A couple articles came out this morning on SCG, one in Select and one in Premium, which both talked about how judges are handling the new trigger rules with regard to OOOS in real life. A couple quotes from the articles:

From “No Pressure” by Todd Anderson - http://www.starcitygames.com/article/25385_No-Pressure.html

“…When he was about to move to combat, he realized that he had missed the trigger on his Champion of the Parish and tried to add it. I immediately said that he had already played his land and had passed the point where it was acceptable to put the counter on his creature.

While the head judge disagreed with me and ruled it as ”out of order sequencing,“ I don't think what I did was wrong in any way…”

From “Dispelling the Myths about Missed Trigger Policy” by Jason Flatford - http://www.starcitygames.com/article/25384_Dispelling-The-Myths-About-Missed-Trigger-Policy.html

“A high profile player was playing against Pyromancer Ascension. The opponent cast a Gitaxian Probe and waited for a response. The player said “OK” and laid out her hand to resolve Gitaxian Probe. After drawing a card for the Probe, the opponent ticked up the counter on Pyromancer Ascension.

Although this is technically incorrect per the Infraction Procedure Guide, it falls into the realm of Out of Order Sequencing…”

From MTR, Oct 2012 version, page 22, section 4.3, paragraphs 3, 4:

“An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

…Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time. In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.”

I have other anecdotal evidence I can bring in here, but since none of that is written publicly it's basically all hearsay beyond these three points here. Now, here's the problem:

1) In Todd's example, we have a player taking an action (playing a land) which can only be taken when the stack is empty, while he was floating an action of the stack (the Champion of the Parish trigger). Either he played the land illegally (and should get a warning for GRV) or he used OOOS to retroactively take an action that he missed at the appropriate time. The former is prohibited by CR, the latter is prohibited by MTR (from the quote posted above).

2) In Jason's article, the player cast Gitaxian Probe, drew a card, and then put the counter on Pyromancer Ascension. Before I continue, let me quote the Oracle of Pyro Ascension:

From Gatherer (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=197891):

Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell that has the same name as a card in your graveyard, you may put a quest counter on Pyromancer Ascension.

The first point I would like to make is that the trigger was passed and, as a “may” trigger with a default action, the default action should have been assumed and the game should not have been rewound at all; this is without referencing the new missed trigger rules, it's simply according to the rules for “may” triggers with default actions that have always existed.

3) Continuing from point 3, in Jason's article, the player drew a card then went to put a counter on Pyro Ascension. Drawing a card, I believe, is considered “gaining information”, which is expressly prohibited by the section of MTR that I quoted above, and yet the situation was allowed to be treated under OOOS.

Alright, now that the background is out of the way, a few questions:

1) Can we define “substantial” in terms of “substantial pause” in the MTR definition quoted above?

2) Can we define “gaining information” in terms of the MTR definition quoted above?

3) Can we define “appropriate time” as used in the MTR quote above?

4) Since these two situations above are very clearly (to me, at least, based on the MTR quote above) deviations from the words of MTR, and they were high-profile enough to have been quoted in SCG articles, it seems that perhaps we should retool the trigger rules to make more sense. A deviation once in a while is fine, but when we have 2 unrelated examples in 2 different articles posted on the same day both at high-level events, perhaps there are too many deviations happening. If there are too many deviations happening, that says to me that either high-level judges (who HJ these events) do not know how to apply this rule properly, or they do not care how to apply this rule properly. What can we do about this?

Thoughts? Comments? What have I gotten wrong here?

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 21, 2012 01:13:15 PM)

One word … err, one URL:
Toby's blog

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

1) Can we define “substantial” in terms of “substantial pause” in the MTR definition quoted above?

2) Can we define “gaining information” in terms of the MTR definition quoted above?

3) Can we define “appropriate time” as used in the MTR quote above?

Here's an exercise for anyone who's trying to define terms… Propose an actual definition. One that can be readily grasped by both the player and judge community. One that makes sense and is enforceable. One that can be adopted locally and internationally, in 6 or more different languages.

Here's another exercise to consider before starting to propose specifics… Think about why there might not be an actual definition to these terms or phrases. Certainly those could be there already. We could absolutely state that a “substantial pause is X or more seconds after a game action has taken place”. We could even define a specific phrase that players must use to indicate they've passed priority. Why don't we?

Perhaps it is that a definition isn't necessary when you're given the opportunity to investigate and apply judgment to make a ruling? Or let alone determine what has happened, when the story you may get is only one perspective and therefore has a certain bias. (Note: I am not using “bias” in the perjorative. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that an individual's perspective can often filter certain pieces of information, or heighten others.)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Since these two situations above are very clearly (to me, at least, based on the MTR quote above) deviations from the words of MTR, and they were high-profile enough to have been quoted in SCG articles, it seems that perhaps we should retool the trigger rules to make more sense. A deviation once in a while is fine, but when we have 2 unrelated examples in 2 different articles posted on the same day both at high-level events, perhaps there are too many deviations happening. If there are too many deviations happening, that says to me that either high-level judges (who HJ these events) do not know how to apply this rule properly, or they do not care how to apply this rule properly. What can we do about this?

I always dislike trying to analyze rulings after the fact. For one, we're not privvy to both sides of the story. And yes, there are at least two “versions” of events from the perspective of either player, and even what the judge perceives as either player having said during the “investigation”. For another, it's easy to make an arm chair ruling after the fact when you have infinite time to review the MIPG/MTR and can reflect on the specific definitio. For a third, it's easy to confuse a “deviation” with a “difference in judgment” and even a “you had to be there.”

Those are things that come to the top of my mind about why we should instead seek an opinion from the judge in question, or even discuss the rule or policy itself, rather than about a specific ruling. Simply because specific rulings are just that: rulings that are specific to a situation. Some situations, on the surface, may appear exactly the same. Others may not. Without knowing precisely either situation, it then becomes a judgment call as to whether a policy or concept applies. Did the player genuinely miss the trigger? That's a question that often gets lost in the entire narrative of “But he didn't do X!” or “But he did Y, before doing X!” Does OOOS apply? That also gets lost in the narrative of “Well he did Y, then X, so that's okay.” Perhaps the deeper question people should ask is why these policies exist or apply, and how we might apply them for a better experience for both parties. (Or even educate players and other judges that they exist and how they might apply.)

It's tempting to look at a ruling and say “That's just wrong!” without knowing all the facts, or even being in that situation yourself. It's even more tempting to say “But the book says this!” and overlook that we're all human and applying the book is as much about what the books says as it is about your judgment in that situation. (That may seem a hand waive of rulings others make, but sometimes it is better to avoid criticizing what you feel is a bad ruling and rather reflect on why the ruling may have been made that way and what you don't know about the situation that made that ruling the “most appropriate.”)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

One word … err, one URL:
Toby's blog

Sure. That article sounds a lot like backpedalling, though. Reading that article, it sounded to me like the message was “We wrote this rule, but sorry guys we screwed up big, so here's what we actually meant, let's do this instead so the player base doesn't throttle us”. Points in that blog entry directly contradict points made in MTR (the same points I made above in the OP); if the rule was meant the way he wrote it in his blog, why didn't he put it in MTR to begin with?

Brian Schenck
Here's an exercise for anyone who's trying to define terms… Propose an actual definition. One that can be readily grasped by both the player and judge community. One that makes sense and is enforceable. One that can be adopted locally and internationally, in 6 or more different languages.

Alright, since you challenged me, here's whay I would say:

Lyle Waldman
1) Can we define “substantial” in terms of “substantial pause” in the MTR definition quoted above?

A “substantial” game action is any game action. Anything that modifies the board state, causes a game object to enter or be removed from the stack, a change of phase or step, or a stated intent to do one of the above, by Active Player. Any of those is “substantial”.

2) Can we define “gaining information” in terms of the MTR definition quoted above?

Information is gained if AP has looked at the contents of any zone hidden to him (NAP's hand, his deck, NAP's deck, any cards NAP has face-down, etc), or if AP has put an object on the stack and passed priority to NAP (it does not require NAP passing back).

3) Can we define “appropriate time” as used in the MTR quote above?

Simply, the appropriate time to take a game action is at the point at which MODO would ask for the game action to be made. A bit more concretely, a game action should be taken when the object the action is taken on is resolving (in the case of on-resolution choices) or being put on the stack (in the case of on-announcement choices).

These definitions are the ones which I think make the most sense based on the words written in MTR. They could be redefined based on Toby's blog, but honestly the stuff Toby wrote makes no sense to me in conjunction with the wording of MTR; they contradict each other too much to work in tandem, imo.

Apologies for the double post, forgot to reply to this section:

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I always dislike trying to analyze rulings after the fact. For one, we're not privvy to both sides of the story. And yes, there are at least two “versions” of events from the perspective of either player, and even what the judge perceives as either player having said during the “investigation”. For another, it's easy to make an arm chair ruling after the fact when you have infinite time to review the MIPG/MTR and can reflect on the specific definitio. For a third, it's easy to confuse a “deviation” with a “difference in judgment” and even a “you had to be there.”

Those are things that come to the top of my mind about why we should instead seek an opinion from the judge in question, or even discuss the rule or policy itself, rather than about a specific ruling. Simply because specific rulings are just that: rulings that are specific to a situation. Some situations, on the surface, may appear exactly the same. Others may not. Without knowing precisely either situation, it then becomes a judgment call as to whether a policy or concept applies. Did the player genuinely miss the trigger? That's a question that often gets lost in the entire narrative of “But he didn't do X!” or “But he did Y, before doing X!” Does OOOS apply? That also gets lost in the narrative of “Well he did Y, then X, so that's okay.” Perhaps the deeper question people should ask is why these policies exist or apply, and how we might apply them for a better experience for both parties. (Or even educate players and other judges that they exist and how they might apply.)

Not sure what your point is here. A deviation is a deviation, regardless of why the rule was deviated from. My point was not that deviations are bad and we should never do them; honestly I respect judges of higher level than me, and in my (limited) experience with deviations I've found them to normally be done on sound footing.

The point I was trying to make was that there seems to be a lot of deviating going on concerning the trigger rules with respect to OOOS. When a lot of deviating happens, that raises a red flag in my mind; in particular, I have to ask myself (and the community) “why do we have rules if we don't follow them?” Of course, once in a while a deviation is appropriate, but when it becomes frequent perhaps there is something at the base of the rule that is being deviated from that is causing the deviations.

It's tempting to look at a ruling and say “That's just wrong!” without knowing all the facts, or even being in that situation yourself. It's even more tempting to say “But the book says this!” and overlook that we're all human and applying the book is as much about what the books says as it is about your judgment in that situation. (That may seem a hand waive of rulings others make, but sometimes it is better to avoid criticizing what you feel is a bad ruling and rather reflect on why the ruling may have been made that way and what you don't know about the situation that made that ruling the “most appropriate.”)

If applying the book is as much about the wording of the book as it is about my judgment, why do we have a book? Why don't we simply use our own judgment? The reason we have a book, I believe, is so that we can apply the rules consistently and different peoples' judgments won't affect the outcome of a situation; we're all human, and we will judge the same situation in different ways without a book to guide us. In particular, we should try to deviate as little as possible from the book so that we can apply the rules with consistency. If we all start deviating in different ways, then the player base does not know what the rules are. This is why I have a problem with wide-spread deviation (although lot me reiterate that deviation, in moderation, is fine).

First, I think characterizing Toby's article as “back peddling” overlooks that he state these concepts in the earlier article that introduced the new policy…

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/09/17/missed-triggers-2/

…and that nothing suggested a very “technical” approach to enforcing the policy itself. That's been a consequence of application by judges regarding the new policy, but was never the intent. The core question has always been (and should always be), “Did the player actually commit the infraction by forgetting the trigger?”

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Alright, since you challenged me…

Actually, it was a general “challenge” in the sense that people should think about the things they think are necessary in policy. Not just whether it is actually necessary, but how it would make sense as a policy and would be enforced.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

A “substantial” game action is any game action. Anything that modifies the board state, causes a game object to enter or be removed from the stack, a change of phase or step, or a stated intent to do one of the above, by Active Player. Any of those is “substantial”.

You do realize this would entirely invalidate the OOOS concept? That is, as soon as an object left the stack in the wrong order, there's a “substantial game action” per your definition. I activate Arcbound Ravager, sacrifice an artifact, put +1/+1 counter on Ravager, and point out you lose 1 life from Disciple of the Vault, even if I do it just that quickly and in one breath?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Information is gained if AP has looked at the contents of any zone hidden to him (NAP's hand, his deck, NAP's deck, any cards NAP has face-down, etc), or if AP has put an object on the stack and passed priority to NAP (it does not require NAP passing back).

That's not an entirely unreasonable definition, but isn't that largely self evident from the phrase itself? Or, does it recognize that even a simple pass in priority without someone doing anything results in information gain? Because if I have Prodigal Pyromancer on the battlefield, knowing whether you might or might not activate the ability could be relevant when it comes to Champion of the Parish.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Simply, the appropriate time to take a game action is at the point at which MODO would ask for the game action to be made. A bit more concretely, a game action should be taken when the object the action is taken on is resolving (in the case of on-resolution choices) or being put on the stack (in the case of on-announcement choices).

And what if a person doesn't play MODO? Or even play MODO-like Magic? Because there's a lot more people who don't play MODO at all, but play paper Magic in a “perfectly acceptable” manner. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most people never even notice or care that they do things in the wrong order.

My point is that this general approach becomes a rabbit hole of more and more concerns. Especially when the underlying problem is about player communication: Some people communicate very specifically and clearly, some people communicate a bit sloppily, some can't communicate at all (i.e., language barriers). and others would like to withhold communication in order to obfuscate the situation (legally or illegally).

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The point I was trying to make was that there seems to be a lot of deviating going on concerning the trigger rules with respect to OOOS. When a lot of deviating happens, that raises a red flag in my mind; in particular, I have to ask myself (and the community) “why do we have rules if we don't follow them?” Of course, once in a while a deviation is appropriate, but when it becomes frequent perhaps there is something at the base of the rule that is being deviated from that is causing the deviations.

I think “a lot of the deviating” that occurs when relayed in some of these articles is either pretty unique circumstances where it probably should have occurred, or we're missing some of the story that was the reason for the “deviation” and there really wasn't any deviation. Again, that is my point about assessing situations after the fact: We don't have enough information to conclude anything about the ruling. I'm not saying that X player who says Y happened is misrepresenting things, just that he or she is only presenting one aspect of the scenario. We don't have the other player's perspective, nor even the judge's perspective.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

If applying the book is as much about the wording of the book as it is about my judgment, why do we have a book? Why don't we simply use our own judgment? The reason we have a book, I believe, is so that we can apply the rules consistently and different peoples' judgments won't affect the outcome of a situation; we're all human, and we will judge the same situation in different ways without a book to guide us. In particular, we should try to deviate as little as possible from the book so that we can apply the rules with consistency. If we all start deviating in different ways, then the player base does not know what the rules are. This is why I have a problem with wide-spread deviation (although lot me reiterate that deviation, in moderation, is fine).

Certainly, consistency is a very desirable goal. We want player expectations to be the same at the majority of CompREL experiences they go to. But, even the MIPG itself allows for deviations as necessary. Whether specifically the result of situations where a downgrade is required (as a “card in unique position to be identified” when a card isn't revealed and should be), or where a downgrade is at the Head Judge's discretion (as with Deck/Decklist problems). The point about the Missed Trigger policy is that it needs to make sense in context. The context being “Did the player actually miss the trigger?” not “Did the player somehow do X wrong, where X is the most technical thing he should have done?”

That is where you need to apply judgment in assessing if the infraction even took place at all.

Consider this, if Missed Trigger policy somehow “supercedes” OOOS, why doesn't the normal Game Rule Violation do the same? If that's the case, should every player who miscasts Fireball receive a Warning?

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 21, 2012 02:19:23 PM)

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Lyle Waldman
A “substantial” game action is any game action. Anything that modifies the board state, causes a game object to enter or be removed from the stack, a change of phase or step, or a stated intent to do one of the above, by Active Player. Any of those is “substantial”.

You do realize this would entirely invalidate the OOOS concept? That is, as soon as an object left the stack in the wrong order, there's a “substantial game action” per your definition. I activate Arcbound Ravager, sacrifice an artifact, put +1/+1 counter on Ravager, and point out you lose 1 life from Disciple of the Vault, even if I do it just that quickly and in one breath?

Correct. Hence (one of the many reasons) why I think the rule as written in MTR is stupid. However, applying the rule isn't up to whether I think it's stupid or not, it's about applying the rule as written in MTR. If I was to apply the rule as written, then yes, your statement is correct. The rule as written (as opposed to Toby's notes on it) does not allow for any form of OOOS in trigger application; in fact, it expressly forbids OOOS, as I quoted in the OP.

Lyle Waldman
Information is gained if AP has looked at the contents of any zone hidden to him (NAP's hand, his deck, NAP's deck, any cards NAP has face-down, etc), or if AP has put an object on the stack and passed priority to NAP (it does not require NAP passing back).

That's not an entirely unreasonable definition, but isn't that largely self evident from the phrase itself? Or, does it recognize that even a simple pass in priority without someone doing anything results in information gain? Because if I have Prodigal Pyromancer on the battlefield, knowing whether you might or might not activate the ability could be relevant when it comes to Champion of the Parish.

Regarding your point about it being self-evident: That's true, it is. Under this definition, the Pyromancer Ascension example in Toby's article and in Jason's article should both be forbidden by the definition under MTR (see the quote in the OP), but both sources say it should be allowed. Hence why I found Toby's article confusing.

Regarding your point about Prodigal Sorcerer (I refuse to accept that it's a red card now; I'm old-school like that - also, the old art is better), you are once again correct. It is for that precise reason that I count a priority pass as “gaining information”.

Lyle Waldman
Simply, the appropriate time to take a game action is at the point at which MODO would ask for the game action to be made. A bit more concretely, a game action should be taken when the object the action is taken on is resolving (in the case of on-resolution choices) or being put on the stack (in the case of on-announcement choices).

And what if a person doesn't play MODO? Or even play MODO-like Magic? Because there's a lot more people who don't play MODO at all, but play paper Magic in a “perfectly acceptable” manner. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most people never even notice or care that they do things in the wrong order.

Which is why I clarified. The second sentence is a clarification of the first sentence for those who do not play MODO. I included the first sentence to give you a brief introduction to the ideology behind the second.

EDIT: Something messed up in a quote box. Apologies, I'm going to need to double-post again.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Dec. 21, 2012 02:24:47 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Correct. Hence (one of the many reasons) why I think the rule as written in MTR is stupid. However, applying the rule isn't up to whether I think it's stupid or not, it's about applying the rule as written in MTR. If I was to apply the rule as written, then yes, your statement is correct. The rule as written (as opposed to Toby's notes on it) does not allow for any form of OOOS in trigger application; in fact, it expressly forbids OOOS, as I quoted in the OP.

Well, I think if you're going to start calling things in the MTR “stupid”, that is a very quick way to simply discourage any further discussion on a topic. Especially since I think you only quoted portions of the article to support your OP. If we look at the definition in full…

Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.

All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that he or she can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

Players may not try to use opponent's reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if he or she should modify actions or try to take additional ones. Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time. In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.

…the first section should very clearly establish the purpose of the policy and why we have it. It's pretty much an important part of how people actually play Magic. Both at the kitchen table and in competitive environments.

Further, two questions: Why would the policy not apply to missed triggers “explicitly” and yet somehow apply to normal game rules, like the steps to casting a spell? Or, why wouldn't a clear “block of actions” matter for OOOS, especially when a person does them quickly and the amount of information gain (even under your definition) would be minimal? Because even if were to “gain information”, it often takes a lot to consider and reflect on it. Something that often doesn't happen in the short amount of time it takes to do things in the wrong order.

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 21, 2012 02:38:29 PM)

Apologies, once again, for double-post. Something buggered up in my last post.

My point is that this general approach becomes a rabbit hole of more and more concerns. Especially when the underlying problem is about player communication: Some people communicate very specifically and clearly, some people communicate a bit sloppily, some can't communicate at all (i.e., language barriers). and others would like to withhold communication in order to obfuscate the situation (legally or illegally).

Once again, you are correct. Which is why I think this whole trigger rules fiasco, which is primarily based on proper player communication, is garbage. However, applying the rules isn't about what I think is garbage or not, it's about taking the MTR and IPG and applying them to the game. If it was up to me, I'd just judge all my tournaments under the MTR circa January 2012 or whatever, when we had the old-old trigger rule (the one where you had to remind your opponent of missed triggers). But it's not up to me, so I have to do what MTR says.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The point I was trying to make was that there seems to be a lot of deviating going on concerning the trigger rules with respect to OOOS. When a lot of deviating happens, that raises a red flag in my mind; in particular, I have to ask myself (and the community) “why do we have rules if we don't follow them?” Of course, once in a while a deviation is appropriate, but when it becomes frequent perhaps there is something at the base of the rule that is being deviated from that is causing the deviations.

I think “a lot of the deviating” that occurs when relayed in some of these articles is either pretty unique circumstances where it probably should have occurred, or we're missing some of the story that was the reason for the “deviation” and there really wasn't any deviation. Again, that is my point about assessing situations after the fact: We don't have enough information to conclude anything about the ruling. I'm not saying that X player who says Y happened is misrepresenting things, just that he or she is only presenting one aspect of the scenario. We don't have the other player's perspective, nor even the judge's perspective.

I'd be interested to know how you would apply the MTR to the situations mentioned in the OP in such a way that they are not considered deviations. I can't think of such a rationale.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

If applying the book is as much about the wording of the book as it is about my judgment, why do we have a book? Why don't we simply use our own judgment? The reason we have a book, I believe, is so that we can apply the rules consistently and different peoples' judgments won't affect the outcome of a situation; we're all human, and we will judge the same situation in different ways without a book to guide us. In particular, we should try to deviate as little as possible from the book so that we can apply the rules with consistency. If we all start deviating in different ways, then the player base does not know what the rules are. This is why I have a problem with wide-spread deviation (although lot me reiterate that deviation, in moderation, is fine).

Certainly, consistency is a very desirable goal. We want player expectations to be the same at the majority of CompREL experiences they go to. But, even the MIPG itself allows for deviations as necessary. Whether specifically the result of situations where a downgrade is required (as a “card in unique position to be identified” when a card isn't revealed and should be), or where a downgrade is at the Head Judge's discretion (as with Deck/Decklist problems). The point about the Missed Trigger policy is that it needs to make sense in context. The context being “Did the player actually miss the trigger?” not “Did the player somehow do X wrong, where X is the most technical thing he should have done?”

A deviation for downgrade is a bit different than a deviation for OOOS, IMO. A deviation for downgrade does not actually modify the game state of the current game (you could argue that a downgrade from game loss to warning does, but it's a difference of destroying the whole game state vs not destroying it; that's not what the OOOS deviation does). A deviation for OOOS creates a game state which should not exist at all under CR and/or MTR. The two are different, IMO.

That is where you need to apply judgment in assessing if the infraction even took place at all.

I'd be wary of using the word “infraction” here; I'm not taking issue with when/how we hand out penalties. That opens up a new can of worms, and I'm not sure this thread is the proper one to discuss that.

Consider this, if Missed Trigger policy somehow “supercedes” OOOS, why doesn't the normal Game Rule Violation do the same? If that's the case, should every player who miscasts Fireball receive a Warning?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you clarify?

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Lyle Waldman
Correct. Hence (one of the many reasons) why I think the rule as written in MTR is stupid. However, applying the rule isn't up to whether I think it's stupid or not, it's about applying the rule as written in MTR. If I was to apply the rule as written, then yes, your statement is correct. The rule as written (as opposed to Toby's notes on it) does not allow for any form of OOOS in trigger application; in fact, it expressly forbids OOOS, as I quoted in the OP.

Well, I think if you're going to start calling things in the MTR “stupid”, that is a very quick way to simply discourage any further discussion on a topic. Especially since I think you only quoted portions of the article to support your OP.

You are correct on the first count, which is why I tried as best I could in my OP to keep my personal opinion out of it. However, you asked for a clarification, making note of the fact that my definition would implement something distasteful. I agreed with your distaste in my definition, but claimed that my definition was nonetheless correct, even though it was distasteful. Hence use of the word “stupid”.

As to your second comment, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. I took out snippets that I thought were relevant; I don't believe there was any additional information in those articles that I missed. If there is something you think I should have mentioned, by all means mention it.

If we look at the definition in full…

Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.

All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that he or she can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).

An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.

Players may not try to use opponent's reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if he or she should modify actions or try to take additional ones. Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time. In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.

…the first section should very clearly establish the purpose of the policy and why we have it. It's pretty much an important part of how people actually play Magic. Both at the kitchen table and in competitive environments.

Once again, you are correct. However the purpose of the policy and its implementation, in this case, are counter to one another. Should we implement the purpose and intent of the policy (and thus open ourselves up to deviations and inconsistency) or should we implement the letter of the law (and thus discard the purpose)? I accept that both are important, but in a case such as this one where the two seem contradictory, I think we should strive towards consistency so that the players understand how the rules work simply by reading MTR as opposed to having to guess how a given judge will act in a given situation.

Further, two questions: Why would the policy not apply to missed triggers “explicitly” and yet somehow apply to normal game rules, like the steps to casting a spell? Or, why wouldn't a clear “block of actions” matter for OOOS, especially when a person does them quickly and the amount of information gain (even under your definition) would be minimal? Because even if were to “gain information”, it often takes a lot to consider and reflect on it. Something that often doesn't happen in the short amount of time it takes to do things in the wrong order.

Once again, you are correct. I agree with this sentiment. I also do not understand why the rule, as written in MTR, explicitly (seems to) forbid OOOS on triggers while not forbidding it on other game actions. I have asked Toby (Elliott) and Matt (Tabak) about this, and have yet to receive a clear answer.

I found Toby's article quite instructive. As with many judges, I have a tendency to lean towards rules as written until I come to a deeper understanding of philosophy. With the passage of time and comfort with how paradoxical rules work together to help games move along without allowing for undue minutiae and opportunities for shenanigans, I (and likely many other judges) feel much more comfortable with a more “understanding approach.”

I am very sympathetic to Lyle's critiques in this thread. As we've been reading the evolution of the discussion in the thread about Pyreheart Wolf Problems, it is clear that we are very much in a period of time when many are still trying to figure out how loosely we can interpret out-of-order-sequencing when a trigger appears to be missed. And, here, I use the term “loosely” quite loosely.

The fact is that there was a time when the Harrow ruling not allowing for a search after the card representing the spell was put into the graveyard was perfectly reasonable. It certainly seemed so to many of us. Eventually, we came to understand that Competitive or Professional play does not necessarily mean a robotic pace and style of play from players, no matter their level. We also came to understand that there were some clear guidelines that were driven by how players played and what was considered acceptable to the community for doing things in a fluid and organic way as long as it did not push the boundaries of fairness and the gaining of relevant information. So, out-of-order sequencing was codified and it made everyone, judges and players, much happier with the fairness of how our highest level events were run.

Now, we have this newly born missed triggers policy. As Lyle notes in this thread, the way the policy is written has many components that suggest strongly that the application of out-of-order sequencing just could not apply. After all, the Harrow example is a clear cluster of actions within the resolution of a single spell. This is a far cry from playing a spell, having a trigger happen, then playing a land, and then going into combat. For me, the feel of this is quite different and in Lyle's situation I would likely have been quite unhappy about using out-of-order sequencing and would have wanted very much to challenge the thinking of the head judge in using this to overrule my judgment on appeal.

Right now, I personally do not feel super confident that I would be right about how out-of-order sequencing should best interact with missed triggers. Toby's article is very helpful and I feel “gives me permission” to exercise a bit of sense when it comes to some situations. For me, the most important sentence in his commentary is, “Flow is important.” It suggests to me that a “cluster of actions” might have a far broader definition if the flow is right. Since the new missed trigger policy has been in place, I feel I have been on the harsher, more rigid side of how it ought to be interpreted. I feel, perhaps, Lyle and many others are in this same camp. Now, with Toby's insight, I will be making a conscious effort to be looser. Odds are good that I will start allowing some triggers to “not be missed” by thinking too much about Toby's words and over-correcting.

It has been a long time since we decided Harrow should work fine no matter when the player decides to put the card into the graveyard. So, I cannot recall how long it took for everyone to get onto the same page so that we do not even consider it to be an issue anymore. My hope is that, one day, hopefully not too long from today, the way missed triggers and out-of-order sequencing work with each other will become as second nature for judges and players as the Harrow situation is. It won't be tomorrow. And it may not even be as easy of a sell. But, I sense from my experience with the history of these things that such a day must surely come.

One take-away I have considered from reading these threads and the passionate discussion is that we care very much about getting this right. Perhaps, we as a community, led by the L4+ judges that run our Professional events and the many highly competent L3's that are at the most visible Competitive events, can begin to note and share as many situations as possible in the upcoming months about when a missed trigger scenario at one of their events actually fell under out-of-order sequencing or vice versa. If there is a thread or two with a strong discussion about these situations every week after some big event, I feel the entire community of judges and players will benefit as it becomes increasingly clear through examples in the field what we feel are the boundaries of interpretation for the two policies.

On Sat Dec 22 03:25, James Do Hung Lee wrote:
> One take-away I have considered from reading these threads and the passionate discussion is that we care very much about getting this right. Perhaps, we as a community, led by the L4+ judges that run our Professional events and the many highly competent L3's that are at the most visible Competitive events, can begin to note and share as many situations as possible in the upcoming months about when a missed trigger scenario at one of their events actually fell under out-of-order sequencing or vice versa. If there is a thread or two with a strong discussion about these situations every week after some big event, I feel the entire community of judges and players will benefit as it becomes increasingly clear through examples in the field what we feel are the boundaries of interpretation for the two policies.

Yes, I think this would be of much help. I have noticed several times now with things like the Knowledge Pool questions that where the answer involves a matter of judgement the answer has been given along the lines of “If you back up then do X, if you do not then do Y. Whether to back up is a matter of judgement”. This is all well and good, but doesn't actually help people to improve their judgement in these matters. While of course you can't say “this is the right answer” for matters of judgement, we should be trying to work towards a consistent judgement of situations across the judge community and the only
way that can happen is through sharing situations and justifying the judgement call which was made.

Matt

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'd be interested to know how you would apply the MTR to the situations mentioned in the OP in such a way that they are not considered deviations. I can't think of such a rationale.

Applying the policy on OOOS from the MTR isn't a deviation; it's a recognition of simply how players play. As James properly notes, this happens with something involving Harrow, where the player searches for the card after putting Harrow into the graveyard. It happens with drawing and then untapped; technically incorrect play, and should absolutely be a Game Rule Violation. It happens when a player follows the steps of casting a spell in the wrong order.

Even more simply, it happens when a player draws for the turn and says “Go.” without doing anything. Technically, you should pass priority from the draw step to the end step about sevensix times, moving from draw step to precombat main phase, to beginning of combat, to declare attackers, to end of combat (since you skip the declare blockers and combat damage steps when no attackers are declared), to postcombat main phase, to end step.

Now, I admit, there are times where I prefer a very “rules centric” approach. But, that's just not possible. Not with a game as complicated as Magic. We make allowances so that the game is “functional” and the big picture issues are taken care of, with the “technical” elements only mattering when necessary.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'd be wary of using the word “infraction” here; I'm not taking issue with when/how we hand out penalties. That opens up a new can of worms, and I'm not sure this thread is the proper one to discuss that.

When I use the term “infraction”, I mean in whether or not an error defined in the MIPG has been committed. Not whether there is a “penalty”, as that happens as a result of there being an “infraction”; simply has an actual error occurred to determine an “infraction” has taken place.

That's why, again, the question at it's core is all about whether a trigger has actually been missed. Or, has it simply been performed at the wrong time?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Could you clarify?

Well the question is simple: Exactly what is the process for casting a spell, like Fireball. The specific steps of the process. How many players actually do it the correct way?

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Once again, you are correct. However the purpose of the policy and its implementation, in this case, are counter to one another. Should we implement the purpose and intent of the policy (and thus open ourselves up to deviations and inconsistency) or should we implement the letter of the law (and thus discard the purpose)? I accept that both are important, but in a case such as this one where the two seem contradictory, I think we should strive towards consistency so that the players understand how the rules work simply by reading MTR as opposed to having to guess how a given judge will act in a given situation.

I can understand that thinking and empathize. When “ruling by intent” first came out (well before the various policies on player communication, shortcuts, and OOOS were “codified” in the MTR), I had several issues with the policy and how it could apply. If a player intended to do something at X point, why didn't he or she just say it? The entire “gotcha” with Harrow? Yeah, I could see enforcing that, especially since many players will hold you to a legal action once you've passed priority. How could we apply a policy to game play, when clearly the players did certain things in certain ways?

But, over time, other things became clear as well. You had communication issues between people, and some people simply used a term incorrectly. But, the intent was very clearly. Should that be a “gotcha”? Some will still probably say yes, others will say no. But time and experience showed me that a “too technical” approach to the game only ended up frustrating the majority of players, whether in casual or competitive play. Why should there be a “gotcha” when the player communicated enough to be clear, even if it wasn't precisely right?

I am not saying that the competing concerns are without merit. Again, as James notes, there will be time where the appropriate conclusion is that a player missed a trigger and there is no OOOS in a situation. But the important question to ask is the same one: Was the trigger really missed? Not just done at the wrong time, but did the player truly just botch the trigger entirely. That's where you have to investigate to assess the situations and where a very, very mechanical application of either rules or policy will fail you. That's why OOOS is important to the overall approach to judging: When we judge, we need to recognize that rule and policy enforcement isn't in absolutes of “correct” or “incorrect”, but rather there are situations where there is middle ground.

Matthew Johnson
Yes, I think this would be of much help. I have noticed several times now with things like the Knowledge Pool questions that where the answer involves a matter of judgement the answer has been given along the lines of “If you back up then do X, if you do not then do Y. Whether to back up is a matter of judgement”. This is all well and good, but doesn't actually help people to improve their judgement in these matters. While of course you can't say “this is the right answer” for matters of judgement, we should be trying to work towards a consistent judgement of situations across the judge community and the only way that can happen is through sharing situations and justifying the judgement call which was made.

So, in these situations, would you find it helpful if people either talked through their answer about how they balanced the facts of a situation? Or what they weighed in terms of the different elements? Because I could certainly see a “summary of judgment” being valuable there as well. Not just in terms of understanding the situation as a judgment call, but also how best to develop the “sense” of judgment and addressing different facts.

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 22, 2012 06:10:06 AM)

Great chat guys! I definitely agree wholeheartedly with James and Matt's commentaries, and thanks a lot Brian for being so patient in explaining it.

Here's what I'd like from the Higher Ups (Toby, Scott, Matt, etc): I'd like a recodification of the new trigger rules to describe how OOOS works in conjunction with the rule. I simply cannot get past the point in MTR where it says, in plain black and white, that a missed trigger should never be considered OOOS, and I expect that most top-tier players, such as Todd Anderson, expect the letter of the law to be followed by judges.

If Toby et al would like OOOS to apply, they should codify it in MTR so that we, as judges, can follow it as best we can and apply it in a consistent way. The current codification suggests, from MTR, that it should never apply, with an addendum by Toby saying, essentially, “ignore that bit in MTR, use your own judgment”. I'm simply not comfortable with that, and I think it'll lead to a lot of player confusion and a lot of people like Todd Anderson making comments and writing articles such as I quoted in the OP.

In my opinion, every time someone (not even high-profile someone, just anyone) makes a comment like Todd did in his article, it reflects poorly on the judge community and makes players distrust us, and that's good for nobody. It's especially bad when the comment made is correct, speaking from a technical rules standpoint, as Todd's comment was. Note that I'm not asking for players to not disparage judges; if we deserve it for making bad calls, then by all means they should say it. I'm saying, on the contrary, that it's our responsibility as judges to always make good calls, or, failing that, to do our best to make our calls as close to player expectation as possible; every time we fail to do that it gives the community a bad image.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom James!

Andy

________________________________________
From: James Do Hung Lee
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: New Trigger Rules Re: OOOS (Competitive REL)

I found Toby's article quite instructive. As with many judges, I have a tendency to lean towards rules as written until I come to a deeper understanding of philosophy. With the passage of time and comfort with how paradoxical rules work together to help games move along without allowing for undue minutiae and opportunities for shenanigans, I (and likely many other judges) feel much more comfortable with a more “understanding approach.”

I am very sympathetic to Lyle's critiques in this thread. As we've been reading the evolution of the discussion in the thread about Pyreheart Wolf Problems, it is clear that we are very much in a period of time when many are still trying to figure out how loosely we can interpret out-of-order-sequencing when a trigger appears to be missed. And, here, I use the term “loosely” quite loosely.

The fact is that there was a time when the Harrow ruling not allowing for a search after the card representing t he spell was put into the graveyard was perfectly reasonable. It certainly seemed so to many of us. Eventually, we came to understand that Competitive or Professional play does not necessarily mean a robotic pace and style of play from players, no matter their level. We also came to understand that there were some clear guidelines that were driven by how players played and what was considered acceptable to the community for doing things in a fluid and organic way as long as it did not push the boundaries of fairness and the gaining of relevant information. So, out-of-order sequencing was codified and it made everyone, judges and players, much happier with the fairness of how our highest level events were run.

Now, we have this newly born missed triggers policy. As Lyle notes in this thread, the way the policy is written has many components that suggest strongly that the application of out-of-order sequencing just could not apply. After all, the Harrow example is a c lear cluster of actions within the resolution of a single spell. This is a far cry from playing a spell, having a trigger happen, then playing a land, and then going into combat. For me, the feel of this is quite different and in Lyle's situation I would likely have been quite unhappy about using out-of-order sequencing and would have wanted very much to challenge the thinking of the head judge in using this to overrule my judgment on appeal.

Right now, I personally do not feel super confident that I would be right about how out-of-order sequencing should best interact with missed triggers. Toby's article is very helpful and I feel “gives me permission” to exercise a bit of sense when it comes to some situations. For me, the most important sentence in his commentary is, “Flow is important.” It suggests to me that a “cluster of actions” might have a far broader definition if the flow is right. Since the new missed trigger policy ha s been in place, I feel I have been on the harsher, more rigid side of how it ought to be interpreted. I feel, perhaps, Lyle and many others are in this same camp. Now, with Toby's insight, I will be making a conscious effort to be looser. Odds are good that I will start allowing some triggers to “not be missed” by thinking too much about Toby's words and over-correcting.

It has been a long time since we decided Harrow should work fine no matter when the player decides to put the card into the graveyard. So, I cannot recall how long it took for everyone to get onto the same page so that we do not even consider it to be an issue anymore. My hope is that, one day, hopefully not too long from today, the way missed triggers and out-of-order sequencing work with each other will become as second nature for judges and players as the Harrow situation is. It won't be tomorrow. And it may not even be as easy of a sell. But, I sense from my experience with the his tory of these things that such a day must surely come.

One take-away I have considered from reading these threads and the passionate discussion is that we care very much about getting this right. Perhaps, we as a community, led by the L4+ judges that run our Professional events and the many highly competent L3's that are at the most visible Competitive events, can begin to note and share as many situations as possible in the upcoming months about when a missed trigger scenario at one of their events actually fell under out-of-order sequencing or vice versa. If there is a thread or two with a strong discussion about these situations every week after some big event, I feel the entire community of judges and players will benefit as it becomes increasingly clear through examples in the field what we feel are the boundaries of interpretation for the two policies.

—————————————&mdash ;————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/11098/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2312/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2312/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit