Originally posted by Sean Hunt:

I would not issue two different GLs for an illegal decklist as they are the same mistake: submitting an illegal decklist. The difference here is that in the first case, there were two different (but similar) errors, while in this case, it is the same error, it has just not been fully corrected.

My question was specifically in reference to Toby's post that I quoted. In that post, Toby said:

The goal, in this case, is to ensure that we have 60 cards registered in the main deck that match what the player is playing, since the existence of only 58 on the decklist ensures that there's a problem. Note that at this point we aren't even thinking about the sideboard, so we're unlikely to discover an error there.

(emphasis mine)

This seems like questionable philosophy to me, which is why I wanted to ask further about it.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

This seems like questionable philosophy to me, which is why I wanted to ask further about it.

Why is the “philosophy” that questionable? It is simply an acknowledgement of a very practical concern: That sometimes you need to focus your time and effort on the most immediate concerns. Which is a much broader acknowledgement of the very real goal of balancing the various needs of the event. And sometimes providing the “full customer service” to a single individual has to be balanced against the needs of the rest of the players in the event. As well as the organizer and the other judges.

While, in an ideal world, all potential errors would have been caught at the same time, the practical effect is that sometimes you focus on the errors you know about and fix those. That is simply a “scope limitation” on the deck check; you focus on the one error you know about, in order to fix it and ensure that you can move onto other tasks that need to be accomplished. And if the event has a critical mass of judge to player ratio where you have to ensure that judges can move on to the next task… Then you have to balance your efforts accordingly.

Is this a mistake by the judge? Or is this the reality that we all have to face when it comes to how events need to be managed? Perhaps the judge's “mistake” could have been mitigated via announcements earlier, to ensure that players were reminded not to have cards in their deck box that weren't part of the deck. Or just a reminder to be on the lookout for other errors even when checking the otherwise illegal list.

Perfection is a nice goal to strive for, whether in making rulings or other tasks, but we need to not be so critical of ourselves or other judges when we don't actually reach that goal. It's one thing to do the “wrong thing”, but quite another to do the “right thing, just not perfectly”. That would be an ideal perspective that all judges could share, especially when discussing rulings we've made and perhaps didn't handle ideally.

It may be an unfortunate situation, but I can't find fault with the original judge in this situation. Hopefully it served as a learning experience for all parties involved.

On Wed Jul 10 13:10, Brian Schenck wrote:
> Perfection is a nice goal to strive for, whether in making rulings or other tasks, but we need to not be so critical of ourselves or other judges when we don't actually reach that goal. It's one thing to do the “wrong thing”, but quite another to do the “right thing, just not perfectly”. That would be an ideal perspective that all judges could share, especially when discussing rulings we've made and perhaps didn't handle ideally.
>
> It may be an unfortunate situation, but I can't find fault with the original judge in this situation. Hopefully it served as a learning experience for all parties involved.

There's a difference between condemning the judge and not penalising the player. I see nothing wrong in saying “yes, we should have caught this, but we didn't, so we're downgrading the second GL”, it doesn't vilify the judge. I'm happy to acknowledge when I had the opportunity to do better, even if in practice sometimes it doesn't happen.

Matt

Probably the HJ announced that at competitive level players must present their sideboard to his/her opponent.

If the player had presented his sideboard every round, there is no problem by having extra cards in his deckbox.

If he is not fulfilling the announcement, is his fault x2 (having extra cards & not present the sideboard). He has no right to put his mistakes on the judge that corrected his maindeck.

On Wed Jul 10 13:59, Jorge Requesens wrote:
> Probably the HJ announced that at competitive level players must present their sideboard to his/her opponent.
>
> If the player had presented his sideboard every round, there is no problem by having extra cards in his deckbox.
>
> If he is not fulfilling the announcement, is his fault x2 (having extra cards & not present the sideboard). He has no right to put his mistakes on the judge that corrected his maindeck.

I've never heard a HJ announce that. Japan is the only place I've ever seen people present sideboards.

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I've never heard a HJ announce that. Japan is the only place I've ever seen people present sideboards.

Matt

MTR 3.15 Sideboard - players are required to do that.

EDIT to add: "Before each game begins, players must present their sideboard (if any) face down "

Edited Jorge Requesens (July 10, 2013 04:18:27 PM)

On Wed Jul 10 14:17, Jorge Requesens wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I've never heard a HJ announce that. Japan is the only place I've ever seen people present sideboards.
>

>
> MTR 3.15 Sideboard - players are required to do that.

I'm aware of MTR 3.15, that doesn't in any way contradict my previous statement.

Matt

Folks, I'm not seeing useful progress in this discussion; it's time to close it down, with a quick summary.

Clearly, some feel strongly that the initial handling of the player's D/DL Problem was insufficient; others are more forgiving of that, or (like me) apply the context of customer service to over a thousand players, not just one.

In the initial example, the decision was made, by the Head Judge, to downgrade. Toby and I have already chimed in with our opinions (both of us support the original decision to downgrade), but this isn't the sort of thing that requires an “Official” answer.

Thank you all for participating, and I hope everyone gained something from this exchange.

Whoops, I got another thread confused with this one.

Toby and I have each chimed in, but he has NOT offered support for a downgrade. His points were more related to the reality of handling deck errors in round 2 of a large event. On the downgrade, Toby and I may differ - and that, too, is instructive for all.

Hi, all. I wanted to post a conclusion, and in it give my reasons for the downgrade, so I asked that the thread be reopened momentarily. My goal here is to present you with things to think about, not necessarily state definitively that my decision was right or wrong.

First off, manpower was not an issue. We had 3 list GL penalties to give out in round 2 and another list to just check a cardname. With 20 judges and 483 players, we were not under any pressure at all, especially considering the high levels on my staff. So, while I did consider issues of manpower, I dismissed them. In most events, you will not be able to dismiss the manpower issue.

Second, I completely believed the player that the card had been there since the beginning and would have been noticed in a full deck check in round 2. Some of you who are concerned about the card being added for advantage are right to be concerned so. I can say only that I was convinced, based upon the interview of the player, that this was not an issue. This is certainly a very subjective call. Also, let me be clear: not checking the entire deck is NOT a judge error by the judge who executed the penalty. This type of full check is not done all the time with list penalties, though I do see it sometimes, but our normal methods do not require it. It IS good customer service if we can do it.

Third, I consulted with several senior judges on staff. Among all of us, we were split down the middle. I frequently run ideas, especially deviations, by my senior judges, to see if I’m being foolish. Notice I don’t say right or wrong, because that is sometimes hard to quantify precisely, but I say foolish. Some ideas are so bad as to be foolish, and those are usually exposed when you talk about them with others. In this case, we were split, so the idea was definitely not obviously foolish. Certainly no one had a problem with it, even if they disagreed with it. Also, I didn’t talk to ALL of my level 3+ judges, because that would take too much time, but I spoke with three of the other five L3+ judges. I try never to make these decisions lightly.

Lastly, I actually did consider this to be (sort of) a judge error – specifically it was MY error. I had intended to make this announcement in the player’s meeting, but I forgot to do so. This event I tried a slightly different version of my player’s meeting by including stuff about splits/concessions and die-rolling for the win (which we didn’t have ANY of, maybe because I announced it THREE times on the day). I usually put a thing in about cards in the deckbox, because that is so common, but I forgot. That announcement MAY have saved this guy. Who can say? I made the announcement after this occurrence, and we didn’t have any problems afterward. Note that this doesn't take away the player's responsibilities, but it adds more fuel to the fire. To me, anyway.

So, when I considered everything, I felt that customer service to the one in this one particular case - because I/we might have done much more but didn’t - was indicated. Event integrity was not at all in jeopardy, and I felt that we might have done more on the judge side. Remember, too, he did not escape penalty for his DDLP; he had already received a GL penalty.

That’s about it. It is a lot to think about. I posted it actually from the event itself when I had some time, because it certainly is a controversial decision, and those can be great discussion generators. And you guys did do a great discussion. Thanks to all who participated.

Eric Shukan
Woburn, MA