Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Jan. 21, 2019 12:28:26 PM [Original Post]
- Tommy Lee
- Judge (Level 1 (Judge Foundry))
- USA - North
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
posted in the wrong forum before
Working towards my L2 and I have read the
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2019/01/21/policy-changes-for-ravnica-allegiance/?fbclid=IwAR0JfbmaMP9dObtdLFS5kCFqTpHeSkLC5zM8y4HXtz6L5aUV8KYfGkQORoM
a few questions
1. So now its a match loss ( or 2 ) for someone who may not know about the rules for determining a winner by a means other than playing magic. So with that a few questions.
1A. The judge announces (at least I have heard most of them) that the only way to determine a winner is to play magic, so the player should know correct? ( granted the excuses is “I was out of the room”)
1B. So as a judge we see a player that has been to many events and we know that they know the rules of determining a winner. They say “huh never knew that” do we as judges have the final call based on what we know about the player and the knowledge they have for playing at their lvl ( IE people who grind IQ, and other events)
2 Can someone explain in easy English “Shark Trolls for Better Triggers” <—- in the article ( using charnel Troll for an example)
2A. Adam played summoners pact and it is his upkeep, he misses the trgger by accident. His opponent Nate forgets the trigger was supposed to resolve. Then 3 turns later Nate remembers the summoners pack and reminds Adam about it. My question is, this can seem to be exploited, if Adam plays it and does not mention the trigger and waits to see if Nate calls him on it, if Nate does not, then he just got a free pass. All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?
Working towards my L2 and I have read the
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2019/01/21/policy-changes-for-ravnica-allegiance/?fbclid=IwAR0JfbmaMP9dObtdLFS5kCFqTpHeSkLC5zM8y4HXtz6L5aUV8KYfGkQORoM
a few questions
1. So now its a match loss ( or 2 ) for someone who may not know about the rules for determining a winner by a means other than playing magic. So with that a few questions.
1A. The judge announces (at least I have heard most of them) that the only way to determine a winner is to play magic, so the player should know correct? ( granted the excuses is “I was out of the room”)
1B. So as a judge we see a player that has been to many events and we know that they know the rules of determining a winner. They say “huh never knew that” do we as judges have the final call based on what we know about the player and the knowledge they have for playing at their lvl ( IE people who grind IQ, and other events)
2 Can someone explain in easy English “Shark Trolls for Better Triggers” <—- in the article ( using charnel Troll for an example)
2A. Adam played summoners pact and it is his upkeep, he misses the trgger by accident. His opponent Nate forgets the trigger was supposed to resolve. Then 3 turns later Nate remembers the summoners pack and reminds Adam about it. My question is, this can seem to be exploited, if Adam plays it and does not mention the trigger and waits to see if Nate calls him on it, if Nate does not, then he just got a free pass. All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?
Edited John Brian McCarthy (Jan. 21, 2019 12:31:12 PM)
Jan. 21, 2019 02:22:19 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]
- Scott Marshall
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame
- USA - Northwest
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
1A - if I'm convinced that the player really didn't know about IDAW or Bribery, despite my announcements to help everyone learn, then I can use Match Loss to educate them, and (hopefully) offset the damage to the integrity of the event. If I believe the player knew, DQ still applies. Does that help with your question?
1B - yes, we get to “judge” in these situations. A key phrase, in the beginning of the IPG:
Shark - a reference to experienced players, looking for any edge;
Trolls - a play on Charnel Troll, the inspiration for the change being described;
Better Triggers - the result of the changes!
I categorize Sharks as those who play the rules, as opposed to playing BY the rules - or, (ab)using the rules instead of observing the rules.
Then again, I may have misunderstood Toby's subtle humor - it happens.
2A - “All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?” - not quite; Adam has to convince the judge that they honestly missed that trigger. If you intentionally miss a trigger (beneficial or detrimental) because you might gain an advantage, that's Cheating.
d:^D
1B - yes, we get to “judge” in these situations. A key phrase, in the beginning of the IPG:
Knowledge of a player’s history or skill does not alter an infraction, but it may be taken into account during an investigation.So, we don't use a player's history (reputation) when determining what infraction(s) might apply - but we do use that information when we investigate for Cheating.
Originally posted by Tommy Lee:Hmmm… I'll try!
Can someone explain in easy English “Shark Trolls for Better Triggers”
Shark - a reference to experienced players, looking for any edge;
Trolls - a play on Charnel Troll, the inspiration for the change being described;
Better Triggers - the result of the changes!
I categorize Sharks as those who play the rules, as opposed to playing BY the rules - or, (ab)using the rules instead of observing the rules.
Then again, I may have misunderstood Toby's subtle humor - it happens.
2A - “All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?” - not quite; Adam has to convince the judge that they honestly missed that trigger. If you intentionally miss a trigger (beneficial or detrimental) because you might gain an advantage, that's Cheating.
d:^D
Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 21, 2019 02:23:05 PM)
Jan. 21, 2019 12:31:43 PM
- John Brian McCarthy
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 5 (Judge Foundry)), Grand Prix Head Judge
- USA - Midatlantic
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
I've edited the title of this post to better reflect the topic. Tommy, are you looking for an (O)fficial answer or a discussion?
Jan. 21, 2019 12:54:02 PM
- Tommy Lee
- Judge (Level 1 (Judge Foundry))
- USA - North
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
a little of both John.
thanks for the help
thanks for the help
Jan. 21, 2019 02:22:19 PM [Marked as Accepted Answer]
- Scott Marshall
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame
- USA - Northwest
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
1A - if I'm convinced that the player really didn't know about IDAW or Bribery, despite my announcements to help everyone learn, then I can use Match Loss to educate them, and (hopefully) offset the damage to the integrity of the event. If I believe the player knew, DQ still applies. Does that help with your question?
1B - yes, we get to “judge” in these situations. A key phrase, in the beginning of the IPG:
Shark - a reference to experienced players, looking for any edge;
Trolls - a play on Charnel Troll, the inspiration for the change being described;
Better Triggers - the result of the changes!
I categorize Sharks as those who play the rules, as opposed to playing BY the rules - or, (ab)using the rules instead of observing the rules.
Then again, I may have misunderstood Toby's subtle humor - it happens.
2A - “All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?” - not quite; Adam has to convince the judge that they honestly missed that trigger. If you intentionally miss a trigger (beneficial or detrimental) because you might gain an advantage, that's Cheating.
d:^D
1B - yes, we get to “judge” in these situations. A key phrase, in the beginning of the IPG:
Knowledge of a player’s history or skill does not alter an infraction, but it may be taken into account during an investigation.So, we don't use a player's history (reputation) when determining what infraction(s) might apply - but we do use that information when we investigate for Cheating.
Originally posted by Tommy Lee:Hmmm… I'll try!
Can someone explain in easy English “Shark Trolls for Better Triggers”
Shark - a reference to experienced players, looking for any edge;
Trolls - a play on Charnel Troll, the inspiration for the change being described;
Better Triggers - the result of the changes!
I categorize Sharks as those who play the rules, as opposed to playing BY the rules - or, (ab)using the rules instead of observing the rules.
Then again, I may have misunderstood Toby's subtle humor - it happens.
2A - “All Adam has to say is opps I forgot?” - not quite; Adam has to convince the judge that they honestly missed that trigger. If you intentionally miss a trigger (beneficial or detrimental) because you might gain an advantage, that's Cheating.
d:^D
Edited Scott Marshall (Jan. 21, 2019 02:23:05 PM)
Jan. 21, 2019 04:40:06 PM
- Aaron Henner
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- USA - Northwest
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Followup question about Bribery/IDAW
It is common practice for the floor judge of a MF to handle some infractions on their own, for some infractions to involve a Team Lead (or in some cases non-TL L3), and for some infractions (namely: cheating) to immediately involve a Head Judge / Appeals judge ('red shirt')
If a floor judge of a GP encounters Bribery/IDAW, should that judge's first trip be to a Team Lead, or a red shirt?
I'm interested in either an ‘O’ answer for the default, or any MF Head Judge's opinion on what they will be instructing their floor judges to do.
Edit for spelling and GP -> MF (all hail our MF overlords)
It is common practice for the floor judge of a MF to handle some infractions on their own, for some infractions to involve a Team Lead (or in some cases non-TL L3), and for some infractions (namely: cheating) to immediately involve a Head Judge / Appeals judge ('red shirt')
If a floor judge of a GP encounters Bribery/IDAW, should that judge's first trip be to a Team Lead, or a red shirt?
I'm interested in either an ‘O’ answer for the default, or any MF Head Judge's opinion on what they will be instructing their floor judges to do.
Edit for spelling and GP -> MF (all hail our MF overlords)
Edited Aaron Henner (Jan. 21, 2019 04:41:50 PM)
Jan. 21, 2019 07:04:24 PM
- Isaac King
-
- Judge (Uncertified)
- Barriere, Canada
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Originally posted by Aaron Henner:
If a floor judge of a GP encounters Bribery/IDAW, should that judge's first trip be to a Team Lead, or a red shirt?
I'm interested in either an ‘O’ answer for the default, or any MF Head Judge's opinion on what they will be instructing their floor judges to do.
I just want to mention that different HJs run their events differently, so there most likely won't be a single “Official” answer that covers all tournaments.
Jan. 21, 2019 07:56:16 PM
- Aaron Henner
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy))
- USA - Northwest
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
I'll add that I really have an ulterior motive for my question. I intend on using it as a basis for just how skeptical I should be at smaller events where I am in charge. “Directly get red shirt” would imply to me a higher bar for me believing players really didn't know, and so a higher chance for DQ. This is clearly a subjective topic, so I'm using a concrete question as a gauge.
I was under the impression that there was mostly a default baseline, from which various Head Judges might modify how they want their tournaments to run. Is this wrong? If it is, then I guess maybe in addition to being curious about various MF Head Judge opinions, I'd also be interested in hearing from judges in similar situations (like SCG Invitational Head Judges).
I was under the impression that there was mostly a default baseline, from which various Head Judges might modify how they want their tournaments to run. Is this wrong? If it is, then I guess maybe in addition to being curious about various MF Head Judge opinions, I'd also be interested in hearing from judges in similar situations (like SCG Invitational Head Judges).
Jan. 22, 2019 03:30:22 PM
- Scott Marshall
- Forum Moderator
- Judge (Level 4 (Judge Foundry)), Hall of Fame
- USA - Northwest
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Aaron, I think the only general answer that could be given is that each Head Judge will need to decide who they're willing to empower (i.e., trust) at their events. I don't think we can help with your ulterior motive.
d:^D
d:^D
Jan. 26, 2019 03:16:31 AM
- Jakob Lernhage
- Judge (Level 2 (Judge Academy)), Tournament Organizer
- Europe - North
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
I have a reflection from a player about the new change about triggers. The player usually plays fun things like Tabernacle in legacy and SBs Kataki, War's Wage in modern due to the local meta. I.e. its not that corner case.
Can he intentionally not mention the triggers generated by those cards until later in the turn? As in wait until hes opponent has very little to no mana untapped?
Its the opponents triggers which he do not have to point out and we simply puts the triggers on the stack. Basically giving the same result as prior to the change.
I would like to say no but as far as I can see its legal. And by that I mean that I would put it up for discussion if it should be changed, not how it is today.
Can he intentionally not mention the triggers generated by those cards until later in the turn? As in wait until hes opponent has very little to no mana untapped?
Its the opponents triggers which he do not have to point out and we simply puts the triggers on the stack. Basically giving the same result as prior to the change.
I would like to say no but as far as I can see its legal. And by that I mean that I would put it up for discussion if it should be changed, not how it is today.
Jan. 26, 2019 01:10:57 PM
- Isaac King
-
- Judge (Uncertified)
- Barriere, Canada
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Originally posted by Jakob Lernhage:
Can he intentionally not mention the triggers generated by those cards until later in the turn? As in wait until hes opponent has very little to no mana untapped?
Yes, they can. Players are never required to call attention to their opponent's triggers.
Jan. 28, 2019 08:52:42 AM
- Tommy Lee
- Judge (Level 1 (Judge Foundry))
- USA - North
Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers
Originally posted by Jakob Lernhage:
I have a reflection from a player about the new change about triggers. The player usually plays fun things like Tabernacle in legacy and SBs Kataki, War's Wage in modern due to the local meta. I.e. its not that corner case.
Can he intentionally not mention the triggers generated by those cards until later in the turn? As in wait until hes opponent has very little to no mana untapped?
Its the opponents triggers which he do not have to point out and we simply puts the triggers on the stack. Basically giving the same result as prior to the change.
I would like to say no but as far as I can see its legal. And by that I mean that I would put it up for discussion if it should be changed, not how it is today.
So are you asking if the owner of the card, say Kataki, passes turn and waits for his opponent to untap and spend mana and then mention the Kataki Trigger? Meaning he knew there was a trigger and waited till it was more advantageous to hurt his opponent?
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.
- Index
- » Competitive REL
- » Questions about changes to Bribery and Missed Triggers