A few weeks ago I gave a ruling. A few L3s at the event told me I was wrong, but even after all this time, it still doesn't sit right with me. I'm looking for some deeper policy insight here, especially from HL judges. So, here's the situation:

A player in a standard event lists “Underworld Dreams” in his deck. I gave a game gloss per IPG 3.9, Definition of D/DLP

A player commits one or more of the following errors involving their deck:
• The deck and/or decklist contain one or more cards that are illegal for the format.
• The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

Underworld Dreams is a card. It was last printed in M10, so not legal in Standard and it isn't in the actual deck. To me, at the time, this seemed pretty unambiguously like a Game Loss. But here's where the monkey wrench comes into it…

Under the philosophy section, we have this:

Decklists are used to ensure that decks are not altered in the course of a tournament.

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they are discovered. Use of a truncated name that is not unique may be downgraded to a Warning at the Head Judge’s discretion if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse minimal. When determining if a name is ambiguous, judges may take into account the format being played.

Several L3s told me that because there is only one card in Standard with either “Underworld” or “Dreams” in its name, (Underworld Connections, which was actually in the player's deck) we should invoke this clause from Philosophy and not give any infraction at all because there is no potential for deck manipulation due to ambiguity.

I'm just not sure I completely follow this interpretation of philosophy, even given all this intervening time to mull it over. Underworld Dreams isn't an ambiguous or unclear name. It's just the name of a card that isn't in the deck and isn't legal in Standard.

We can say “there's only one other name it could be,” but that assumes that players are only capable of a single type of error when writing a decklist. Underworld Dreams, for example, is a rare Enchantment that costs BBB and has a single triggered ability and that ability is related to drawing cards and losing life. This relatively specific description also applies to (Standard legal) Dark Prophecy. (We happened to be in the first week of a new Standard, so we can't even theoretically argue “nobody actually plays that card.”) If I do a deck check, am I going to do nothing for Underworld Connections but Game Loss for Dark Prophecy because the name of the former is similar, but it's just every other attribute of the latter that's similar? Those seem like identical mistakes in my book, so this really doesn't compute for me.

Would we do the same thing if a player wrote “Prowess of the Fair” and meant “Lightning Prowess?” How about “Leechridden Swamp” vs just “Swamp?” When someone submits a decklist, don't we expect it to contain the names of cards they are playing, not the names of cards that happen to uniquely overlap in the format with names of cards they are playing?

Please help me understand this better. Thanks!

(Note: We do allow names within a certain fudge factor. If the player writes “Underworld Concoctions” or something, I'm definitely not giving that penalty for the exact reason that there is no ambiguity in card identity. My issue is with this case of it being another card that just so happens to uniquely overlap in the format.)

Well, according to the Comp Rules, card names of cards that aren't legal in the format ‘do not exist’:

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that (…) is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.)

So following that philosophy, “Underworld Dreams” is not a card name in a Standard event.

Edited Toby Hazes (Sept. 2, 2013 11:26:32 AM)

But by that philosophy, a name of a card not in the format is not a card
name, and thus the person does not meet minimum deck size, which is a game
loss.

Josh, you were not wrong; you could have chosen to downgrade, perhaps, but I'm not sure that would be supported by the language of the IPG.

It's not a truncated name, which is the first criteria mentioned. If the list only had “Underworld”, then the language clearly fits, and a downgrade would be chosen - I suspect - by a vast majority of judges.

I also feel that the philosophy expressed by that - i.e., don't unduly penalize a player for a minor clerical error - could be used to justify a downgrade in your example. But again - that's not what the IPG says.

And even if it did fit, exactly, it's still “at {your} discretion”, as Head Judge; not choosing to downgrade does not make you Wrongity-wrong-wrong-wrong.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do. Like Uncle Scott says,
you were not “Wrongity-wrong-wrong-wrong.” You made a decision at the
time that does not deviate from the MIPG. Even if you had deviated,
you were the HJ and you have to make decisions on the spot. Don't be
disappointed if you aren't R. Jared Sylva or R. John Alderfer. The
vast majority of judges are human.

As you gain judging experience, however, you will get a lot better
feel for the “potential for advantage” that underlies most Game
Losses. I am guessing that the L3s you spoke with were concentrating
on that aspect. This type of mistake (naming one card, when only a
different card could legally be used) does not present an opportunity
to take advantage of an ambiguous decklist. Siding in a card illegal
in the format is unlikely to go very well for you.

So, you could have downgraded. Most judges would downgrade. I would
recommend that you give serious thought to downgrading if it happens
in the future.

The intention of the ability to downgrade is to give the judges a little flexibility when the card is misspelled or truncated in an obvious fashion. It is not license to just make up excuses for not giving a game loss.

Here's a simple guide: if you have to spend time trying to figure out the intended card, or have to actually go to the deck to find out what was intended, it's probably “ambiguous and unclear”.

“Underworld Dreams” is a pretty big registration failure and your initial handling seems correct to me.

Jacob, this is the crux of the issue. “Most judges would downgrade.” Why would we do this if the documents don't provide support for doing so? What is the additional philosophy we need to capture in the text so that this idea is conveyed?

If we talk general IPG philosophy, I believe we want to apply broad penalties rather specific ones - unless they are specifically called out. So how are we lining up with that overarching philosophy here? Or is there something more that should be in D/DLP philosophy itself? Maybe change something like:

“Use of a truncated name that is not unique may be downgraded to a Warning
at the Head Judge’s discretion if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse
minimal. When determining if a name is ambiguous, judges may take into account the format being played.”

to

“Use of a truncated name, an inaccurately transcribed name*, or the name of card that is not legal in the format that is not unique…”

Does this sum up the unwritten philosophy? And, whether or not those words are right, shouldn't we consider putting something in to give some extra clarification? For me, (and, I imagine, most judges) the language of the IPG is the best resource I have to guide and justify my decisions the vast majority of the time. It feels pretty bad to make a player's day worse when unwritten policy could have saved him the game.

*: This condition captures things like “Underworld Concoctions,” which should probably be brought to the player's attention but certainly don't warrant a Game Loss. Adding the “not legal” provision in the same sentence as the “truncated” one also provides support for downgrading Taurean Mauler when you know it's supposed to be Lightning Mauler but Makeshift Mauler is also technically in the format. This would significantly alleviate my concerns with how narrow the explanation I received seemed to be.

Edited Joshua Feingold (Sept. 2, 2013 10:18:20 PM)

A lot of this comes from “cross-pollination” at events. That is what I have
seen at large events. If it us not in line with official policy, as Toby
seems to suggest, then it needs to be cleared up.

I've noticed that most L1s and L2s (myself included) view the ipg as unbending laws while more experienced judges place a little more emphasis on the fact that the ‘g’ is for guide. I'm still a lot quicker to apply a game loss a situation like the one you've described, but I know other judges in my region that may have decided to downgrade instead.

Well, if you apply what the IPG says you can never be wrong.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

Does this sum up the unwritten philosophy?

To be clear - there is no unwritten policy. “Two wrongs make a right” is not a principle behind the IPG. If a L3 told you they'd rule otherwise, then either there are extenuating circumstances that we're not aware of, or they made a mistake. Feel free to send them my way to talk about it.

I'm not sure what needs clearing up. The IPG is as straightforward as it can be here short of removing what discretion we do give the judges. I look at the text and see no support for a downgrade here.

Thanks, Toby. Even though this is what I originally ruled, I guess it still wasn't the answer I was expecting this time around. Crystal clear now.

“Most judges would downgrade.”

I wish to make one more point in regards this matter you address, Joshua. It is human nature to not want to create negative emotion and confrontation. Many judges, if not most, will try to avoid giving penalties if they feel there is some measure of justification for it. (Just think of how hard it is to find good examples of Slow Play warnings being given out when they should.) In this case, I feel your ruling was entirely sound. Were I in your shoes, it would take some convincing from the rest of my staff to agree to a downgrade. Just the fact that you had to go through a fairly lengthy assessment of the IPG and the format in question suggests that the error was not arbitrary.

I would also suggest that the assertion that “most judges would downgrade” may not be true at all. Our population is quite small in comparison to most polls that measure the general sense of a group. Further, the opinions of those who have spoken represent an even tinier portion of those with a sense of this penalty or having had some experience with it. It may well be the case that the majority would not downgrade in such a case and you've only been exposed to a vocal minority.

As others have noted, Scott and Toby have nicely summed up the rightness of your outcome and conclusion in this case.