Kim, would or wouldn't you say that when I'm obscuring a card you own (say the dreadful Akroan Horse) conveys a message that I'm trying to let you forget about the card and the triggers associated with it? (Dark corners, I know)

No, I wouldn't - you are not trying to convey that message! People's behaviour normally has causes and motivations, which means that those behaviours can convey messages - but without intent, those behaviours cannot really be considered to be communication. You covering that card might be with the intent of me forgetting about it, and might lead to me forgetting about it or lead to me suspecting that you are attempting to do this, but the action is certainly not actively trying to tell me “Hey, I want you to forget about this card now.”

Just to clarify, I believe that we should define what communication means within the context of the IPG and MTR. Communication does have multiple meanings, one of which ignores intent as a requirement for it to be communication. This is a topic with which I have studied intensively. This definition, in more detail, claims that anything we do with another is communication. Say that I'm on a phone call and someone eavesdrops without my knowledge. I never intended to send them information, but I have still done so and, as such, communicated. To be quite frank, I could make a valid ruling that this is a CPV using that definition of communication. As such, if we wish to keep these documents as straight-forward as possible, we need to make sure that we define communication as an “intentional attempt to send a message.”

Otherwise, there is no requirement for communication to have intent, Kim.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

Just to clarify, I believe that we should define what communication means within the context of the IPG and MTR. Communication does have multiple meanings, one of which ignores intent as a requirement for it to be communication. This is a topic with which I have studied intensively. This definition, in more detail, claims that anything we do with another is communication. Say that I'm on a phone call and someone eavesdrops without my knowledge. I never intended to send them information, but I have still done so and, as such, communicated. To be quite frank, I could make a valid ruling that this is a CPV using that definition of communication. As such, if we wish to keep these documents as straight-forward as possible, we need to make sure that we define communication as an “intentional attempt to send a message.”

One thing communication does require is that there is a message being sent from one party to another. I still don't understand what message is actually being sent here from the one player to the other via the placement of a card on the battlefield.

At most, one could become confused as to whether one permanent is attached to another permanent, since placing an Aura or Equipment under a creature is already very common. And we don't actively require players to arrange permanents in a certain fashion for clarity; we let the players determine for themselves what is best. You could argue that the “message” being communicated is with regards to the attachment of the one permanent to the other, but even that is a stretch as to what is generally considered a message.

This is further exacerbated by the potential for one player or the other to be further affected by some kind of visual impairment. Trying to set in policy what is required for one player to “keep a clear game state”, with a potential enforcement mechanism (infraction/penalty), then opens up another door for judges to begin intervening in the game. If both players are comfortable with the game state, does a judge still intervene? Is the onus on the player(s) to be aware of the game state, and other communicate with one another about the desired representations? How do we intervene if there is a dispute?

My point being, to boil down to the basic level, is that we require active representations from one player to another because there's an actual exchange of information involved. If one player asks the other “What's that?”, then the other player needs to provide some kind of answer. If the player simply presumes the text of a card, such as in a foreign language, then the other player isn't providing an exchange of information. Point of fact, the other player isn't aware that there's an exchange at all. What level of responsibility could (or should) the other player even have here? And why do we not hold the first player accountable for asking the most basic of questions, and just simply accepting the game state?

Yes, this may not seem like the “ideal” in some ways, but the Communication Policy doesn't set an ideal. It sets the basic expectation for players. And the basic expectation is an active exchange between the two players. As well as requiring the one player to have at least some responsibility to assess the game state. It may not seem like it, but being aware of what is going on in the game state is something of a skill that is being tested at CompREL.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Peter Richmond
Just to clarify, I believe that we should define what communication means within the context of the IPG and MTR. Communication does have multiple meanings, one of which ignores intent as a requirement for it to be communication. This is a topic with which I have studied intensively. This definition, in more detail, claims that anything we do with another is communication. Say that I'm on a phone call and someone eavesdrops without my knowledge. I never intended to send them information, but I have still done so and, as such, communicated. To be quite frank, I could make a valid ruling that this is a CPV using that definition of communication. As such, if we wish to keep these documents as straight-forward as possible, we need to make sure that we define communication as an “intentional attempt to send a message.”

One thing communication does require is that there is a message being sent from one party to another. I still don't understand what message is actually being sent here from the one player to the other via the placement of a card on the battlefield.

At most, one could become confused as to whether one permanent is attached to another permanent, since placing an Aura or Equipment under a creature is already very common. And we don't actively require players to arrange permanents in a certain fashion for clarity; we let the players determine for themselves what is best. You could argue that the “message” being communicated is with regards to the attachment of the one permanent to the other, but even that is a stretch as to what is generally considered a message.

This is further exacerbated by the potential for one player or the other to be further affected by some kind of visual impairment. Trying to set in policy what is required for one player to “keep a clear game state”, with a potential enforcement mechanism (infraction/penalty), then opens up another door for judges to begin intervening in the game. If both players are comfortable with the game state, does a judge still intervene? Is the onus on the player(s) to be aware of the game state, and other communicate with one another about the desired representations? How do we intervene if there is a dispute?

My point being, to boil down to the basic level, is that we require active representations from one player to another because there's an actual exchange of information involved. If one player asks the other “What's that?”, then the other player needs to provide some kind of answer. If the player simply presumes the text of a card, such as in a foreign language, then the other player isn't providing an exchange of information. Point of fact, the other player isn't aware that there's an exchange at all. What level of responsibility could (or should) the other player even have here? And why do we not hold the first player accountable for asking the most basic of questions, and just simply accepting the game state?

Yes, this may not seem like the “ideal” in some ways, but the Communication Policy doesn't set an ideal. It sets the basic expectation for players. And the basic expectation is an active exchange between the two players. As well as requiring the one player to have at least some responsibility to assess the game state. It may not seem like it, but being aware of what is going on in the game state is something of a skill that is being tested at CompREL.

Of course, it's just important to make sure we have answers like this, especially if a similar argument like this occurred at a GP or something of the like. Thanks for the clarification, Brian. ;)

Could we get Uncle Scott to chime in with what his thought was? It's obvious we all have disagreements, and I am interested in his assessment (since he hinted he had come to a conclusion).

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

What infraction has been intentionally and knowingly committed?

I mean, I am extrapolating a little right now, but I am pretty sure that this question was intended in a rhetorical sense to say ‘there is no infraction here’.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

To this end (of the CPV suggestion), let me provide a couple scenarios a fellow player brought up to me a few months back.

First, he wanted to play Magic as a game of sleight of hand. This included stacking creatures on top of one another in such a way that they looked like one card, then attacking with the stack. “Since I technically tapped both creatures and said ”attacking,“ this should be fine if my opponent doesn't confirm the damage or number of attacking creatures, right?” The argument lies within the opponent's failure to explicitly ask for the full free information.

So how about this one? Is there a CPV here? Here it seems we have an action (attacking with 2 creatures) presented as another message (“I am attacking with 1 creature”).

Edited Toby Hazes (Dec. 11, 2013 05:27:20 AM)

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

Of course, it's just important to make sure we have answers like this, especially if a similar argument like this occurred at a GP or something of the like.

While I understand the concern for an “actual answer”, I think a lot of this is really more a result of confusion with the policy and how it is being applied. Or perhaps hearing about a situation to which the policy was applied (maybe not appropriately), or even a desire to apply the policy to a situation where it isn't intended (because it seems like the right thing to do). There's no other real way to handle these situations except via a forum like this or rereading the policy and understand the reason why it exists in the first place.

Which leads me to the point that the policy isn't meant as a catch-all for everything that might seem like “communication” or even a transfer of information, or gathering of information. Actively or passively. The players actually have to be communicating something from one to another, as a result of some kind of exchange (question to answer).

Toby Hazes
So how about this one? Is there a CPV here? Here it seems we have an action (attacking with 2 creatures) presented as another message (“I am attacking with 1 creature”).

Generally speaking there is no rule or policy that requires a player to arrange permanents in any specific fashion. Obviously, if you have a player who is deliberately trying to cause confusion, then you should educate the player on keeping the battlefield reasonably organized in order to ensure that it isn't confusing. (No differently than ensuring tokens are clearly understood.) But, as far as infractions go, this is again not a communication issue. It doesn't really fall under the umbrella of that policy.

Originally posted by Kim Warren:

I am extrapolating a little right now

ah, Kim, you know me too well… ;)

I wanted to reinforce the idea that Unsporting Conduct - Cheating has very specific wording in its Definition: “A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents…”; if there's no infraction, then they aren't breaking a rule, are they?

And, just to be complete & clear: this is NOT Cheating, this is NOT a CPV - this is just a silly attempt to distract the opponent. (I can't imagine this actually working, but … well, players never cease to amaze & impress, eh?)

d:^D

Another reason to not give a CPV here is that even if they were trying to communicate a clear message, it might be difficult to do so with some cards, and I don't think we want to issue CPVs for things like “didn't put a card exiled with Detention Sphere under it” or “order of a card enchanted with Spellweaver Volute wasn't clear” since although the game has to keep track of these, it doesn't say how to do it, and in either case these things aren't covered by CPV.

CPV is for when players accidentally misstate information.

It might be more reasonable to give UC-minor or TE-failure to follow instructions if the player doesn't remedy their behavior. I wouldn't do that in most situations though.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

Second, he wanted to know if he could mix his battlefield around as much as he wanted, keeping a personal drawing of the game state as a private note as the game went on (while maintaining the status of all objects intact). His question was whether or not such an activity was permissible in a tournament. He would answer all free information questions honestly, with the only goal being to make his field as difficult to understand in an attempt to trip up his opponents. Assume that he could do this in a quick manner, thus ruling out Slow Play and Stalling.

My question to the younger judges is: If he did this at a Comp REL environment, are there any infractions committed in these scenarios and, if so, which ones?

He can set it up, yes. If someone calls me over about it, I will ask him to organize things a bit, to make his boardstate clearer. We're trying to play magic, not mental chess.

If he persists, it's unsporting conduct - Failure to follow instructions of a tournament official, and the penalty guidelines would follow.

Edited Olivier Jansen (Dec. 12, 2013 07:33:48 AM)

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

First, he wanted to play Magic as a game of sleight of hand. This included stacking creatures on top of one another in such a way that they looked like one card, then attacking with the stack. “Since I technically tapped both creatures and said ”attacking,“ this should be fine if my opponent doesn't confirm the damage or number of attacking creatures, right?” The argument lies within the opponent's failure to explicitly ask for the full free information.

Second, he wanted to know if he could mix his battlefield around as much as he wanted, keeping a personal drawing of the game state as a private note as the game went on (while maintaining the status of all objects intact). His question was whether or not such an activity was permissible in a tournament. He would answer all free information questions honestly, with the only goal being to make his field as difficult to understand in an attempt to trip up his opponents. Assume that he could do this in a quick manner, thus ruling out Slow Play and Stalling.

I get questions like this at my LGS a lot from folks, not so much because they want to try them, or because someone is doing it right now, but because they want to test the limits of tournament rules. I generally answer the same way: playing in an obnoxious manner isn't against any rules, as long as the nature of that obnoxiousness isn't itself violating any rules*.

That said, if a player calls me over to ask about it, I'll generally ask the offending player why they're doing that behavior - if the answer is “To make it hard for my opponent to focus,” I'll ask them to knock it off and just play the game. That's usually enough - if they persist in doing it, there's a USC-Major for violating a direct instruction, and most players who are spikey enough to try these goofy mind games to tilt their opponents are spikey enough to take the possibility of a game loss seriously.

*A lot of the scenarios that get proposed, however, are actually violations of the rules, particularly slow play. In the second scenario you described, I can't see any way for your player to keep mixing up his battlefield and updating a drawing of the game state and still play at a reasonable pace.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

he wanted to know if he could mix his battlefield around as much as he wanted, keeping a personal drawing of the game state as a private note as the game went on

Players can't have “private” notes as the game goes on at all - MTG 2.11 states that “each player's note sheet… must remain visible throughout the match”.

Of course, he could invent a secret code to write these notes in, since he's not required to explain his notes, but that seems like a lot of work for little gain…

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

He would answer all free information questions honestly, with the only goal being to make his field as difficult to understand in an attempt to trip up his opponents. Assume that he could do this in a quick manner, thus ruling out Slow Play and Stalling.

If someone can do this in a quick enough manner for it to not be Slow Play/Stalling, I'd like to see it… (though not in an actual game). I don't think it's possible.
However, I think it impossible to do without it being Slow Play because my view is that the player with the bizarre card arrangement is the one responsible for all the delays it causes, i.e. if Anthony puts his cards in a strange pattern, and Nadia has to spend half her time asking questions about free information, it's Anthony who's getting the slow play warning (unless of course Nadia is expecting this and is asking pointless questions to fish for the penalty on Anthony).

Would others agree with that approach to things (i.e. “Although your opponent was the one taking up lots of time by talking, it's solely because of your board arrangement, so you get the Slow Play penalty”)?

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Dec. 12, 2013 11:21:41 AM)

Feedback tells me that some of my posts are misleading - or, at least, I wasn't specific enough with proper context, and lacking that, what I've said is actually dead wrong (at least, as it might be applied elsewhere).

The original scenario is not Cheating. The card was obscured as a by-product of positioning a blocker. And, the discussion kind of devolved from there; the question was asked, “well, what if they obscured that card on purpose?”. I'll address that in a moment… but let's be honest, that's a really bad way to try and Cheat, and isn't likely to work (even though it appears the original AP did forget his Dragon Mantle…). Again, the original scenario doesn't involve an intentional (and informed) violation of the rules in order to gain advantage.

Now, if a player is intentionally obscuring game state information in this manner, knowing that it's wrong (that's often a tricky criteria to test for), and seeking advantage (whether or not any potential advantage exists) … then they are Cheating, because they are violating a rule:
Players are responsible for: … Maintaining a clear and legal game state.

Two important notes: there isn't an Infraction defined in the IPG for violations of that phrase in the MTR. However, there doesn't have to be an infraction (ah-ha! trick question on my part!)(OK, not really - poor wording on my part :p), but there does have to be a rule that's been broken, on purpose, knowing it's a rule…

d:^D