This thread is for discussing the article Penalty Engineering by Charles Featherer.

Edited Evan Cherry (Feb. 12, 2014 04:02:33 PM)

I'm confused on the Dark Confidant trigger example.

The example says that the Missed trigger should be upgraded to USC-Cheating because it was a detrimental trigger (and goes on to explain that it's because of the board state that it's detrimental). But the upgrade path in the IPG to USC-Cheating is when they intentionally ignore a trigger (presumably because it's detrimental, but that determination isn't mentioned as part of the reason).

It may end up in the same place in the end, but the reasoning strikes me as important.

It seems to me that the investigation uncovered the fact that the person intentionally skipped the trigger, and we are free to use the current game state in making that determination. But it's the intentional skipping of the trigger that warrants the USC-Cheating, not the detrimental-ness of the trigger due to the board state (though the state may have eventually informed our determination).

Am I over-parsing it?

Regarding the section “Which Penalty” “Example 1”
I was under the impression that the triggered ability of Dark Confidant is not usually detrimental since the current game state does not factor into the definition of detrimental.

Section “Incorrect Evaluations” “Example 1”
While I agree that it is often helpful to advice players to play faster, it is not required by the IPG.

Edited Simon Ahrens (Feb. 11, 2014 09:12:41 AM)

You beat me too it.
If it is determined the player is not cheating, no penalty would be issued for the Dark Confidant trigger. Game state is not relevant in determining detrimental triggers. This is my primary example I use for players.

As everyone above me has stated, Dark Confidant's trigger is not Generally Detrimental. The fact that it was missed when Alex was at one life is suspicious and warrants investigation in case it was deliberately missed aka Cheating. If the investigation ultimately leads the Head Judge to rule that it's not Cheating, then it's a Warning for Missed Trigger. The Additional Remedy section of the Missed Triggers infraction allows the opponent the option to put the trigger on the stack now if they choose.

Slight correction - no warning for the missed trigger (as only detrimental triggers get them) - the IPG threw me first thing in the morning.

I'm not convinced that the first “Phantom Penalties” example isn't TE - Marked Cards

Originally posted by Jason Wong:

I'm not convinced that the first “Phantom Penalties” example isn't TE - Marked Cards

Let's just assume that it was. We clearly allow artistic modifications to cards to a certain degree. If little dots on the face of a card are TE - Marked Cards, then artistic modifications are TE - Marked Cards as well. However, the MTR say that artistic modifications are acceptable, even if they indirectly contain minor strategic information.

Edited Jasper König (Feb. 11, 2014 03:29:55 PM)

My mistake, I thought the dots were on the back of the sleeves.

I think the text that is causing confusion is this:

In this case, the Judge should have issued a different penalty. GPE – Missed Trigger should be upgraded to Unsporting Conduct – Cheating, when a detrimental trigger is missed. How is this a detrimental trigger?

This seems to suggest that Dark Confidant's trigger is detrimental. It is not. The author's discussion of the “drawback” for getting the card from the trigger and the game state and recent turns intends to explain why the trigger might have been intentionally missed. Unfortunately, the word “detrimental” has a certain meaning in the IPG to mean “if this is missed, give a Warning.” Likewise, we do not “upgrade” to USC Major. That is the appropriate penalty, but some confusion is generated because the word “upgrade” has Magic Judge meaning.

Because this is an article intended to demonstrate pitfalls in rulings, the initial judge's ruling as GPE- Missed Trigger can serve as an example that this is NOT a detrimental trigger we would issue a Warning for. However, the history of remembering the trigger and then forgetting when it's a liability is suspicious and should be investigated for USC- Cheating.

The potential for confusion was overlooked during editing. The statements have been clarified on the article.

Thanks for all your feedback!

Jason, for clarification it was to the front of the cards.

I want to thank everyone for their feedback so far, as well as for Evan's excellent work helping to clarify my thoughts. I wrote this with help from L2 Ken Perry as well - the article was his idea and I sought his help several times.

Any mistakes are my own. Evan and Ken have been there to make suggestions and adjustments, but the examples are largely my creation - so the Dark Confident issue is my fault.

It seems like a trivial thing, but I learn something new everyday through the Judge program. I want to thank Ken and Evan again - you guys are the best, thanks for letting me do this.

Just wanted to say the article was fantastic. Quick question, in regards to marked cards… what are the opinions on putting numbers on guild gates? Ie having them numbered so they can quickly find the missing one with maze's end? Assuming the player is only using the numbers to find his 10 and not or strategic purposes, of course. 'Ive asked a lot of judges and got different answers. Some say outside assistance, some say minor alteration that provides minor advice indirectly, some say no big deal, carry on.

Interesting question Patrick. At the very least, such a player should speak with the Head Judge before the event, as I suspect it'll come down to HJ discretion.

Personally I'm not a huge fan. It's only slightly removed from having “save this for when you've a fetchland” written on a Brainstorm. Magic is designed to test your skills at Magic - in the case of Maze's End it's collecting all 10 Guildgates. The numbering system sounds like it's the numbering would help the player make decisions with their deck. Admittedly they should be easy decisions, but it's helping them nonetheless.

Evan/Charles: First off, I wanted to echo what others have said about this
being a great, thought-provoking article. :)

Like Jason, I also was initially confused about the cards-with-dots
example. Even though the article does clearly say the dots are on the
faces of the cards, it's easy to overlook.

Would it be possible to update the article to include a picture of the
cards in question? I think this would clear up some of the confusion, as
well as be very helpful for those of us who are visual learners. :)

Thanks!

I would allow numbers on gates in a T2 competetive event. I've allowed Trinket Mages with artistic modifications of adding a small Sensei's Divining Top in a corner.

Philosophy (IPG on Outside asisstance)
…

Visual modifications to cards, including brief text, that provide minor strategic information or hints are acceptable and not considered notes. Detailed instructions or complex strategic advice may not be written on cards.

It's up to each HJ to draw the line what is detailed instruction and complex strategic advice. A number from 1 to 10 is certainly only brief text in anyones definition. Others might see it as detailed, or counting to 10 is complex. For Mark, apparently writing ‘save this for when you’ve a fetchland' is over the line. For me, the number on the gates & the Sensei's Divining Top on a Trinket Mage are fine. That suggests there is a big gray area between those 2, so tell your players to talk to the HJ before the tournament if they have modified cards, and, if you have players near you with modified cards, think about these questions beforehand and reach a decision.

On a slightly related note on alterations: if the card is modified with paint, it might be thicker or bend differently than normal Magic cards. Don't hesitate to shuffle the card in the deck to see if you can pull it out because of the different texture. Even in doublesleeves, this effect can be pronounced. If that is the case, you have a Marked Cards issue, and the card(s) need to be replaced.