Originally posted by Andre Tepedino:

Justin Murphy

When the statement in the MTR says “Game Rules”, it says ALL the rules. IPG knowledge is not strictly for judges. There is nothing wrong with using an opponent's mistake to your advantage.

Unless your opponent's mistake is anything else except a Missed Trigger.

The IPG does not list rules of the game. It's a guide to assist judges in handling scenarios. The IPG is not a purely hard and fast law of the land, this is why we as judges are allowed to deviate when the IPG doesn't cover a situation we're faced with. As per the example in the IPG, if a player is told by a judge he can play a card that he isn't allowed to play, you can choose to downgrade the penalty to a warning. If we had to play hard and fast, this would be a GL. It's flexible for this reason, unlike the CR, which is not flexible. Game Rules and “Guides” are different for a reason.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel the IPG has been changing over the years specifically to avoid being used for strategic advantage, and to improve the player's experience in higher stakes tournament play. The document has in it several (pointed out in this thread) areas that specifically say you are not allowed to bring up GPEs to the judge only when it gives you a strategic advantage. The reason why Missed Triggers are excluded is to avoid the horrific abuse that could come from penalizing someone for an invisible thing they don't control. This isn't about specifics to me, it's about philosophy. Specifically, yes they can do that and it's strategically advantageous to them. The philosophy of the game, the thing we as judges are encouraged to teach to the players, is not to do that. I don't feel it's in any way harmful to tell someone “Be careful about manipulating the IPG, there are many situations where this behavior would get you DQ'd. It's not encouraged.”

At first look, this is a GPE Missed Trigger infraction by Art. The trigger missed is the delayed trigger set up by “Dash” alternate cost of Lightning Berserker. This is a detrimental trigger, so it warrants an upgraded penalty: warning to Art. Remedy is categorized as a delayed trigger that changes the zone of a permanent, so it has to be resolved no matter how much time passed. The opponent (Nin) may decide whether to resolve this trigger the now (the next time a player receives priority), or at the start of the next phase.
Looking at how Nin is clearly gaining an advantage leaves me with bad feelings, especially because he did it intentionally. This is as far as my knowledge went without reading up on policy and philosophy.

After reading up this thread and the documents:
As most of you said already, Nin's “gotcha” way of pointing this mistake by Art out and gaining an advantage from the ruling itself feels abusive of the IPG protocols we should follow. I believe there are three ways to handle this:
1: Leave it as it is. Have a talk with Nin to discourage this kind of “strategy”, because it falls on a grey area of what we see as “fair” (in the spirit of our philosophy) and for that, not all judges may issue the same ruling he is looking for.
2: There is a line in the philosophy part of the GPE Missed Trigger infraction that I think helps us in “negating” the advantage Nin is attempting to gain here.
“A player who makes a play that may or may not be legal depending on whether an uncommunicated trigger has been remembered has not committed an infraction; their play either succeeds, confirming that the trigger has been missed, or is rewound.”
If the trigger had been resolved, this Lightning Berserker would not be on the field. Art would be activating an ability of something that isn't there. I believe this line can be applied to this situation, meaning it allows us an addition to the remedy: rewind the pump activations.
It could be argued whether this line can be applied or even if it was intended for a situation like this. Nonetheless, rewinding those activations elegantly fixes the problem of Nin gaining an advantage from it. Beyond this, Art will still miss a good attack in his turn because of this, but that's far less of a problem than having lost all that mana.
3: Nin's behavior invites the speculation on a deviation from the policy. This could be an addition to the remedy (maybe something along the lines of solution number 2 *nudge-nudge-wink-wink*) or something else entirely.

Some of you also mentioned that this kind of scenario makes you think whether the policy should be changed. If you begin to think that, then probably a deviation from the policy can be considered when you encounter this scenario.
Since I don't have much experience in judging yet, I'm not sure if the policy should be changed, but I don't feel like it should.

I certainly agree with everyone regarding the GPE-MT for Art complete with Warning, and no penalty for Nin.

As for the ethics behind Nin “shooting an angle” of the rules to gain an advantage here, I understand why it feels wrong to allow this type of behavior. However, we should also keep in mind what role Art has played in this. Art unintentionally missed a trigger due to careless play. At any moment before the attack and pump, Art could have remembered that he missed this trigger, called a judge, and had this resolved earlier when it wasn't so disadvantageous. He had every opportunity to prevent this blowout but failed to do so. Nin used the structure of the tournament rules and penalties to gain an advantage from her opponent's carelessness, an advantage that could have been negated at any point by her opponent remembering his mistake.

We often give out penalties that feel bad to the player receiving them; I don't think I've ever been thanked by the person I'm giving a TE-D/DLP game loss to for accidentally siding out one too many cards. Even so, we stress that they have the power to avoid these penalties through careful play. We only penalize players for actions they could have avoided in the first place. That same logic applies to this situation; if Art feels that this situation is needlessly harsh then he can prevent it from ever happening in his games again in the future. While I wouldn't be surprised if he is upset at the time, hopefully this will lead him to be tighter with his play in the future.

A few thoughts I'd like to share on judging and evaluating/handling the spectrum of player behavior…

(1) It is good and reasonable practice to encourage sporting behavior.
(2) It is good and reasonable practice to discourage unsporting behavior.
(3) Be careful to distinguish between competitive behavior and unsporting behavior.
(4) Be careful to distinguish between encouraging sporting behavior and discouraging competitive behavior.

As matter of customer service to the player community, we should certainly educate players as a way to discourage unsporting behavior. But we should be careful that in doing so, we aren't imposing a higher standard than what is in policy.

EDIT: This is not meant to further discussion on what policy should be, but rather, what our policy is currently. And certainly I mean this post to get back to the discussion on the scenario itself and what infraction(s) might be present here, if any.

Edited Brian Schenck (Sept. 5, 2015 05:44:03 AM)

I actually think that Nin's behaviour is way less shady than other competetive (and unsporting) behaviour, like just partly telling what your japanese card do when the opponent ask you (which have been discussed here earlier, and is allowed). In addition, even though this is not the reason the policy is the way it is, the benefit Art could gain here for missing his own trigger (both intentionally and not) without Nin noticing could be significant. When we allow opponents to legally gain advantage in these cases, the incentive for cheating here become much smaller, and I guess that is a good thing.

I would, as others have said, give a GPE-MT warning to Art to forget a detrimental trigger, but with no penalty or even discussion with Nin. Return the Berserker to his hand either at once (= the next time a player would get priority) or in the next phase (Nin's choice).

To avoid further discussion between the players, I would remind them that this is allowed since Art is the only one responsible for his own triggers, and that Nin is allowed to benefit from this, but I would also remind them that this is just allowed for an opponents missed triggers, and not for other game play errors, which is both players responsibility.

I came into this fairly late. But GPE-missed trigger and giving nin the choice of whether to resolve the trigger now or at the start of the next phase looks like the correct solution here.

Am I the only person who thinks Nin is well within their rights to take advantage of your opponent's mistake at a competitive event? Yes it's a dick move and yes, it has traces of both “gaming the rules” and “gotcha”, but in my mind, it was Art who made a mistake in the first place and have to suffer the consequences for it. And just like how a skilled player can capitalize on your misplays, a player with deep knowledge of the rules can capitalize on you breaking the rules. I feel this is the same as a situation where a player draws and extra card, and the opponent knows exactly which card it is in his hand, but still says “I can't confirm which card he drew” just to get an advantage (I really disliked that DEC used to be a gameloss because of this). In both cases, the player is taking advantage of the rules, but they could only do so because their opponents committed an error.

If this was regular REL, I would probably have backed up the game to before the attack and then given nin the options for resolving the berserker's trigger (this would negate nin's advantage of waiting to point out the trigger), but in competitive, I feel that I should follow the IPG and not back up.

Per my earlier post I would apply the IPG as stated, but I have been contemplating why I feel Nin is doing something shady and why that is different from a player using better knowledge of the rules to gain advantage.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm happy for a player to gain an advantage by understanding how the game is played better (shortcuts, timing etc), but when they use the way in which we fix game errors to create an advantage I'm not as happy. This seems to be the philosophy the IPG takes in general given the commentary in FtMGS - I think the ruling for missed triggers is not there to create this type of situation but to protect the opponent of a player who misses something.

While I might comment that not calling a judge immediately is fine when it is a missed trigger and that for other errors a judge should be called immediately as an education piece, I would not in any way be berating Nin.

I would give Art a Warning for missing a detrimental trigger, but as the mistake was missed longer than the current phase of the previous player's turn it is too late to put on the stack. I would instruct Art to pay attention to his triggers.

I would also talk to Nin and let her know that while there is nothing wrong with her not pointing out when her opponent misses their triggers or pointing them out when it better suits her, she can get in serious trouble for not pointing out his mistakes when it doesn't involve a trigger being missed.

Sal, delayed zone changes triggers will always be resolved no matter how many turns have passed, this is why Nin's behavior can come off as shady, the berserker will be returned after Art uses all his mana. She gains a huge benefit for waiting to point it out, at least if she knows the fix.

But I still think it is wrong to discourage this behavior too much, as long as it is supported by policy. And I don't know why we should want to change this, Art had several opportunities to avoid this by remembering it earlier, this is his responsibility, even if it feels wrong that Nin benefits from a fix. But she still benefits from Art's mistake, and not just from a fix, and pointing out a mistake when it benefits her isn't in my opinion any worse than not pointing it out at all if it benefits her (and this is allowed for missed triggers).

We shoudn't encourage this directly of course, but for me, it feels much more important to avoid any misunderstandings and problems between the players, by explaining how missed triggers work, maybe why the rules work this way, and that this would not have been okay for other game play errors.

Originally posted by Marit Norderhaug:

delayed zone changes triggers will always be resolved no matter how many turns have passed

Ah, of course! I just read this too xD I would then ask Nin if she would like to put it on the stack now or later :I

I agree though, that I wouldn't really discourage Nin from using the missed trigger to her advantage, but would make sure she knows where that line between cheating and strategy is.

A bit late to the party, but I agree with what seems to be the general consensus. Art has missed his trigger, and while Nim's actions may seem shady, she's done nothing actually wrong. Knowing the rules can give you an edge in the game and Nim clearly takes advantage of this. We can't penalize players for acting within the rules.

Infraction: GPE - Missed Trigger - Art
Fix: Ask Nim if she would rather the ability resolve when a player would next gain priority now or at the beginning of the next phase.

Additionally, and this might just be me, but I'd keep an eye on Nim if this happens repeatedly.

It appears that my initial response was clearly incorrect due to the number of answers stating otherwise :). I had a question come up from this situation though: how do I reconcile that zone changing does not have a duration, but the MTR says the following:

4.4 Triggered Abilities
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating. Players are
not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within
a turn if they wish.

Does the IPG have precedence in allowing a missed trigger to be recognized at any time? I'm not quite sure how to reconcile these two policies together. If Nim waited more than a turn cycle (which she did), this would not be allowed per the MTR but the IPG has no duration on this, however.

Edited Brandon Salaz (Sept. 8, 2015 12:57:03 PM)

Look under Additional Remedy:

If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”), resolve it choosing the default option.

If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it.

For these two types of abilities, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much time has passed since they should have triggered.

Edited Sal Cortez (Sept. 8, 2015 02:06:41 PM)

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

Look under Additional Remedy:

If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”), resolve it choosing the default option.

If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it.

For these two types of abilities, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much time has passed since they should have triggered.

Maybe i'm getting into the semantics of the two documents more than is reasonable in this situation. So the IPG additional remedy has precedence over the rule in the MTR stating that it can only be pointed out within a turn?

Originally posted by Brandon Salaz:

Maybe i'm getting into the semantics of the two documents more than is reasonable in this situation. So the IPG additional remedy has precedence over the rule in the MTR stating that it can only be pointed out within a turn?

At Competitive and Professional RELs, yes.

It is important to understand how the various documents work in conjunction with one another. The Comprehensive Rules and Magic Tournament Rules define both how we play the game and the policies that govern how events are run. Both provide either specific rules on how to play (games operate on the principle of “Only what is permitted”) or policies that express our expectations (either disallowing specific things or defining our expectations).

The Magic Infraction Procedure Guide (or the Judging at Regular REL Guide) specifically handles violations of the rules and policies set in the other two documents. So, the MIPG identifies the specific infractions for the rules or policies that may be violated, and lays out specific ways to handle those infractions. The MIPG may supplement either document, by providing more detailed procedures, or even deviate in some fashion on how to handle something. Specifically because at Competitive or Professional REL, we have very specific expectations set in policy, outlined in the MIPG, that we expect everyone to follow when judging. Especially to provide players with consistency in their expectations.

In this case, MTR 4.4 does broadly define or explain how to recognize a missed trigger… But, MIPG 2.1 tells us how to handle a missed trigger when it actually happens.