There are two cases in which the IPG allows for a downgrade (both in D/DLP):

1. A player noticing cards missing from his deck before taking any game actions.
   
2. A player finds incorrect cards in his deck before taking any game actions.

The underlying philosophy is “A player called a judge by himself, before he could get any advantage”.
Shouldn't we apply this to other cases, not listed in the IPG?
Some examples (all from personal experience):

• While sideboarding, a player notices he had a sideboard card in his deck on game 1, that wasn't drawn, looked at, or moved from the library during the game. He calls a judge immediately.
  
• A player becomes aware that his decklist is illegal/doesn't match his deck and notifies a judge in between rounds.
  
• A player notices a marking on a sleeve in his deck and calls a judge before looking at the front side of the card.

In all of these cases, the player might never be caught, and if he does, he will receive the same penalty as the one he'll get if notifying a judge.
While technically not notifying a judge is cheating, a judge would probably never think about investigating these cases.

Wouldn't a downgrade be a good incentive for players to call a judge before they can get any advantage, instead of them preferring to gamble and hope they can fix the problem before a judge notices?

According to the IPG, a downgrade is not an option, but maybe we should consider it.
What do you think?

1. While it does sound like DDLP it is actually not. Since the player is currently not playing a game where we or the opponent can verify that an incorrect card was presented we cannot give a penalty.
   
2. There are scenarios here where the player does not get a penalty. If the decklist is legal, but does not match the players deck, he can locate the cards from the decklist and start playing a legal deck. If the list is illegal or he wishes to change it, he has managed to gain an advantage in that he can add/edit the list after the event has started.
   
3. How do you know that the player called a judge immediately as he noticed that the card was marked?
   

Yuval,

Just for reference, here's the Annotated IPG on the matter: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg3-5/

It's a bit unclear to me whether you're asking about other cases of D/DLP that aren't listed, or if we should use this philosophy to downgrade other penalties. Mind clarifying?

I'm saying we should consider using this philosophy for infractions that aren't D/DLP, as well as situations in D/DLP that aren't covered by the IPG.

Why? Because in all those cases, a player could easily “get away with it”.
If a player is going to use the advantage he gained, he wouldn't tell anyone, which is what the IPG is for.
If a player called a judge, he's “doing the right thing”. If a player gets a GL for being honest, the next time he might decide to not be honest, and maybe get a GL later, or maybe not at all.
The point is to reward players for doing the right thing.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

While sideboarding, a player notices he had a sideboard card in his deck on game 1, that wasn't drawn, looked at, or moved from the library during the game. He calls a judge immediately.

Jonas Breindahl
While it does sound like DDLP it is actually not. Since the player is currently not playing a game where we or the opponent can verify that an incorrect card was presented we cannot give a penalty.

Exactly. A player admits he did something illegal. You can't prove it, you can't catch it the player would've gotten away with it, but the player decided to confess. He called you and admitted that he did something wrong because he decided to be honest.
That player got a GL for playing an illegal deck (from another judge), and later came to me and told me that he feels like his honesty cost him a GL and that he has no incentive to call a judge next time.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

A player becomes aware that his decklist is illegal/doesn't match his deck and notifies a judge in between rounds.

Jonas Breindahl
There are scenarios here where the player does not get a penalty. If the decklist is legal, but does not match the players deck, he can locate the cards from the decklist and start playing a legal deck. If the list is illegal or he wishes to change it, he has managed to gain an advantage in that he can add/edit the list after the event has started.

In this case, a player had a 16-card sideboard listed (the actual sideboard was legal). If a player wanted to use that to his advantage, he would've waited until we check the list and maybe even miss the error. A player came forward and told us about the error.
This case is not as clear cut than the others.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

A player notices a marking on a sleeve in his deck and calls a judge before looking at the front side of the card.

Jonas Breindahl
How do you know that the player called a judge immediately as he noticed that the card was marked?

I was next to the table. A player drew a card and noticed that the next card (the one that's now on top of the library) has an ink stain (and it was definitely a stain and not man-made). The player could have easily waited until sideboarding to clean/replace the sleeve, but he called a judge instead.

My point is: we should incentivise players to do the right thing and not punish them harshly for being honest and coming forward.

Getting a GL in the first situation seems wrong. Like Jonas said, your
first scenario doesn't require a downgrade because it's not a D/DLP in the
first place. There's no infraction following the current IPG.

I would deviate (?) in the third scenario. Let the player replace the
sleeve and shuffle the unknown portion of the deck if it contained the
card. If I hadn't been present originally, I'd verify with the opponent how
the card was noticed and do a small investigation.

2016-07-10 3:00 GMT-04:00 Yuval Tzur <forum-28533-90ab@apps.magicjudges.org>
:

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

While sideboarding, a player notices he had a sideboard card in his deck on game 1, that wasn't drawn, looked at, or moved from the library during the game. He calls a judge immediately.

This is not an infraction, and no penalty should be assessed (thus, no need for a downgrade).

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

A player becomes aware that his decklist is illegal/doesn't match his deck and notifies a judge in between rounds.

As Jonas noted, you can correct your deck to match the list (no infraction), correct the list to match the deck (Game Loss), or … well, I guess you could be Cheating, if you knowingly play with a deck that doesn't match the list.

I will note that this scenario seems odd to me. How do you realize your deck list is wrong, *after* you've submitted it? The reason that we assess a Game Loss to someone who “needs to change their list to match the deck” is to offset the perceived risk/reward of Cheating in this manner - scout the tournament, then decide on those last few cards in the deck and/or sideboard.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

A player notices a marking on a sleeve in his deck and calls a judge before looking at the front side of the card.

Again, not an infraction, so no downgrade needed. Imagine a player calling you over while shuffling, after resolving a tutor or fetch effect, and saying “Judge, I just broke this sleeve…” - clearly, that's not Marked Cards, you just help them fix it. Your example is no different.

Note that we did, consciously, limit the opportunities for judges to “get creative” with downgrades; that was based on anecdotal evidence that downgrades were being applied too liberally, in situations that didn't justify it.

d:^D