have been in the graveyard before shuffling them in.

Additionally, this may create a situation where a player can quickly start shuffling their cards in and only get off with a warning (obligatory following an investigation, etc.), which has a higher potential for abuse. My opinion.

Upgrading the Warning here feels wrong. The penalties in the IPG are set to match the given mistake.

The mistake was resolving a Trigger w/o the Opponent passing priority. If there was no cheating involved, this should result in a warning.

Ajani´s Crypt Incursion in Hand has nothing to do with the Emrakul Trigger being resolved too fast, if you believe so, DQ Nissa for cheating.

Would you upgrade the penalty if Ajani just had a brainstorm and wanted to dig for an answer?

Remember that at any event, the HJ is the final word on any ruling and has the authority to supersede any official document. I saw it at GP Boston, and the situation Alan describes sounds like a similar thing: a place that policy doesn't touch. I see no policy support for an upgrade based on the situation presented, however.

Do you see policy support if Ajani never actually sees the Eldrazi before the shuffle?

Originally posted by Christopher Hickman:

Do you see policy support if Ajani never actually sees the Eldrazi before the shuffle?

That would clearly be failure to reveal part of GRV: “An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one. ” But this one seems to fall into an IPG gray zone since the card was seen but was resolved before the opponent could respond.

On 18/08/2014 00:23, Thomas Ludwig wrote:
>
> Upgrading the Warning here feels wrong. The penalties in the IPG are
> set to match the given mistake.
>
> The mistake was resolving a Trigger w/o the Opponent passing priority.
> If there was no cheating involved, this should result in a warning.
>
> Ajani´s Crypt Incursion in Hand has nothing to do with the Emrakul
> Trigger being resolved too fast, if you believe so, DQ Nissa for cheating.
>
> Would you upgrade the penalty if Ajani just had a brainstorm and
> wanted to dig for an answer?
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/76229/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11857/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11857/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>
After further thought on the matter I think you are right after all how
long does it take Ajani to say STOP. Obviously if he did and Nissa
ignored him that would be a different story. Investigate rule out
cheating issue a GRV warning to Nissa and explain to Nissa to be more
careful in future. Much as we feel an upgrade might be appropriate the
IPG does not appear to support that.


Graham

What if Ajani says “Why did you just shuffle your library into your graveyard?” and Nissa responds “because you milled an Emrakul” and Ajani says “I didn't see it”

Can we upgrade to game loss there?