You would not be following infraction philosophy (nor policy) to give OA to
Nemo. Receiving assistance is intentionally left out of the definition of
the penalty. You have to seek it to incur OA.

This prevents, for example, my friend from standing behind and reading out
the contents of my hand to get my opponent a match loss after my friend has
scrubbed out of the event.

The problem I have is that in this situation Nemo was already tapping lands, suggesting he was just going to slam Demonfire into Negate. If this is the case you're putting the player in the incredibly awkward position of

A) Lying to a judge to avoid a match loss, possibly getting dq'd if you follow up.
B) Getting a match loss for something that was not their fault.

Sometimes unfair things happen, and sometimes we don't have the ability to fix them. It's unfortunate, but true.

Because I'd only issue the infraction in the case of a confession of willfully using the outside assistance, the confession itself would be both significant and exceptional. Suppose Nemo said right before playing the land, then the Demonfire, “Well, since I now know you have Negate in your hand, I need to play this land first.” Is that okay?

I feel like it's his responsibility to determine which information is appropriate to use and which information should be disregarded. Note that I don't think having the information by itself should be grounds for the infraction. So your friend reading out the contents of your hand doesn't apply. He would just be removed from the venue as normal.

And yes, it is an awkward situation. There's no avoiding that. But I'm not trying to catch anyone in a lie, and I'm not trying to award a match loss for something that's not their fault. I have (and must have) good faith that the players are playing the game in accordance with the rules to the best of their ability. But if a player confesses that they are not, I don't feel it is right to let it slide.

Originally posted by David Carroll:

Suppose Nemo said right before playing the land, then the Demonfire, “Well, since I now know you have Negate in your hand, I need to play this land first.” Is that okay?

Yes. As Josh pointed out, the IPG definition of Outside Assistance does not include using any information that you shouldn't have that you happen to acquire.

Perhaps the philosophy section should be updated to include specifically that using unsolicited outside assistance is okay, and why. Because to me it seems at odds with the first line of that section.

Originally posted by David Carroll:

Perhaps the philosophy section should be updated to include specifically that using unsolicited outside assistance is okay, and why. Because to me it seems at odds with the first line of that section.

How would you ever determine when they are using that information? Subconsciously that information is going to be there and you can't just ignore the fact that you now know a card in your opponent's hand. A player should not be penalized for something a spectator did.

Originally posted by David Carroll:

Perhaps the philosophy section should be updated to include specifically that using unsolicited outside assistance is okay, and why. Because to me it seems at odds with the first line of that section.

Keep in mind that the philosophy section of the penalty exists to help explain why the infraction exists at all (why do we have LEC or DEC separately from GRV?) or why the penalty is what it is (why do you issue a Warning for LEC versus Game Loss for DEC?), and can even help understand why the remedy is what it is. In a general sense, it can help explain the differentiation between various infractions. Especially in providing more depth to understand the MIPG as a whole, and its component elements.

That being said, the definition is what we use to assess whether or not the player has committed an infraction. While the philosophy section might help if the situation is a bit odd, judges should understand the definition well enough to understand whether a certain situation is actually an infraction or not. That's actually the more relevant “mechanical” element of the process. So, yes, it stinks that the person got information and why we want to punish people who seek or offer that information; but the mere presence of the information isn't what causes the problem. It's the behavior we want to discourage.

Thank you to those who participated this week! Patrick is currently very busy with other tasks, but that will not stop the flow of knowledge! And now for our solution:


By revealing hidden information to a player who has sat for his match, Moby has committed Tournament Error - Outside Assistance. He will receive a Match Loss, to be applied to the next round. If Moby is no longer in the tournament, simply record the penalty in the reporting software for record keeping. If Moby was never in the tournament, you will need to add him to the tournament to issue the penalty (and then drop him to avoid accidentally pairing him in later rounds). Additionally, the TO may ask Moby to leave the venue if he no longer has any more rounds to play in this tournament.

Despite some arguments to the contrary, neither Ahab nor Nemo have committed any infractions, because neither solicited the information that Moby unwittingly provided. In addition, we should make no attempt to fix the game state. Nemo is not forced to cast Demonfire before playing the land, since he hadn't announced the spell, only begun to add mana to his mana pool before beginning to cast it.

While it is an unfortunate situation, it seems that Moby has crippled Ahab in this game.


Please check in tomorrow for another exciting scenario!