I'd like to note that my following argument is predicated on my belief that we do not give DP between games not due to the non-existence of an infraction - I think an infraction absolutely exists - but rather because we believe it is actively negative to give the infraction retroactively.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Think about what sort of behavior you incentivize if you penalize players retroactively. You incentivize them to do the exact thing this thread is about, notice a problem and not tell us. If a player knows that they've made an error and honestly feels bad about it, there is no benefit to infracting them, there are only downsides.

It is absolutely incorrect that there are no benefits to giving them an infraction. There are and always have been benefits, the question is whether those benefits outweigh the downsides.

The reason we don't give penalties retroactively for Deck Problems is because we believe that the upside of giving an infraction (ensuring players understand understand they need to have a legal deck) does not outweigh the downsides (making players feel uncomfortable approaching a judge proactively). Additionally, as there is no current game it's hard to be sure of the infraction as there is no current infraction - only a previous infraction as the player describes.

Yes, it is true that if he only realised the deck problem between games then we don't give an infraction. However, I don't agree that this situation as presented isn't covered by Cheating. In this situation, he did indeed notice an offense in his match (presenting an illegal deck). He did not call attention to it. He was trying to gain an advantage (not getting a penalty) and he was aware that what he was doing was illegal (as evidenced by trying not to get a penalty).

I think in this case we should absolutely give the cheating infraction. If handled correctly, the player will understand that if they had called a judge at the moment and not tried to wait and game the system, they would have received no penalty. However, noticing something wrong and not calling a judge is absolutely not the correct way to play Magic and we should not be incentivizing that.

EDIT: I misread the original post slightly, updated above.

Edited Tom Wood (Aug. 20, 2019 07:22:24 PM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

After the match, results have been reported etc, I agree. But this is not after the match. This is during the match.

That is incorrect. The original post clearly states the opposite.

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

Ok, so the match is just finished. A turns to me. “I did something that will most likely get me punished”.

This is getting ridiculous. Are we counting seconds now? Let me describe the scenario as detailed as I can as you seem to not get the scenario at all.

We are in game 3. I am sitting at the table. Player A attacks for lethal. Player B is out of answers, shows his hands of blanks. It becomes abundantly clear that the game is over. At that very moment Player A turns his to towards me and comes forward with his confession. His opponents face is one big WTF?!

This is where your ruling would be “Sorry, 0.3 seconds to late. Good luck in the finals”? Seriously?!

That's not the part of the scenario that matters.

The scenario is:
Player A had an illegal deck Game 1, but did not know.
Between games, Player A realized he had had an illegal configuration during
Game 1. This would be the point where they would have called a judge.

Our philosophy is what Mark mentioned in the first reply:
“We can't verify whether or not the deck used in game 1 was legal or not.”
“When we're in between games, there's no such thing as an illegal deck.”

No infraction, be it retroactive or not.

If they had realized during Game 1, then yes, they would be breaking a rule
by not letting anyone know.


śr., 21 sie 2019 o 03:13 Olle Liljefeldt <

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

This is getting ridiculous. Are we counting seconds now? Let me describe the scenario as detailed as I can as you seem to not get the scenario at all.

We are in game 3. I am sitting at the table. Player A attacks for lethal. Player B is out of answers, shows his hands of blanks. It becomes abundantly clear that the game is over. At that very moment Player A turns his to towards me and comes forward with his confession. His opponents face is one big WTF?!

This is where your ruling would be “Sorry, 0.3 seconds to late. Good luck in the finals”? Seriously?!

Since this is not a hypothetical question I understand if you're defensive Olle, and trying to protect yourself against the possibility that you didn't make the right ruling. You haven't actually said what you'd want to rule/ruled. As you can see multiple people are disagreeing on what the ruling should be, so you don't have to feel particulary singled out by giving your version.

I would however like to implore everyone to try and avoid creating provocative sentences and focusing on educating instead. Try to see each others views (I know, easier said than done) and ask for clarifications instead of making assumptions.

With that said I too would have educated the player on how close this case is and not given out a penalty. I agree with the sentiment that there isn't an infraction for when player A realizes the mistake after game 1. Therefore not breaking any rule meaning it isn't cheating by not mentioning it.
I also think it would be a great idéa to have something officially written down about retroactively giving out penalties. Because from what I see here it's one of those things we need to be told personally from other judges.

Thank you, Linda, for providing a “calming voice”!

I've chatted with the Policy folks, and they're going to look at the IPG and see if language can be added, where appropriate, to call out in-game infractions (e.g., Game Play Error, Deck Problem) vs. those infractions that can occur outside of a game/match (e.g., Decklist Problem, Unsporting Conduct). Obviously, no promises - but perhaps a future version of the IPG can help codify this distinction.

d:^D

Ok, the scenario is clear to everyone and you still agree that the ruling is “no infraction”. That pretty much settles this subject.


It makes me sad. When everyone involved, everyone watching, shares the same view of what is resonable it is weird when the rules states otherwise. It reminds me of the scenario when the 2-drop turned out to be Isleback Spawn, the ruling is “it stays in play” and both players agree that that couldn't possibly be resonable at all.


It is of course next to impossible to get the rules great and we want the ruling to be same regardless of who is judging. But these kind of rulings makes judges look bad and the rules look stupid. It creates a badwill amongst players and the Blackshirts becomes a representative of that feeling of unfair.

I am not concerned that I made a ruling that is officially faulty; I am concerned that the ruling is officially faulty. It also renders the rule in question useless.

Part of the problem here, I imagine, is that we can pretty much never catch DP outside of a game without the owner of the deck telling us. That is - while players would be Cheating, we can't catch it unless they come clean. I guess the point, then, is that we don't want to punish players more for being honest than for keeping quiet. If there's absolutely zero risk taken for keeping quiet, it does leave a bad taste for being honest (“if I'd just not said anything, I'd have gotten away with it for sure”). Assuming everyone has a conscience, this isn't a problem - but some people don't. Pretty much every other instance of accidental (“I made a mistake and am keeping quiet”) Cheating has at least a possibility of being caught by spectators or the opponent.

And for example deck checking players after the game (making it possible to catch these things after-the-fact) I don't think is possible, because players aren't expected to stay seated and available outside of their rounds (to for example go to the bathroom or get food).

I agree that it feels fair to give the game loss to the player once we've established that it did exist. But then, we give game losses only to honest players and no infraction to dishonest players. I believe it's worth sacrificing some fairness in one ruling to increase the fairness of the average ruling (but it's okay to disagree here).

This kind of philosophy really should be explained in policy, though - and the reasons behind it should be clear. It's something that you can't read yourself to, which is detrimental to the consistency of our rulings.

Originally posted by Jonathan Johansen:

Part of the problem here, I imagine, is that we can pretty much never catch DP outside of a game without the owner of the deck telling us. That is - while players would be Cheating, we can't catch it unless they come clean. I guess the point, then, is that we don't want to punish players more for being honest than for keeping quiet. If there's absolutely zero risk taken for keeping quiet, it does leave a bad taste for being honest (“if I'd just not said anything, I'd have gotten away with it for sure”). Assuming everyone has a conscience, this isn't a problem - but some people don't. Pretty much every other instance of accidental (“I made a mistake and am keeping quiet”) Cheating has at least a possibility of being caught by spectators or the opponent.

And for example deck checking players after the game (making it possible to catch these things after-the-fact) I don't think is possible, because players aren't expected to stay seated and available outside of their rounds (to for example go to the bathroom or get food).

I agree that it feels fair to give the game loss to the player once we've established that it did exist. But then, we give game losses only to honest players and no infraction to dishonest players. I believe it's worth sacrificing some fairness in one ruling to increase the fairness of the average ruling (but it's okay to disagree here).

This kind of philosophy really should be explained in policy, though - and the reasons behind it should be clear. It's something that you can't read yourself to, which is detrimental to the consistency of our rulings.

I agree with everything here except this part:
“I believe it's worth sacrificing some fairness in one ruling to increase the fairness of the average ruling.”

As you point out, we will never catch the player who did not tell anything. Thing is, telling at all creates the whole scenario. If he had not tell me, I had not needed to make a ruling. The opponent would not have felt cheated upon. By telling, he clears his conscience (at least to a significant part). But he also creates a mist of unfairness in the room, which the ruling the judge must do enforces.

To be honest, I rather have an environment where players do not tell than one there we rule that it is officially ok. It is confusing and creates problems when they actually do notice in the game and then suddenly “Ha Ha! Now I can punish you!” It is weird that we rule differently depending on if it is before or after scooping up the cards after the game.

One of the other reasons we rule differently depending on if it is before or after scooping, is that if a player only notices the error after the game (e.g. while sideboarding) then it's clear that the error didn't impact the game. Awarding a Game Loss when there has been zero damage to the game's integrity would be quite harsh. However, if the error is found during the game, then there is potentially damage to the game. And that's why it gets a penalty. And finally, if the player notices during the game, but says nothing until after the game, that's when they run the risk of a DQ.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Cheers Guy - good spot. I was only reading half way through the section - a rookie mistake!

I'm afraid you just made that same mistake again :)
It did have an impact on the game, since the card was drawn (well, actually at least one copy of that card). Which is the rationale for the upgrade of the penalty.


Had the scenario been:
“I realized this sideboard card was in main when boarding to game 2”
“Was the card drawn/visible during game 1”
“No”

Well, then there is hardly any problem not issue any penalty. It would have been the same thing as finding a strict sideboard card in G1 and called upon it right away. No advantage could have been taken, fix it and off you go.

Problem is that the answer was “Yes”.

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

Problem is that the answer was “Yes”

In the original post you said that they only noticed when they were sideboarding?

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

One of the other reasons we rule differently depending on if it is before or after scooping, is that if a player only notices the error after the game (e.g. while sideboarding) then it's clear that the error didn't impact the game. Awarding a Game Loss when there has been zero damage to the game's integrity would be quite harsh. However, if the error is found during the game, then there is potentially damage to the game. And that's why it gets a penalty. And finally, if the player notices during the game, but says nothing until after the game, that's when they run the risk of a DQ.

Ok, so this was the comment I was commenting on. I thought that obvious as it was in direct conjunction, and wanted to flashback to the top of the thread where you made the exactly same mistake. Your view states that it is “not impacting the game”, whereas the official ruling on the opposite upgrades that same scenario due to impacting the game. As the rules text Guy cited after your first reply in this thread pointed out.


Personally, I don't really cope with your logic at all. How do you come to the conclusion “not impact the game” based on when it was discovered? I would say it did impact the game, because at least one copy of the card was drawn in the game. That is also the sole rational for the upgrade.

Edited Olle Liljefeldt (Aug. 27, 2019 08:15:11 AM)

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

It is weird that we rule differently depending on if it is before or after scooping up the cards after the game.

This was the line I was trying to respond to when I posted. It was a general comment and I was trying to provide a general response. This is the trouble with two trains of thought in one thread - it's hard to keep track of which comment is linked to which.

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

Personally, I don't really cope with your logic at all. How do you come to the conclusion “not impact the game” based on when it was discovered? I would say it did impact the game, because at least one copy of the card was drawn in the game. That is also the sole rational for the upgrade.

While the rationale for the upgrade is having more copies in the deck than it was supposed to, we also have to take into account when is the first time the players noticed that there was something wrong. In the situation of the OP, the player noticed that something wasn't right AFTER that game has ended. We apply deck problems to a *presented* deck, and at the point of discovering the error the deck is not presented (although it was at some point, and if it was discovered DURING THAT GAME the Game Loss would have been issued).

Edited Julio Sosa (Aug. 27, 2019 08:45:00 AM)

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

Originally posted by Olle Liljefeldt:

It is weird that we rule differently depending on if it is before or after scooping up the cards after the game.

This was the line I was trying to respond to when I posted. It was a general comment and I was trying to provide a general response. This is the trouble with two trains of thought in one thread - it's hard to keep track of which comment is linked to which.

Oh, I thought it to be clear as daylight that that was what you were responding to. I did not consider it general though, but I don't think it matter. The rule is also general. My point is that your logic is in contradiction with the rationale of the rule.

The rule states (not actually cited): If a card that is listed both in main deck and in sideboard has been part of the game (visible to at least one player), and it shows that there are more copies of those in the main deck than deck list states, upgrade. Because it is hard to notice the error.

You stated: “… if a player only notices the error after the game (e.g. while sideboarding) then it's clear that the error didn't impact the game.”

What I reacted to is why you need to know it is that third Shock that is supposed to be in the sideboard (as described by the rule example) for it to have an impact. It has an impact, even if you at that point have not realized yet that there are more Shocks in your deck than there should be.