That's not true. Why else are they receiving a warning? If the
player weren't required to know things than the judge wouldn't have issued
a penalty at all or even involved themselves in the situation right?

“The purpose of a Warning is to alert judges and players involved that a
problem has occurred” Warning are there for players to be mindful that
something went wrong, so that they know better in the future. They are not
a punishment because of something they should have known.

I will do a twist on yours though - what if the players with the
fakes have real copies with them, in their binder because they didn't want
to play with the real one cause they are expensive? Do we consider cards
that are outside of a players deck when assessing what the deck is? The
intention of the player (after investigation) is, did the player intend to
play unauthorized cards (proxies) in their deck? - Yes. Is there an
advantage to play with unauthorized cards? - yes. Is the player aware that
they played with unauthorized cards - yes.

First off, what-ifs are tricky. They mostly are corner cases or
you-have-to-be-there scenarios that most of the times don't help at all
with what is being discussed. In the scenario that Eli proposed, the player
has the judge-signed proxies, and most likely the original ones in their
deckbox.
I will ditto Carter's response and say that we do not get meta with
advantage. We investigate for in-game advantage when we want to rule out
cheating (which is clear in the case of playing counterfeits because they
don't have the real cards).

It feels that we are close (if we haven't already) to start going in
circles. Scott already posted an Official answer, and I would encourage you
to not take the IPG to the letter and, with the help of Scott and other's
thoughts, get a much bigger and better picture of our tournament policies.

El dom., 17 de marzo de 2019 2:09 a. m., Adam Höstman <

There is one option though, but I'm not sure if its a popular one and opens up the wild west for rule conformity.

"Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines.

When there are multiple judges, the Head Judge is the judge in charge of the entire tournament; the only one who has the authority to determine if a specific penalty doesn’t apply well to the current situation. Head judges are usually the most experienced judges available, and when they decide to deviate it’s usually for a good reason.
The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance.

Of course, although the Head Judge has the authority to deviate any time he or she wants, he or she is also expected to know when it is appropriate to deviate. The main reason for deviation is when a specific situation doesn’t fit well in the categories listed in the twenty pages of the IPG. The only case where a deviation is justifiable is when the situation is both significant and exceptional.
Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc.

Here you have a couple of examples of “exceptional circumstances”. In these cases, we use common sense and we try to find the “best solution” with the players. Both of the examples above are both significant and exceptional. Make sure your situation is both before you consider deviating. If you find yourself considering a deviation, give it a serious second thought.
The Rules Enforcement Level, round of the tournament, age or experience-level of the player, desire to educate the player, and certification level of the judge are not exceptional circumstances.

Some of these situations might make it seem like it’s OK to deviate, but it’s not. You are to enforce policy regardless of whether it’s the last round, regardless of if the call is at table 1 or table 101. The opponents might be an exceptionally young age, but that age difference is not significant in terms of policy. The player might be new, and not know that rolling a die to determine a winner is prohibited (Scott Marshall mentioned that a update had occured about this section, i have not found it yet but will look for it tomorrow - pay attention that some of these passages might be out of date); that player is still going to be Disqualified regardless of whether you think it is ‘fair’ or not. And finally, being a Level 3 Judge does not bestow upon that judge the right to deviate. In truth, they are held to a stricter standard, as lower level judges are watching and learning from their actions.
If another judge feels deviation is appropriate, they must consult with the Head Judge."

Edited Adam Höstman (March 16, 2019 10:57:30 PM)

Have you considered what IPG3 says that If a player violates the Magic
Tournament Rules in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions
listed below, the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the
player, but not issue a penalty? That is the guiding principle that we
are using for this scenario.

El dom., 17 de marzo de 2019 2:57 a. m., Adam Höstman <

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Have you considered what IPG3 says that If a player violates the Magic
Tournament Rules in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions
listed below, the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the
player, but not issue a penalty? That is the guiding principle that we
are using for this scenario.

El dom., 17 de marzo de 2019 2:57 a. m., Adam Höstman <

No one has presented IPG 3 as a solution.

But it was one of my first points in my posts, that there isn't a good fit between MTR 3.3 and IPG.

At first glance it seems the solution of the problem presented by OP - but then shouldn't the other type of non-authorized cards be treated the same? I have to think about this, but it might be outside the scoop of this thread. Maybe I start a new thread - but that's tomorrow, now I'm going to bed as i have postponed it way too long (07:45 in the morning)

Edited Adam Höstman (March 16, 2019 11:47:02 PM)

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

No one has presented IPG 3 as a solution.

Adam, I have to differ with that:

Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:

I think it falls under the nonexistent Tournament Error - Miscellaneous infraction with player education as a remedy

Originally posted by John Carter:

(i.e. educate and move on)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I've always called it “Tournament Error - Other”. And I'd put “infraction” in quotes, since it's not, It's just that pesky TE-Other that doesn't exist.

While not saying it explicitly, all this comments are guided by the same principle. We have a player that commited an infraction, but this infraction doesn't fall into any of the existing infractions. In that case, we educate on why this is not correct, and move on without penalizing. Now that the player know better, we further investigate if they commit the same mistake during the event.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

there isn't a good fit between MTR 3.3 and IPG.

And precisely that's why the general philosophy of IPG3 says that. There are some instances in which a player might be violating rules that are not codified within the IPG. For example, using a cell phone to track life totals in Competitive REL, or (like here) using a proxy issued by another judge in a previous event without knowing that the lifetime of the proxy “expires” when the event finishes. These are actual infractions (they are violating a rule), but since they are not codified into any specific type of infraction within the IPG, we do not penalize them (and no, using a cell phone to track life totals is definitely NOT Outside Assistance). As Bartłomiej said previously, the IPG is a Guide rather than a comprehensive resource (a 31-page IPG and a 52-page MTR, vs a +500-page Comprehensive Rules document) . It is not intended to cover every single type of infraction that could happen during an event (and bear in mind that there was a time in which we penalized players because they held their cards below the table level! We have gone a long way to get where we are today), but rather give us consistent procedures to “protect players from potential misconduct and to protect the integrity of the tournament itself.”

I hope that this gives you more insight on how to tackle the IPG. It is not an easy document, and discussions like this one are the ones that gives us a better understanding of it.

Thank you, and have a good weekend (or whats left of it!)

Edited Julio Sosa (March 17, 2019 07:53:56 AM)

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

No one has presented IPG 3 as a solution.

Adam, I have to differ with that:

Originally posted by Lev Kotlyar:

I think it falls under the nonexistent Tournament Error - Miscellaneous infraction with player education as a remedy

Originally posted by John Carter:

(i.e. educate and move on)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I've always called it “Tournament Error - Other”. And I'd put “infraction” in quotes, since it's not, It's just that pesky TE-Other that doesn't exist.

While not saying it explicitly, all this comments are guided by the same principle. We have a player that commited an infraction, but this infraction doesn't fall into any of the existing infractions. In that case, we educate on why this is not correct, and move on without penalizing. Now that the player know better, we further investigate if they commit the same mistake during the event.

I'm unsure if I should write this cause it's arguing semantics and takes away from the greater issue at hand - namely how to treat this situation/similar situations. But it's good as a friendly reminder.

I apologize that I was not aware that those mentions referred to IPG 3. If those are commonly used unofficial lingo for IPG 3 than I was not aware of it.
Instead my interpretation of those comments were that they were old rules. Old rules =/= new rules. And therefore shouldn't be applied due to judges have to use current rule sets.

Also some comments were so generally described that I'm sure many different IPG infractions could be applied and still fit the bill. The key here, i think, is that IPG 3
"If a player violates the Magic Tournament Rules in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions listed below, the judge should explain the appropriate procedure to the player, but not issue a penalty."
Not “educate and move on” - which, I think (I might be wrong on this), can be applied in many situations without invoking IPG 3.

While I agree with you that it wasn't explicitly mentioned, for clearance when discussing rules and invoking infractions clearity is of outmost importance.

Again I apologize if my unfamiliarity with this lingo have cause unnecessary discussion and argumentation.

Now moving on to the topic at hand

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

there isn't a good fit between MTR 3.3 and IPG.

And precisely that's why the general philosophy of IPG3 says that. There are some instances in which a player might be violating rules that are not codified within the IPG. For example, using a cell phone to track life totals in Competitive REL, or (like here) using a proxy issued by another judge in a previous event without knowing that the lifetime of the proxy “expires” when the event finishes. These are actual infractions (they are violating a rule), but since they are not codified into any specific type of infraction within the IPG, we do not penalize them (and no, using a cell phone to track life totals is definitely NOT Outside Assistance). As Bartłomiej said previously, the IPG is a Guide rather than a comprehensive resource (a 31-page IPG and a 52-page MTR, vs a +500-page Comprehensive Rules document) . It is not intended to cover every single type of infraction that could happen during an event (and bear in mind that there was a time in which we penalized players because they held their cards below the table level! We have gone a long way to get where we are today), but rather give us consistent procedures to “protect players from potential misconduct and to protect the integrity of the tournament itself.”

I hope that this gives you more insight on how to tackle the IPG. It is not an easy document, and discussions like this one are the ones that gives us a better understanding of it.

Thank you, and have a good weekend (or whats left of it!)

I have now read the policy document (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2019/01/21/policy-changes-for-ravnica-allegiance/)
"Two New Match Losses

Bet that got your attention. I’m going to announce something big, but it’s not as big as you might initially think. Deep breath.

Improperly Determining a Winner and Bribery and Wagering are now Match Losses.

Breathe. Use your gills if you have to. Here’s the really important thing to remember: If the player knew they weren’t allowed to make the offer or roll the die, it’s still Cheating. They’re disqualified. Most people know better.

But, the rules in these sections are complicated, and sometimes people who haven’t played in that many big tournaments don’t know the details and inadvertently fall into a pit somewhere along the way. In those cases, it is acceptable to issue the still-harsh-but-less-so Match Loss (or double Match Loss in some cases) and treat it as a more educational moment rather than whipping out the DQ paperwork."

So we now have guidelines that say that the IPG's content, in these sections, are complicated and that we can't require players to know about them. We have now received guidelines to not apply the normal and written infractions at least for IPG 4.3 and 4.4 - but the rest of the IPG is still required knowledge for players (unless some other policy announcement says otherwise).

Can we agree on this?

Can we also agree that unless stated otherwise otherwise, players are also required to know MTR - or at least MTR 3.3 (too limit the scope of this discussion). MTR regards Rules while IPG regards policy - one could argue that players should know the rules more than the policy.

I would now like to argue that IPG 3 can't be applied in this situation. While you can disagree that players should not know these rules and policies I don't think you can argue that a judge shouldn't know them (or at least strive to apply them).

IPG 3 can be applied "If a player violates the Magic Tournament Rules in a way that is not covered by one of the infractions listed below,
MTR says that proxies are unauthorized cards, unless issued by the HJ for the tournament (MTR 3.3) and are only valid for this tournament (MTR 3.4). Unauthorized cards are not allowed in sanctioned tournaments (MTR 3.3)

Both fakes and proxies are examples of unauthorized cards. The issue you as a judge are dealing with are unauthorized cards - and that's why there are infractions.

IPG 1 “For example, a player asks a judge whether a card is legal for a format and is told yes. When that player’s deck is found to be illegal because of these cards, the Head Judge applies the normal procedure for fixing the decklist, but may downgrade the penalty to a Warning because of the direct error of the judge.”

So if a judge (but not HJ) gives you permission to break unauthorized cards, its still an unathorized cards and there is an infraction. This example in the IPG indicates that IPG already covers the situation and that there is an infraction. And that that infraction is more severe than “educate and remedy”. It warrants at least warning, if a judge told you to break it, but higher if they did not.

But then one might argue against it:
IPG 3 (additional guidance) "Only the more serious Magic Tournament Rules warrant a penalty. These rules can be quite disruptive to the overall flow of the tournament, causing the event to go longer than needed and/or can give a player a significant advantage. If a violation to the Magic Tournament Rules is not considered detrimental to the overall flow of the event, then a penalty is not needed and the judge will simply educate the player on a corrective action.“

But we have received additional guidelines that playing with fake cards is a serious offence and warrants a penalty (DQ or GL is no intent). So we have confirmation that playing with unauthorized cards is a serious offence.

One might argue that that there is difference between fakes and proxies. But that contradicts the example in IPG 1 ”For example, a player asks a judge whether a card is legal for a format and is told yes. When that player’s deck is found to be illegal because of these cards, the Head Judge applies the normal procedure for fixing the decklist, but may downgrade the penalty to a Warning because of the direct error of the judge."

One might argue thought that the guidelines only mentioned fakes so proxies arent covered.
But I argue that fakes and proxies are listed as examples of unauthorized cards and the section talks about them. And thats why we issue infractions.
The difference between the recent policy announcement was that it covered a while section of the IPG - not just an example. So when they issued that fake announcement it came to encompass and provide guidance for the whole of MTR 3.3.

This is why IPG 3 is not a good solution.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

If those are commonly used unofficial lingo for IPG 3 than I was not aware of it.

It's not really lingo as much as common-sense acknowledgment that - and please be sure you understand this! - not everything is an infraction.

“the judge should explain…” - i.e., “educate”;
“but not issue a penalty” - i.e., “move on”.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

We have now received guidelines to not apply the normal and written infractions at least for IPG 4.3 and 4.4

No, the infraction for IPG 4.3 (Improperly Determining a Winner) and 4.4 (Bribery and Wagering) is now a Match Loss, with very clear language directing us when to treat it as IPG 4.8 (Cheating), instead. We continue to apply the infractions as guided by the IPG.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

but the rest of the IPG is still required knowledge for players

The IPG is not, and has never been, required knowledge for players; it is only required for Level 2 and Level 3 judges.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

Can we also agree that unless stated otherwise otherwise, players are also required to know MTR - or at least MTR 3.3

The MTR states that players are “responsible for … Being familiar with the rules contained within {the MTR}”. That's being misrepresented as “expected” or even “required” knowledge - it's neither. We recognize that players are often unaware of every rule that applies to the event(s) in which they participate - but we do not excuse them of their responsibilities, in general. Any violation of the MTR should be addressed - but only some of them are considered serious enough to warrant specific infractions and penalties in the IPG (or in the JAR).

Perhaps I need to expand a bit on the distinction between “responsible” and “required”, there. If they were required to know (and comply with) the MTR, in full, then we would need an infraction and penalty for everything in the MTR. I can't count the number of times I've explained why we don't have an infraction titled “Tournament Error - Other” - but I also don't expect you to know that, Adam, without sorting through thousands of old messages - so instead, I spend a lot of my time repeating myself, for the sake of everyone. (I don't mind, really. Well, except for Shahrazad questions; I got real tired of those, then it was banned. Hmmm…)

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

MTR regards Rules while IPG regards policy - one could argue that players should know the rules more than the policy.

Comprehensive Rules defines game rules, MTR just the tournament-specific rules; MTR is also policy, along with the IPG. Minor quibbles, to be sure. And yes, players should learn all the rules and policy that could affect them, as it may give them an advantage:

Originally posted by IPG 4.1:

A player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the options provided by the rules of the game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning.

Originally posted by Adam Höstman:

we have received additional guidelines that playing with fake cards is a serious offence

yes, and paying your entry fee with counterfeit money would also be a serious offense. Actually, both of these examples of counterfeiting should be handled by law enforcement, not Magic Judges - but playing with counterfeit cards also damages the integrity of the event, and that aspect of it requires a Judge to intervene and correct.

Adam, I understand that you believe strongly that your interpretation is correct and supported by policy. I've done what I can - and others have tried as well - to explain where your understanding goes awry. I encourage you to continue to explore and learn, and ask questions, seeking knowledge.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (March 18, 2019 02:45:47 PM)