But as a counterpoint, if you confirm the way the OP states, I don't see
how we can possibly support anything but holding the AP to the choice of
“Fish.”

It's likely that Merfolk was intended, given the AP's subsequent attempted
use of Cavern of Souls. However, the NAP's question was not ambiguous. He
didn't say “What?” as though he hadn't heard the original statement. He
restated the answer he heard as a question, and the AP responded “Yes,
Fish.” The AP, in turn, did not clarify “Yes, Fish, as in Merfolk.” He
responded in a clear affirmative of the NAP's question.

If I ask my opponent what creature type he names for his Cavern of Souls,
he responds with an unusual but legal response, I clarify, and he
reconfirms, how can I possibly be expected to somehow know that, despite
clear communication to the contrary, that my opponent meant something
entirely different from what he explicitly stated?

I can see some leeway if more things are left unsaid, but the original
scenario seems as clear as day.

Random thought: Am I the only one here that doesn't consider parroting a statement to be a valid/sufficient method of confirmation? In doing so the NAP has provided no information on whether or not he's actually confused by AP's statement, nor what the source of any potential confusion is. A parrot-confirmation could mean “Did you say X, I couldn't hear you”, or “are you sure you meant X”, and apparently to some here, it can mean “Did you mean X or Y or Z”, despite there being no mention of Y/Z.

In this particular case it doesn't feel like NAP is actually trying to find out what the AP means when he says “Fish”, he's trying to gotcha the AP into something AP clearly didn't mean. This is apparent in the fact that NAP did not communicate what the apparent confusion/ambiguity was. Its unfair to expect AP to clarify something when he hasn't even been explicitly told what needed clarifying at all. And as Jacob said, Magic is not a game of gotcha, and expecting a player to clarify information, when they haven't been clearly told that they need to, sure feels like a gotcha to me.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

Random thought: Am I the only one here that doesn't consider parroting a statement to be a valid/sufficient method of confirmation? In doing so the NAP has provided no information on whether or not he's actually confused by AP's statement, nor what the source of any potential confusion is. A parrot-confirmation could mean “Did you say X, I couldn't hear you”, or “are you sure you meant X”, and apparently to some here, it can mean “Did you mean X or Y or Z”, despite there being no mention of Y/Z.

In this particular case it doesn't feel like NAP is actually trying to find out what the AP means when he says “Fish”, he's trying to gotcha the AP into something AP clearly didn't mean. This is apparent in the fact that NAP did not communicate what the apparent confusion/ambiguity was. Its unfair to expect AP to clarify something when he hasn't even been explicitly told what needed clarifying at all. And as Jacob said, Magic is not a game of gotcha, and expecting a player to clarify information, when they haven't been clearly told that they need to, sure feels like a gotcha to me.

This reply assumes a definition of some non-universal colloquialism, which is to say we have to assume that there are, in fact, 2 equally valid definitions of the word “Fish” in this context. The problem with that assumption is that it's false. There is one assumption, i.e. that “Fish = Merfolk”, which is colloquially acceptable sometimes, and there is another assumption, i.e. “Fish = Fish”, which is both a logical tautology and is also reinforced by the rules, and is hence more valid than the other case.

Consider the following situation, for purposes of generating an analogy (not for introducing a new problem): NAP casts Thoughtseize (during his own turn; there is a turn cycle happening here). He sees a hand containing, among other things, Master of Waves and Breaching Hippocamp. He takes some other card. NAP passes turn. On AP's turn, AP untaps, plays a Cavern of Souls naming “Fish”, and goes to cast Master of Waves, tapping out. NAP attempts to cast Mana Leak. You are called as a judge. What's your call?

In this case, clearly “Fish” = “Fish”, because, y'know, words. If you accept the idea that “Fish” = “Merfolk”, then you have essentially allowed AP to call 2 creature types with his Cavern of Souls, as he would be able to make both the Master and the Hippocamp uncounterable in this scenario (because he could either cast an actual Fish which would clearly be uncounterable, or a pseudo-Fish i.e. Merfolk, which would also be uncounterable by assumption). Of course, this play is not legal (i.e. the second ability of Cavern of Souls cannot be used to make a creature of a different type untargetable). Thus, since the alternative would result in an inconsistent game state, the correct call has to be that the Master of Waves is countered by the Mana Leak, meaning that the statement “Fish” = “Merfolk” has to be false.

Consider the following situation…

After reading it over, my instinctive reply is: “Call me when it happens.” As is you had to contrive a very particular scenario in which NAP could honestly believe AP wasn't using a colloquialism, AND the AP had some potential for advantage out of it. That sounds like a corner case, and if I recall, we generally don't write policy around corner cases - we write policy around how players actually play the game. And one way players actually play is to use commonly accepted nicknames as shortcuts, with the general expectation that they aren't going to be punished for it in-game.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

That sounds like a corner case, and if I recall, we generally don't write policy around corner cases - we write policy around how players actually play the game. And one way players actually play is to use commonly accepted nicknames as shortcuts, with the general expectation that they aren't going to be punished for it in-game.

That's why my first question was “Do people do this?”
Because I've never seen people doing it so in my experience “Saying fish with Cavern meaning Merfolk” is not the way players commonly play the game. If the same is true for the general Magic populace, you are just punishing a minority who plays the game in that way.

Lyle Waldman
Also, speaking as a Legacy player, when I need to name a card or a creature type or something else, I name my things properly unless the environment is super-casual, and I expect my opponents to do the same, because ambiguity is a thing. If my opponent calls “fish” on his Cavern of Souls and I allow it thinking he means Merfolk, and then I suddenly get blown out by some infinite combo involving Breaching Hippocamp and Cloudstone Curio, that's entirely my fault.

EDIT: Bad example; apparently “Whale” wasn't erased in the Great Creature Type Update.

Wormfang Manta + Sundial of the Infinite + any repeatable bounce/blink FTW!

Edited Toby Hazes (Jan. 10, 2014 05:37:17 AM)

Well, let's be honest, no one here is a definitive expert on “how people commonly play”. We all can share our observations and anecdotes, but just because I have not met a bunch of players that do this, doesn't mean said people don't exist. From the way the story is framed, I consider it plausible for a large number of players to attempt to shortcut various plays through the use of nicknames and the like, even if we haven't observed a specific player do the specific thing we're talking about here. If the context makes it so there really are multiple reasonable interpretations of a nickname (like the scenario Lyle contrived), then sure, I'd stick to the letter of what they said there… but in this situation, it seems clear that AP believed Cavern was on “Merfolk” (hence attempting to cast Cursecatcher), and we really have no evidence to indicate he really did mean “Fish” literally. If you think that this is somehow giving AP potential for advantage, isn't that what investigating is for? And if you think he was deliberately trying to create confusion, don't we have penalties for that? Why are we trying to impose an in-game strategic consequence?

I am far less concerned about what the active player thought he was saying
as opposed to what the opponent understood. If the opponent knew the whole
time that fish was referring to merfolk, then we should not be rewarding
deliberate misunderstanding.

I was thinking about this overnight, and it occurred to me that this kind of situation does come up with another word that gets used by players. I even recall where there have been previous discussions on the use of this word. And while it has a simple enough English definition, when players use…

“Okay”

…I've heard mention of situations where players simply meant this as an acknowledgement that the action was taken. Such as, "I cast Thoughtseize.“, ”Okay.“ And the opponent truly meant that he or she was acknowledging the spell was cast, not that it would resolve, with the intent that they were considering a response. But, how do we (as judges) take the opponent's meaning here? How would most players take the opponent's meaning?

That being said, I've certainly received feedback in the Judge Center about content (as recently in the last couple of weeks) about the use of ”In response…“ and someone believing that it meant just after the ability resolved. The phrase is actually identified in the Basic Rulebook, of all things, and I pointed that out to the person. But, it's at least one anecdote of a phrase that every single one of us uses entirely differently than this one person. And that's just from the one person who happened to speak up via feedback; I've no idea of the number of people silent on what they believe the phrase means.

To me, it's food for thought as to what might go through a person's head when saying or hearing something, and I could certainly see Norbert believe that Ahmed meant ”Fish.“ even after being asked ”Fish?“ Legacy is a big enough format with lots of decks that Norbert might not know what Ahmed is playing, or why Ahmed would have said ”Fish." Not until after Ahmed announced a Merfolk spell.

I investigate in to the games actions of previous turns and if possible previous games. Find out if this is the standard pattern that the player says “ok” meaning I acknowledge the spell was cast, but i'm thinking about it or “OK” it resolves. Then use that pattern to determine if one player is trying to take advantage of a gray area in the rules. Tell them to play more carefully in the future and rewind to where the spell is on the stack and NAP has priority.

Edited Nick Rutkowski (Jan. 10, 2014 11:34:25 AM)

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

In this particular case it doesn't feel like NAP is actually trying to find out what the AP means when he says “Fish”, he's trying to gotcha the AP into something AP clearly didn't mean. This is apparent in the fact that NAP did not communicate what the apparent confusion/ambiguity was. Its unfair to expect AP to clarify something when he hasn't even been explicitly told what needed clarifying at all. And as Jacob said, Magic is not a game of gotcha, and expecting a player to clarify information, when they haven't been clearly told that they need to, sure feels like a gotcha to me.

With some context not provided for how NAP says “Fish?”, we can get some possible motives-

Incredulous- “fish?” (really fish? Didn't he mean Merfolk?)
Unsure- “fish?” (I wonder what Fish there are…)
Audibly impaired- “fish?” (Did he say fish?)

The idea that he didn't further elaborate isn't something to hold against the NAP. Next time you don't understand something and say “what?”, you'll catch yourself using on word to indicate that you didn't understand, and I'm sure whoever was speaking will repeat it or (if they're well-trained in communication) ask what you didn't understand.

I don't see how “I'm clarifying this” supports someone trying to Gotcha, unless he means “I want to getcha, but I'm going to give you an opportunity to let me getcha by making you repeat ‘Fish’ ” This doesn't make sense. Wookie on Endor.

If anything, I feel that AP was declaring intent and gotcha'd himself by not being clear when asked for clarification. Legal choice, confirmed by opponent. Fish was chosen. Fish sticks.

So I don't play legacy enough to know all the slang terms, and even those who play in Competitive events do not know all of the slang terms of the older formats. Many of my players who play modern do not know that Bob means Dark Confidant, or that Eggs is not the thing you eat for breakfast. I don't think that because terms are popularly used in one area that they should be grounds for all players to live by and use shortcuts for.

The parroting of what someone says is a way of asking them, are you sure you mean this. I would assume that if someone said “Fish” they meant fish, not whale, dolphin, element, merfolk, or dragon.

In the case brought up about the language barrier there is some means for doubt but I believe that those are the corner cases that we can not build the ruling upon. Being aware of that possibility a judge can try and be more preventative.

Honestly I don't understand why someone would not just say the proper name of the type they were trying to call. Unless you are in a limited environment, where you may not know the deck completely, if a player builds there deck with Cavern of Souls they usually have a select few creature types they would name and in that case why not just use the proper name.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Legacy is a big enough format with lots of decks that Norbert might not know what Ahmed is playing, or why Ahmed would have said “Fish.” Not until after Ahmed announced a Merfolk spell.

As a Legacy player myself, this is precisely my line of thinking when processing this scenario.

I'm on the fence myself. I'd want to examine the specifics of each scenario (there are plenty of variants you can come up with) and rule accordingly rather than just present a default stance.

In any situation where the opponent says “fish?” and the player confirms “yes, fish” I'm much less likely to allow that as really meaning merfolk - the opportunity to correct/clarify what he meant was there and he didn't take it. Similarly, if there's a significant delay between announcing “fish” and the first time he attempts to use it to cast a merfolk (e.g turn one cavern, aether vial … turn four, tap cavern for blue) I'm also going to be unhappy with that - his opponent has been made to play out the game with bad information because of the player's failure to communicate well; the player also had a window in which to “change his mind from fish to merfolk” and pass it off as a communication error.

On the other hand, if it's “cavern on fish, cursecatcher” as a fluid action (the kind where players put their land down tapped) I feel it's abundantly clear what was intended, regardless of the words used, and would be inclined to educate rather than penalise - “yes, cavern is on merfolk but please be clear in future.”

It's my first reply here ever as I am a judge for about a month.

I have not much experience to say none judging mtg events.

All my experience is by playing and maybe my point of view is “contaminated” with my previous experience.

IMHO A tournament is not the place to “learn” it for free.

I've have seen it happen a lot with P. needle naming underworld connections witch is actually a legal card name and fits the requirement form PN despise the fact it will not do anything.

I have even seen players naming UC via PN and the other player just “accept” it meanig both of then don't know the principle (or read the card).


Theres no mention if the event is competitive or not, so I assumed it is based on the number of players.

That's it.

Greetings from Brazil

Marcelo Góes.

If I am Norbert and I confirm that it is fish, my mind will start swimming with what he could possibly do to me with creatures that actually have the ‘fish’ creature type. If we allow players to incorrectly name their Cavern for the subtle mind trick it might create, we are allowing something that the Communication Policy is clearly intended to prevent.

Also, Norbert's question shows that he is not playing ‘gotcha’ but trying to make the gamestate clear.

Edited Cameron Bachman (Jan. 12, 2014 11:39:19 PM)