This is a general policy discussion about how we handle DECs where the following excerpt from the IPG applies:

Originally posted by IPG:

“If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.”

Annotated IPG
If the criteria are met, the downgrade is compulsory. It is the Head Judge’s decision whether the fix is minimally disruptive, but if that decision is made, the downgrade happens.

I have some concern based on my observations from SCG Seattle that we've opened up a significant opportunity for advantageous sloppy play, or even outright cheating.

Three times over the course of Day 1, I observed the following scenario or a close variation:

A player with a Courser of Kruphix draws an extra card. This was usually during his “second” draw step of the turn. The opponent noticed, and called a judge. The offending player explained it as “It's been a long day. I had a brain fart.” Both players and the judge ended up being convinced it was an innocent mistake. A DEC penalty downgraded to a Warning was issued.

If this happened three times in my area of the floor, it probably happened dozens of times over the course of the tournament. Perhaps a HJ or scorekeeper could verify just how many downgraded DECs they've been entering, but I would guess it's around 5-10 per 1,000 matches. Some casual remarks while I was confirming a downgrade with the HJ support that high frequency.

My concern is that for every time this was noticed, there was probably another where a player drew an extra card with no repercussions. As far as I know, nobody has received a Game Loss for DEC with Courser in play, or been DQ'd for cheating in that scenario. Courser is effectively providing a free pass for self-serving sloppy play.

The thought that occurred to me that finally convinced me to make this post is that over that course of time, I saw zero cases of DEC where there wasn't a Courser in play. It seems pretty fishy that players were 3/3 on having Coursers when getting caught drawing an extra card, even though only ~15% of players had one in play at any given time.

There are a couple other factors that might explain that correlation though. It's a lot easier for opponents to notice DEC when they can visually identify the cards that are being drawn. Some players (especially those running Eidolon of Blossoms in tandem with Courser) have built up some muscle memory of revealing the top card then immediately drawing it.

The reason I think we might want to revisit this policy is best summed up by the IPG's stated philosophy on DEC:

Originally posted by IPG:

Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.

Annotated IPG
Drawing an extra card is actually pretty easy. However, the penalty needs to be stiff enough to discourage the “good liars” from trying to draw a card when the opponent isn’t looking. If the penalty was just a warning, some players would “play the odds” and just accept the Warning if caught. Unlike other “on board” errors, this one is hard to notice unless you see the card being drawn.

Please make sure that every instance of DEC is properly recorded. That way, someone who makes this same “mistake” at multiple events can be discovered and investigated. Players have been suspended based on Warnings history, and it will happen again, I'm certain.

For what it's worth, I see a lot of DEC instances that have nothing to do with Courser - player communication is often the culprit (“you said go!”), but lots of variations occur. What you describe is a valid concern, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't persuade me to change policy.

d:^D

One thing I'd like to address is the concern that there were cases where a
player drew an extra card and there were no repercussions. In those cases
where the extra card draw was not brought to a judge, the problem was not
with policy; it was either a failure to notice the issue or a willingness
to simply fix the problem without the presence of a judge. Once a judge is
involved in handling such a case, there are repercussions–it may be a
downgrade to a warning, it may be a GL, it may be worse if the HJ believes
it to be intentional–but, as Uncle Scott notes, it must be recorded.

They key (to me) is that if a player is abusing this, they have to either
be aware of the downgrade option or know to appeal–possibly both. If the
player is in this situation, they also have to be willing to risk the HJ
investigating their action. It can happen; it's just a pretty big risk.

I think it's important for us as judges (and particularly head judges) to
be aware of players potentially abusing this scenario. As a judge, I
dislike courser for a number of reasons, and this is only one of them. :)