Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

we must expect that Athena is keeping track of, and is aware of, these counters

After thinking about this, I also believe that Athena is guilty of a GRV (and should receive a warning for it) because she had the opportunity to repeat the same question to Neptune to get a complete and honest answer instead of just assuming that there were at least two +1/+1 counters on the Elocutors and continuing with her play.

Originally posted by Eric Paré:

After thinking about this, I also believe that Athena is guilty of a GRV (and should receive a warning for it) because she had the opportunity to repeat the same question to Neptune to get a complete and honest answer instead of just assuming that there were at least two +1/+1 counters on the Elocutors and continuing with her play.

Did she logically feel the need to though Eric? Based on what was said:

Athena asks what the red beads represent, and Neptune replies, “I've just put the +1/+1 counter from the Mark of Mutiny”.

She asked a question that based on this scenario wasnt just asked what the counter Neptune just put on was, but what ALL the beads represented. Therefore based on Neptune telling her the counter that was being added was a +1/+1 counter and all the counters looking the same is it logical for a player to conclude that they are ALL the same type of counters?

Edited Abeed Bendall (Aug. 30, 2013 01:04:17 PM)

Originally posted by Abeed Bendall:

She asked a question that based on this scenario wasnt just asked what the counter Neptune just put on was, but what ALL the beads represented. Therefore based on Neptune telling her the counter that was being added was a +1/+1 counter and all the counters looking the same is it logical for a player to conclude that they are ALL the same type of counters?

While I understand your argument for avoiding the GRV warning, I would then say a warning for FtMGS is required since she essentially allowed Neptune to change the type of counters on a permanent.

My personal opinion after thinking about it for a while is CPV for Neptune for not completely answering a question about free information. FtMGS for Athena for not recognizing that the type of counters changed based on Neptune's answer. Request permission to back up to the point of the CPV. Untap the mana for the Guildmage abilities, and return 2 random cards from Athena's hand to the top of her deck. I would also educate both players about using uniquely identifiable tokens for different types of markers on permanents.

I don't agree with the FtMGS ruling. From the definition of the infaction in the IPG:
“A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately.”

Athena is never allowing Neptune to commit a GPE - no GPE has been committed by Neptune, in fact. GRV seems like the only infraction that fits Athena's actions.

Despite Neptune giving confusing information, Athena is still required to know the game state (she has sufficient information to determine herself what the counters represent), and so still committed a GRV by paying an incorrect cost to active the ability. Neptune has committed a CPV. I would ask for a rollback, and it would be to Neptune's CPV (the first infraction); thus - return two random cards, untap the mana used for both activations of the guildmage's ability. (If we were to only rollback to the GRV, one activation was legal, so it'd only be returning a single card).

In applying the penalty I'd be very careful to explain to Athena that this is only a warning, and that we have to track such things in order to spot patterns - we're not trying to penalise her harshly. She's likely to be frustrated that she's getting any penalty at all for what she'd perceive as her opponent's mistake, even though she does share a responsibility for tracking the game state (and I would remind her of this).

Originally posted by Abeed Bendall:

Eric Paré
After thinking about this, I also believe that Athena is guilty of a GRV (and should receive a warning for it) because she had the opportunity to repeat the same question to Neptune to get a complete and honest answer instead of just assuming that there were at least two +1/+1 counters on the Elocutors and continuing with her play.

Did she logically feel the need to though Eric? Based on what was said:

Athena asks what the red beads represent, and Neptune replies, “I've just put the +1/+1 counter from the Mark of Mutiny”.

She asked a question that based on this scenario wasnt just asked what the counter Neptune just put on was, but what ALL the beads represented. Therefore based on Neptune telling her the counter that was being added was a +1/+1 counter and all the counters looking the same is it logical for a player to conclude that they are ALL the same type of counters?

I would understand why Athena would believe all those red beads would be +1/+1 counters because of Neptunes unclear response but Athena is still at fault here because like her opponent she shares the same responsibility of maintaining clear communication during the game. The free information wasn't completely answered so Athena should have felt the need to reask her question to get the right answer which would (hopefully) not have led to the illegal action.

Duncan Mackintosh
In applying the penalty I'd be very careful to explain to Athena that this is only a warning, and that we have to track such things in order to spot patterns - we're not trying to penalise her harshly. She's likely to be frustrated that she's getting any penalty at all for what she'd perceive as her opponent's mistake, even though she does share a responsibility for tracking the game state (and I would remind her of this).

During this remedy, it's also important to explain to Athena that the Player Communication Policy requires players to give complete and honest answers when asked about free information. We should inform her that if an opponent does not provide such an answer to her she should call a judge and explain the situation.

Edited Eric Paré (Sept. 2, 2013 10:03:03 PM)

Posting this solution on behalf of Adam Liebman:

Thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion!

At first glance, the infraction may look like Drawing Extra Cards on the part of Athena, but on closer inspection it should be apparent that the illegal card draw had been preceded by a Communication Policy Violation - the type of any counter in a public zone is considered free information as defined in MTR 4.1, and since Athena asked what the beads represent, Neptune has violated the Communication Policy by omitting to specify that the beads already on his Elocutors represented filibuster counters rather than additional +1/+1 counters.

According to MIPG 3.7, the infraction is a Tournament Error - Communication Policy Violation on the part of Neptune, for which he receives a Warning. As per the Additional Remedy for CPV, if it is
simple enough to do so (as it is in this case), the game should be backed up with the approval of the Head Judge to the point of incorrect information - i.e. to before the first activation of the Zameck Guildmage. So the mana used to activate the ability should be untapped, the counters replaced and 2 random cards should be returned from Athena's hand to the top of her library.

A few people suggested issuing GPE - GRV for Athena. In this scenario, the infraction of Drawing Extra Cards has been ”replaced“ by CPV, since it was a violation of the communication policy that led to the error - thus there is no reason to issue GRV, as any game rule violation that may have occurred would have been a result of the communication policy violation.

Thanks again for your contributions, and be sure not to miss the next iteration of the Knowledge Pool!

Woah. Can someone explain the difference between the following two
situations?

Athena asks: “What do the red beads represent?”
Neptune replies: “I've just put the +1/+1 counter from the Mark of Mutiny.”
<- true statement, related to question, omits some information about red
beads (relevant information)
Judge: CPV!

Athena asks: “What's the P/T of Tarmogoyf?”
Beptune replies: "There are 2 card types are an instant and a creature in my graveyard.“ <- ”true"
statement, related to question, omits some information about other types in
graveyard (relevant information)
Judge: Not a CPV!


2013/9/4 Patrick Vorbroker <forum-5653-f50d@apps.magicjudges.org>

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (Sept. 4, 2013 12:56:39 PM)

The first one is a free information, while the second one is a derived
information. The main difference is that players are obligated to answer
questions about free information honestly and COMPLETELY. While about
derived information, they only need to answer honestly.


2013/9/4 Dominik Chlobowski <forum-5653-1d56@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

Athena asks: “What do the red beads represent?”
Neptune replies: “I've just put the +1/+1 counter from the Mark of Mutiny.”
<- true statement, related to question, omits some information about red
beads (relevant information)
Judge: CPV!

From MTR 4.1…

Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. Free information includes:
• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
• The name of any visible object.
• The type of any counter in a public zone.
• The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object.
• Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the current match.
• The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active.

The following rules govern player communication:
• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.

…as the question “What do the red beads represent?” is a pretty specific question about free information, the policy requires the opponent to answer the question completely and honestly. To fail to do so meets the definition in MIPG 3.7 for a Communication Policy Violation.

Originally posted by Dominik Chlobowski:

Athena asks: “What's the P/T of Tarmogoyf?”
Beptune replies: “There are 2 card types in my graveyard.” <- “true”
statement, related to question, omits some information about other types in
graveyard (relevant information)
Judge: Not a CPV!

Also from MTR 4.1…

Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine. Derived information includes:
• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
• All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.
• Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.

The following rules govern player communication:
• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
• At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.

…and as the question involves a creature's power and toughness, this is a question involving derived information. The player may have to answer the question correctly, but is not required to answer the question not assist the opponent in determining the information. Furthermore, the player doesn't have to answer the question completely. Saying “Well, it's printed power and toughness is…” would be a correct statement, presuming that is the value printed on the card, even if it is incomplete in including the +1/+1 from some Enchantment's static ability.

So, suppose I control a 2/2 wolf token with a +1+1 counter on it. i attack with it and pass the turn.
A few moments later, after a long upkeep phase, my opponent points at it and says “what is this again?”
I respond “It's a wolf, with a +1+1 counter on it”. Did I commit a CPV since I didnt say it was tapped?

Originally posted by Jorge Monteiro:

So, suppose I control a 2/2 wolf token with a +1+1 counter on it. i attack with it and pass the turn. A few moments later, after a long upkeep phase, my opponent points at it and says “what is this again?” I respond “It's a wolf, with a +1+1 counter on it”. Did I commit a CPV since I didnt say it was tapped?

“What is that?” or questions similar to it, are generally terrrible questions because they are nonspecific in nature. The question could refer to any amount or type of information about the object, making it far to generic to require an opponent to answer the question completely. Which is one of the reason the policy exists and applies at Competitive REL the way it does; because the opponent might not understand precisely the question the player is asking. Is the player asking about P/T? The type? The status?

Yes, this also allows for some clever responses depending on the way the player asks the question, but since communication generally tends to be pretty much a grey area, we allow some of this fringe behavior to take place. Simply because some of it is unintentional (not understanding the information being sought) and there's no way to provide the desired answer as the question is poorly asked. Both players share some responsibility here: The player needs to ask a reasonable question, and the opponent needs to provide a reasonable answer.

In short, this question should not result in a CPV short of the opponent providing actually incorrect information. The question is really too broad in nature. It doesn't meet the “Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.” requirement for a question about free information. And it is unclear whether it is asking about free information or derived information.

Hey guys, thanks for your great discussion on this question. However, in the interest of keeping all of our Knowledge Pool posts as focused on the scenario as possible, I'm going to ask that any continued discussion happen in a different place. If you have more questions about this or any other Knowledge Pool scenario, please feel free to message myself, the KP member who posted the question, or any of your mentors in the judge program and we'll be happy to help you understand.