Hi there. I'm still here, and so are the monthly Judge meetings. With my schedule allowing me to spend more time into those judge meetings and the aftermath of it, I continue the almost forgotten reports.

For June, freshly leveled up L2 Beate reserved a table for 8 judges in a local cuban restaurant/cocktail bar. With a PPTQ at the most recent weekend and a completely new L1 judge eager to ask questions, we had some interesting stories to share. In this report, I reproduce some of those, those that I think are best shared with others, as they, overall, made judges learn and become “better” judges in some way or another.

1. Deckcheck infractions
2. Communication with Exert
3. Outside Assistance in Competitive
4. Player / Spectator / Judge and Tournament Organizer interaction

1. Deckcheck infractions
During a Beginning-of-round deckcheck in round 1, each of the checked decks has a problem. André's deck lists only 39 cards on the decklist, but 40 in the actual deck. The player missed to list a Mouth // Feed. Boltan's deck contains a different basic land mix than what's written on the decklist.

5 7

This is easy. It's a Deck/Decklist Problem (DDLP) so both players have their decklists fixed to what they actually play and receive a Game Loss. Since the Game Loss is handed out at the same time, it doesn't affect their match result. They start playing until either player actually wins 2 games.



But, to make sure, ..let's look at what the current Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG) has to say in this case:

3.4 Tournament Error - Decklist Problem
Definition
The decklist is illegal, doesn't match what the player intended to play, or needs to be modified due to card loss over the course of the tournament.
This infraction does not cover errors in registration made by another …
Examples:
B. A player has a 56-card decklist. Her actual deck contains 60 cards, with 4 Dispels not listed.

Penalty: GAME LOSS

3.5 Tournament Error - Deck Problem
Definition
The contents of a deck or sideboard do not match the decklist registered and the decklist represents what the player intended to play.
If there are extra cards stored …
Examples:
C. In game one of a match, A player has Pithing Needle in her deck, but only has one registered in her sideboard.

Penalty: WARNING

So if you determine André wanted to play Mouth/Feed, which is very likely because he had it in his actual deck for round 1, he will not be penalized for DDLP. DDLP doesn't exist in the latest IPG update! It got split into two parts. Decklist Problem and Deck Problem. The correct penalty for André ends up to be a Game Loss still.


5 7

Next, with the knowledge that the IPG had changes in Deck / Decklist Problems, let's also review Boltan's issue. How can we determine whether the deck or the decklist is problematic here?

We ask questions: “Hello Boltan, can you tell me how many lands of which basic land type are in your deck?” or we can lay out his deck in the deck check area, call him over and ask “Is this the manabase you want to play?”
If Boltan's reply indicates that he made a mistake when grabbing the lands, it's a Deck Problem. If Boltan's reply indicates that he made a mistake when writing that down, it's a Decklist Problem.

Assuming it's a Deck Problem, there may apply additional remedies or upgrades to this case.

Please have a look at the linked IPG and let us know what you decide here about Boltan's problem and how you get to that decision as reply to this thread. As the change is only very recent (April 2017), I think it'll be very useful to most judges to look this up and discuss it!



2. Communication with Exert
Communication. You had to be there. 3 of us were there (in different positions Judge/Player), so discussed this scenario:
After agreeing to go to Combat with her opponent, Ariel taps all seven creatures and announces “Attack with all, Exert the bird.” Her opponent Louis moves some creatures and says ‘something like’ “When I'm done, I'll let you know.” or maybe it was “When I'm ready, I'll let you know.” Noone can clearly say.
After pondering a bit, Louis wants to respond to the Exert-trigger with Splendid Agony, to kill the bird. So Louis announces “Response to the bird-trigger, I give it two -1/-1 counters.” Ariel doesn't want that to happen. In her mind, the game is already in the Declare Blockers Step. It becomes clear that those two players won't come to an agreement so they quickly call a judge.

To make a judgement, the judge determined that Louis didn't make any communication that'd clearly indicate passing priority in the Declare Attackers Step. Moving around creatures on the field isn't enough, especially when an additional comment with the meaning “don't mind what I'm doing here. I don't want any reactions, I just do some math” is made.
In this communication problem, there can be made justifications to rule for either side, but when in doubt, judges tend to rule against the player that assumed things to be facts from absence of communication.



3. Outside Assistance in Competitive
It's common knowledge among players, judges of any level that it's perfectly fine to help each other with deckbuilding during the deckbuilding period and afterwards in Regular REL events like FNM and Prerelease. It's also known that you usually play with “Contionus Deckbuilding” at those events. It's good and encouraged to finetune each others' decks and talk about how one would build this or that Sealed deck pool.

But at Competitive REL, it's different.

So, a fresh L1 wondered how it's different. For example:
Anton and Charlie are done with their match. They sit down at some empty table and Charlie asks Anton to check out the deck. He also asks Charlie “I know you're a god at Sealed deckbuilding, how would you build my pool?”. Anton builds a different deck out of Charlie's pool and advises in detail what he thinks a superior Sealed deck would look like. Did either player commit Tournament Error - Outside Assistance?

3.2 Tournament Error - Outside Assistance
Definition
A player, spectator, or other tournament participant does any of the following:
• Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from othe
rs once he or
she has sat for his or her match.
• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.
• During a game, refers to notes (other than Oracle™ pages) made before the official beginning of the current match.
These criteria also apply to any deck construction and draft portions of a limited tournament. Additionally, no notes of any kind may be made during a draft. Some team formats have additional communication rules that may modify the definition of this infraction.
Notes made outside the current match may only be referenced between games, and must have been in the player’s possession since the beginning of the match.
..
Philosophy
Tournaments test the skill of a player, not his or her ability to follow external advice or directions. Any strategy advice, play advice, or construction advice from an external source is considered outside assistance.
..

Yes, if we look at the philosophy portion, we can see how seeking help from an external source (Anton) for construction advice (Deckbuilding) is outside assistance. But philosophy isn't everything. The underlying philosophy is what guides the implementation of the procedures, so it's dangerous to interpret too much into it. With Outside Assistance, the definition is clear enough to not have to fall back onto it:

Charlie and Anton did NOT do any of the following:
• Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from othe
rs once he or
she has sat for his or her match.
• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.
• During a game, refers to notes (other than Oracle™ pages) made before the official beginning of the current match.

Outside Assistance makes a difference between during matches and in between matches. Players may do whatever they want in between matches. They are allowed to give advice in that time period. Charlie and Anton didn't commit Outside Assistance here, because they waited with their councelling until after the deck construction and the matches were over.



4. Player / Spectator / Judge and Tournament Organizer interaction
During a Game Day, spectator John, who is also a L1 judge but not in this event, after his own match finished, watches a match of Slobodan against Anna. Slobodan plays a deck he borrowed from a friend right before the event. It's a Cycle deck abusing New Perspectives and Shadow of the Grave to run through the own deck and eventually win with Approach of the Second Sun.
After five minutes of Slowbodan thinking what to do, John speaks out in a polite, but authorative/resolute way: “It would be nice if you played faster.” The Game Day is held in a relatively new store and is run by a store employee who knows enough about Magic to also answer simple rules questions.
After the round, he announces “Everyone who feels the need to tell others to play faster can grab their prize and leave.”

So, what went wrong here? What could the involved parties have done to avoid this negative ending?

John may be a certified judge, but to the players he's a stranger. To the players, it appeared like just any other player/spectators intervened with their match. That's not cool with everyone. To the store employee, the same image occurs. Someone tells his players how to play the game. A way to avoid this or similar situations is to contact the TO/store employee before the event and make clear what role you are in. “Hi, I'm also a judge so I can help you with rules questions or problems.” -> “No I got this.” If that's the reply, respect it (but it usually isn't). Another suggestion was to talk to the TO about the Slow Play. “Hi TO, those players are not doing anything for 5 minutes now. Do you want me to tell them to play faster?”

The TO has likely overreacted. He made John uncomfortable and put a negative vibe on John among the players. If a TO makes it so clear that someone isn't welcome, that message arrives at everyone in the event. A better way for the TO would've been to discretely approach John and say in private that it's not O.K. to act as judge in the event without him knowing about it.
But afterall, it is their event and if they want to run it in a certain way, that is their decision. It's up to the TO to agree that playing certified judges may also act as judge, not up to the judge to put themselves into that service.


We didn't have too many different situations to discuss here, but those we had went pretty in depth into philosophy of the IPG and events atmosphere and responsibilities.


1. Deckcheck infractions
2. Communication with Exert
3. Outside Assistance in Competitive
4. Player / Spectator / Judge and Tournament Organizer interaction

I'm especially curious about your thoughts on the Deck / Decklist Problems. The OA resolution is written in stone, for Exert and the Spectator/Judge/TO interaction you'd have to be there to make a definite statement. Let's see if I can make this a regular thing again :)

Edited Philip Böhm (June 13, 2017 10:23:43 AM)