I understand what you say and I have my reasons to defend my decissión.
Some time ago I had a similar situation, although there was no such prize
on stake, and we discussed about it on the regional forums.

The law in Spain says that if there's no written agreement, and somebody
wants back something he's the rightful owner of, it should be given back to
him. We discussed about it with the advice of people who knew what where
they talking about (a pair of lawyers and another person preparing himself
to be a court judge), and the conclusion was that a player should give back
the borrowed cards if we stick to the law. If anybody remembers about it,
please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I don't think Albert is incurring into an UC. He's losing little
time just saying “hey, I want my cards back”, and although he's damaging
the enjoyment of the tournament, is the same as someone being totally mute
against his opponents everytime he's asked about derived information, just
lending the cards for the opponents to read it, answering a “count
yourself” anytime he's asked about a Tarmo P/T, etc. Being a dick and
trying to get any possible advantage in order to win is not nice nor
sporting, but as long as he doesn't break any rule, I don't see appropiate
to issue a penalty.


2014-07-28 18:45 GMT+02:00 Thomas Ludwig <

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

I would tell Albert that requesting the cards back right now, for the sole reason of forcing Nick to concede is not an acceptable behaviour. It´s an UC Minor (it disrupts the competetivness of the event as it disrupts the enjoyment of it). He recieves a warning and I will ask them to play.

I can see that Alberts's behaviour is not really nice, but does it really qualify for USC-Minor? His behaviour might be “disruptive”, but the real problem is a match that doesnt move on. There is a tournament running, and players are expected to play and not argue about legal ownership of cards. Claiming legal ownership of an item and the request to get it back shouldn't result in a penalty.

In my opinion, if one (or both) don't play, this should be considered Slow Play (or maybe even Stalling). Which cards legal belong to whom is one thing, but for the purpose of the tournament rule (CR 108.3) there is an owner of deck.

To put it bluntly, this is not our problem. Slow play/stalling, aggressive behaviour, etc… ARE our problem. So long as the situation doesn't develop into one of these, there's no need to get the IPG involved. Don't try to reverse engineer an infraction where there isn't one.

Having said that, in the efforts of providing a healthy gaming atmosphere, we may try to quickly mediate a mutually acceptable arrangement, but keeping the tournament running smoothly and safely is our priority.

At best, I will grant the alleged legal owner of the cards the time to call local law enforcement if he or she wishes to go that far. And after that, the match begins with an extension (if applicable) and if the police do show up mid-match, the match will obviously have to stop.

To those trying to fit this into UC penalties because it is “disruptive”… Would you issue UC-Minor to a player who has to use the restroom? That's disruptive to the tournament (requires an extension) and the opponent (who now has to wait to begin the match). My best advice would be to not read too much into the use of “disruptive” in the definition of UC penalties. A lot of actions can be disruptive, but not come anywhere close to meeting the standards for UC.

The main thing here is not the involvement of the law enforcement officers but how we pursue our goals for the tournament.

When this situation comes up there are only two outcomes: Either Nick returns the deck immediately or refuses to do so. If he returns then he has to forfeit the match as he is unable to replace the deck as we are in the middle of a game. If he doesn't, then we instruct the players to play. If Albert refuses, then he is assumed to have conceded the match.

If they play, they must do it in a timely a proper manner as they are still on the tournament so they need to follow the rules and regulations.

Under none circumstance we stop the tournament to wait for the police or any other law enforcement officers. This is a situation concerning property between two individuals, and as such is beyond our reach as judges or organized play representatives.

After they have finished the match they can solve this issue as they fell suitable, but that will be once the tournament is over

Edited Carlos Rada (July 28, 2014 01:44:29 PM)

Most replies have been around the legal nature of ownership, and whether any specific penalties apply.

From my view, there's a tournament integrity angle to this. The philosophy of the MTG and IPG are generally that tournaments test the skill of players playing Magic, and not anything else. Improperly Determining a Winner and Bribery are very bad things for this reason - we don't want to test who has the bigger bribery pool, we want to see who can play Magic the best.

Albert isn't asking for his cards back because he wants to go home, or build a new deck, or do anything else with the cards - he wants his cards back to deny them to his opponent. This is an advantage that no other player in the tournament has - the ability to force their opponent to drop. Albert didn't gain this advantage by being good at Magic, he gained this advantage by owning cards, and having a network of players he might lend decks to.

Depending on the laws of the country, Albert will probably be able to enforce the return of the deck. (Whether he could do so within a few minutes, or even within an hour, is a different matter. However, for tournament integrity, we should not encourage or assist this. In this specific scenario, I wouldn't give Albert any extra time to call the police to enforce the return. If he wishes to do this, he'll have to do it after the match - either after the match is decided through play, or Albert concedes or refuses to play.

Though, to be honest, the police thing is kind of a red herring. A reminder to Albert that we're here to play Magic, not “who's willing to call the cops on their friend” should be enough. Albert will have the choice of dropping the issue and playing out the match, or going scorched-earth by conceding the match, and enforcing his legal ownership of the cards, leaving Nick with about 1 hour to come up with a new deck or drop from the tournament.

I'm really wondering about how you can reliably determine the legal ownership of Magic cards. Any policeman will surely think they're two (or more) adults discussing like kids for coloured pieces of cardboard…

What if NAP replies “Hey, I don't know what he's talking about. These are my cards!!” or even “Look, don't want to seem rude, but that's really not your business, as MTR blahblah says, I'm the owner of the cards, regarding the tournament.”.

I agree with previous comments: there is not a lot we can do here, we're not allowed to force NAP to return the deck, and it's probably better this way. Players can call the police (directly or by TO means).

I am still not convinced that there is no UC - minor involved here.

Alberts goal is to win his match in a non competetive way, denying the opponent the option to play the game removes any competetivness and that is his intention, when he asks for his Cards.

Carlos Rada, I agree that “disruptive” is a loose term, but if someone destroys the competetivness of a match entirely, it has to be covered by this section, is there a way to disrupt the competetivness any more than by destroying it, am I missing something?

In this situation I would pretty quickly issue a UC - minor. This is clearly a disruptive act, and also the UC - minor description mentions and act that makes people uncomfortable. I would not issue such a penalty if the person needed to leave, since that has “good reason” for it. I wouldn't issue UC - minor for a bathroom break, more likely slow play or tardiness (or much more likely no penalty at all).

I think trying to force someone to not have a deck halfway through a match so that you can win makes me uncomfortable, and probably makes everyone else uncomfortable too. I wouldn't stop him from asking for the cards back, but it's pretty much the definition of “unsportsmanlike”.

If his opponent was willing to return the cards I would not allow more than a few minutes to replace them (and I know at the venues we do PTQs and GPTs at it would often be trivial to replace an entire standard deck), since I would deem it too disruptive otherwise. If his opponent is unwilling to return the cards I would ask him if he would still like to play and inform him that if he does not play he must concede.

I have no legal authority over the return of the cards, and this is certainly not a matter to call the police for in my opinion. My concern is that there be a result for the match, either because one player concedes to the other or because the match is finished naturally.

I guess maybe I am seeing this as a bit different then every one else. Albert is actually using coercion to win the match so he can go to the pro tour by forcing Nick to not have a legal deck to play with. Alberts actions are done deliberately to this end. You know that to be the case as they have played two games already and the third is going poorly for him. That is cheating. If I was the head judge I would confirm that he is serious about trying to get his deck back in the middle of g3 of the ptq finals. If he said yes I would dq him declare Nick the winner. Then begin filling out unfun paper work.

Andrew just made top 8 of the PTQ. The rest of the players in the car are not eager for a 4-hour drive home at midnight. They eventually say “Sorry, we're leaving without you unless you drop now.”

Jeremy, a 15-year old boy, is playing in his first event, and his mother comes by partway through and insists that he needs to leave. He doesn't want to, but she has other business to attend to and can't come back and pick him up later.

Natalie's been hanging around the GP all weekend, scrubbing out of the main event, playing various sides, and has just finished a draft when she gets an angry call from her boyfriend asking where she is. He shows up and pressure her to leave with him.

Paula discovers, partway through a WMCQ, that her ex is also playing in the event. Her ex has a restraining order against her, she is not allowed near him and cannot play in the event without also violating the order.

If we talk about giving a penalty to Albert, would you also give penalties to Andrew's friends, to Jeremy's mother, to Natalie's boyfriend, or Paula's ex? All of these scenarios are ones that are fundamentally interpersonal disputes that have nothing directly to do with the game, and aren't fundamentally our problem. In any of these scenarios, we may be forced to deal with disputes that arise simply to keep them from disrupting the tournament environment, but that doesn't mean that we should poke our noses in and get involved. The fact that there's physical property involved is a red herring: we're still dealing with a dispute that has only a tangential effect on the tournament. Stepping in to adjudicate these problems is asking for far, far more trouble than it's worth.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if the fourth scenario is realistic anywhere, if at all. But you get the point.

On 28/07/2014 22:47, Talin Salway wrote:
>
> Most replies have been around the legal nature of ownership, and
> whether any specific penalties apply.
>
> From my view, there's a tournament integrity angle to this. The
> philosophy of the MTG and IPG are generally that tournaments test the
> skill of players playing Magic, and not anything else. Improperly
> Determining a Winner and Bribery are very bad things for this reason -
> we don't want to test who has the bigger bribery pool, we want to see
> who can play Magic the best.
>
> Albert isn't asking for his cards back because he wants to go home, or
> build a new deck, or do anything else with the cards - he wants his
> cards back to deny them to his opponent. This is an advantage that no
> other player in the tournament has - the ability to force their
> opponent to drop. Albert didn't gain this advantage by being good at
> Magic, he gained this advantage by owning cards, and having a network
> of players he might lend decks to.
>
> Depending on the laws of the country, Albert will probably be able to
> enforce the return of the deck. (Whether he could do so within a few
> minutes, or even within an hour, is a different matter. However, for
> tournament integrity, we should not encourage or assist this. In this
> specific scenario, I wouldn't give Albert any extra time to call the
> police to enforce the return. If he wishes to do this, he'll have to
> do it after the match - either after the match is decided through
> play, or Albert concedes or refuses to play.
>
> Though, to be honest, the police thing is kind of a red herring. A
> reminder to Albert that we're here to play Magic, not “who's willing
> to call the cops on their friend” should be enough. Albert will have
> the choice of dropping the issue and playing out the match, or going
> scorched-earth by conceding the match, and enforcing his legal
> ownership of the cards, leaving Nick with about 1 hour to come up with
> a new deck or drop from the tournament.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/72999/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11452/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11452/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
I tend to agree with this standpoint and would want to know a pretty
good reason why he needs his cards now and cannot wait until the end of
the match. I sure he would not have one, other than to try to win the
match by default. However I also agree I am not going to get involved in
the legality of ownership. If Albert wants to enforce the law thats up
to him but since he is not allowed to use electronic devices he will
have to leave the table to do so and I would consider this to be
stalling as he is trying to use the time to his advantage. I would have
a chat with him away from the table and ask him has he thought of the
consequences of his actions. I would suggest the course of action he is
taking is likely to cause him to become isolated in his community. His
reputation would be shattered and he would feel like a leper at any
future events. Hopefully he would listen to reason and the situation can
be resolved without the need of involving outside forces.

Graham

Originally posted by Jasper König:

Albert and Nick are playing in a Pro Tour Qualifier. Albert lends a deck to Nick. They're both doing well in the tournament, and they happen to be paired against each other in the finals. In the third game of their match, Albert notices he'll most likely lose the game. Albert wants to go to the Pro Tour so badly, so he says “I want my deck back, right now!”. This happens during the game, so there's no chance of getting replacement cards.

Albert is clearly being a jerk now, but is this an infraction? What would you do if you were the headjudge of that PTQ?

In Luxembourg (probably France and Belgium to) the situation (as described) is easily solved:

We have no infraction against penal law in this example. Therefore the Police will not intervene.

Civil law is in charge of this situation. The result of the procedure will however take months and the outcome is uncertain. By law the holder of movable property is the owner until proven differently . (It is assumed that the bag you carry is yours, same goes for your Magic deck)

This is actually not a problem for the MTG judge in Luxembourg and I would therefore tell both players to play the match. If one of them refuses or the situation escalates (rude language, violence, bribery…) the appropriate sections of the IPG need to be used.

Best regards
Steve Hatto

Edited Steve Hatto (July 29, 2014 07:57:16 AM)

Nick and Todd have provided all the information I would need to make a ruling here.

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante.

MTR 2.4: “If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match.”

The tournament/game in progress does not care about who legally owns the cards. We have a legitimate game of Magic in progress. Whatever his reasons are, Albert has made a conscious decision to stop playing. I would instruct the players to continue the match. If either refuses I will assume they have conceded.

Perhaps I am over thinking this, but isn't Albert's behavior an attempt to Improperly Determine a Winner for his match? He is insisting his opponent, Nick, hand over his only means of participating in the last game of the match, which would effectively give Albert the win through a method other than playing a game of Magic. He is doing this by leveraging his legal ownership of the cards currently in Nick's possession, which is something not covered by the bounds of the game.

According to the IPG, 4.3 Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner is defined as “A player uses or offers to use a method that is not part of the current game (including actions not legal in the current game) to determine the outcome of a game or match.”

Am I missing something here? Actual legal ownership of the cards between these two players at this moment is not a Judge's concern; the integrity of the tournament is.

If Albert wants to drop from the event and ask for his cards back, that might be different, but the fact that he wants to remain in the event and force his opponent to be unable to complete their match via a method outside of the game seems to fit the definition of this infraction perfectly.