How would you handle a situation like this?

Adam has 12 goblin tokens on the battlefield. Nancy casts echoing truth targeting one of the goblins. The echoing truth is in a foreign language, so adam asks what that card is. Nancy states the card is echoing truth. Adam asks what the card does, and Nancy replies it returns target non-land permanent to its owners hand. Jonny is a specatator and hears this and says “and all other permanents with the same name”.

To me this seems like TE - Outside Assistance, however it states in the IPG that revealing private information is outside assistance and this is derived information. Any thoughts?

Cris Plyler

You didn't mention REL, so I'm assuming it's probably Competitive, and definitely not Professional.

Since this is a spectator, we can ignore two of the three bullet points under the Definition of TE-OA, leaving us just this one:

• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.
  

This is neither play advice, nor hidden information - it's Oracle text.
Further, the Philosophy explains that we want to test the skill of a player, not their ability to take advice from other sources, and that “Any strategy advice, play advice, or construction advice from an external source is considered outside assistance.”

I would caution the spectator about the dangers of OA, and instruct him on the proper way to get involved when he see an infraction - esp. if it's an infraction that hasn't actually happened yet.
“At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge.”

To me it seems more like a “cheating” case - for not revealing the rest of the oracle…

edit: Scott was faster.

Its ok to say just part of the card? isn't that a problem?

Edited José Moreira (July 24, 2013 03:20:00 PM)

Originally posted by José Moreira:

To me it seems more like a “cheating” case - for not revealing the rest of the oracle…

edit: Scott was faster.

Its ok to say just part of the card? isn't that a problem?

Oracle text is derived information, so as long as an answer that is true is given, the entire Oracle text doesn't need to be given by the opponent. No one has cheated here.

So if this is not OA, would I be allowed to stand next to my friends match and keep track of all the derived information and continuosly tell him, as long as I'm not giving direct play advice. Speaking in examples ‘That Goyf is 5/6 (derived info, so no OA) and you are at 5 Life’ is ok with us, but ‘You need to block that Goyf, it attacks for lethal’ is not, since it is play advice?

This seems strange…

EDIT: Also, if his opponent is about to pass the turn and he has mana open or even floating, I am allowed to tell him ‘you still have Think Twice in your Graveyard’, as long as I do not say ‘you should play Think Twice’?
I know this is basically saying the same thing, but then again, so is ‘Echoing Truth bounces all your Tokens’ and ‘you need to counter this if you can’….

Edited Philip Ockelmann (July 24, 2013 03:34:16 PM)

There is a big difference between things you are allowed to do and things that will get you DQed. The judge will tell him that he's not allowed to interfere in the match. If they do it again, they aren't listening to a judge, which is its own problem.

OA wouldn't get me DQed by default if I would commit it. Only if I know I am breaking the rules. Which I cannot know anyways, since I do not break them in the first place by ‘only stating’ derived info, as it seems.
I am aware that if a judge directly instructs me not to do this, I cannot do it anymore without commiting an Infraction. I am also aware that I, if I am said judge, should directly instruct the player not to do so, since this is really messing with the tournaments integrity.


That was not the question, the question was if we tollerate this (and if we do, why do we)?
Because in that case, I (and I in this case means any player) could help my friends by stating derived info. If the opponent does not directly call a judge, but asks me ‘hey, why did you do that, that is not allowed, you cannot help him’, I could/would say ‘that is actually not forbidden as long as I am not giving direct play advice, and I only stated free and derived info, which is no infraction’ and would not lie, and thereby even possibly avoid getting a judge called onto me for several rounds. And I could do so over and over and over again, each tournament, without risking any penalty while purposely harming the tournament integrity.
And if a judge asks me about this and tells me to not do it anymore, I could actually argue with him that this is not an infraction under the documents, and that it has been approved from the highlevels not to be an infraction. And, depending on how good I am at this and how good the judges knowledge is about this specific matter, possibly get away with this without even getting a direct instruction to not do so.
After all, I am within the legal boundaries the documents set.


EDIT: Upon reviewing the IPG, I just noticed commiting an infraction is not needed for USC Cheating anymore, as long as one is aware that one is doing something illegal. This basically settles my problem, since if I know/am convinced that the player knew about MTR 1.11, he commited USC-Cheating (if he is gaining an advantage).

Edited Philip Ockelmann (July 24, 2013 04:37:32 PM)

We do not want players with their friends try to tote a line. Because
players, on avg., do not know the rules as well as the judges they will not
be able to tell when they've stepped over the line. Then it gets messy. If
players see that one person, especially a judge who's not judging, does it
then it must be ok. They will cross the line and use the excuse that they
saw a judge do it and they thought it was ok. It avoids this whole mess if
we just tell them to not say anything.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Because in that case, I (and I in this case means any player) could help my friends by stating derived info.

MTR 1.11 is pretty clear on whether or not you should say anything at all…

Any person physically present at a tournament and not in any other category above is a spectator. Spectators are responsible for remaining silent and passive during matches and other official tournament sections in which players are also required to be silent. If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge. At Professional REL, spectators must not interfere with the match directly.

…so, the simple answer is: Don't do it. Policy is clear that the expectation is that you remain silent and passive during matches. Fetch a judge if you believe a violation has occurred.

Providing derived information to players in a match, is not remaining silent and passive. That doesn't mean this is an infraction (the standard to meet OA is higher), but don't confuse “no infraction” with “permissible behavior”.

So, i'm wondering:

Is it allowed, or is it an Infraction?

TE-Other?

Edited Philip Böhm (July 24, 2013 04:09:02 PM)

Providing derived information to players in a match, is not remaining silent and passive. That doesn't mean this is an infraction (the standard to meet OA is higher), but don't confuse “no infraction” with “permissible behavior”.

IPG 1.3
“Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.”

Edited Andrew Heckt (July 24, 2013 04:18:17 PM)

IPG 1.3 actually ☺

From: Andrew Heckt
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Outside Assistance? (Competitive REL)


Providing derived information to players in a match, is not remaining silent and passive. That doesn't mean this is an infraction (the standard to meet OA is higher), but don't confuse “no infraction” with “permissible behavior”.

IPG 3.1
“Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.”

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Also, if his opponent is about to pass the turn and he has mana open or even floating, I am allowed to tell him ‘you still have Think Twice in your Graveyard’, as long as I do not say ‘you should play Think Twice’?

I think you'd have a hard time convincing most of us that you weren't providing strategic advice; clever wording doesn't change the intent.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

I know this is basically saying the same thing, but then again, so is ‘Echoing Truth bounces all your Tokens’ and ‘you need to counter this if you can’….

I think most of us read the original scenario as “hey, that card also says FOO” - i.e., correcting an incomplete statement. I certainly didn't read between the lines and get to “better counter that”. (I acknowledge that an investigation could result in that conclusion.)

As others have said, just because there isn't an infraction for unwanted behavior doesn't mean that it isn't unwanted behavior. My answer may have been too concise, but I thought I was clear: “instruct him on the proper way to get involved when he see an infraction”. That means, tell him he can pause a match while he gets a judge, and tell him that he can't otherwise be involved in the match, in any way.

Edited Scott Marshall (July 24, 2013 04:22:01 PM)

Thanks everyone, one experience richer :)

Originally posted by Casey Brefka:

Oracle text is derived information, so as long as an answer that is true is given, the entire Oracle text doesn't need to be given by the opponent. No one has cheated here.

i don't want to get this offtopic,

but he didn't tell the truth, ok, he have not lied, but missed a very important thing, if not telling the full oracle text is ok, if i play rakdos return for 5, my opp is at 5 and he asks me what it does, i say you discard x cards.

is this ok too? (its the same thing that happened with the echoing truth, only telling the “oh this will not do you much harm”.