The following decklist was submitted at an event and created some healthy discussion.

http://imgur.com/x7FlUYP

Would you take any actions (penalty/talk to player) and if so, why?

I'll post the outcome I came to at some point; I'm very curious about other points of view.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (Feb. 23, 2014 12:44:13 AM)

Well, I didn't try to figure out the whole list, but there is at least one
card listed 5 times (Rakdos Shred-Freak). So that would be a D/DL Problem.
I would check the rest of the decklist for errors, then deckcheck the
deck. I would likely have the player re-write the list between matches so
that it was in the normal “4x” manner.

If the list was legal, I would still have them rewrite the list, but I
wouldn't assign any penalty.

Shawn

Originally posted by Jeffrey Higgins:

The following decklist was submitted at an event and created some healthy discussion.

http://imgur.com/x7FlUYP

Would you take any actions (penalty/talk to player) and if so, why?

I'll post the outcome I came to at some point; I'm very curious about other points of view.

From the looks of things, there are five Rakdos Shred-freaks. There may be >4 of others - I stopped checking after seeing that, since we're already going to need to match the contents of the deck to the list when we check it before giving him or her the penalty.

Beyond that, I'd ask why he or she chose to fill out their decklist in this manner - they may have thought they were supposed to fill it out like this. There's no penalty for filling out your decklist in an obnoxious way, so even if they did it intentionally, I wouldn't assign a penalty, though I would have a discussion with them to educate them on the proper way to fill out a decklist.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (Feb. 23, 2014 12:58:58 AM)

I did check the rest of his cards, and the Rakdos Shredfreak is the only one over 4. And he's got 60 cards (even though he wrote 58)

I'm definitely curious to find out why he listed the deck like this, and that's the first question I think I'd ask him (not letting on knowledge of anything else funny). I'd also be curious if he's done it that way before and if anything has ever been said. (but I imagine he was in a hurry, so that line of thinking wouldn't be relevant)

At first I thought he'd just listed his deck as it was sorted, but then I see the 19 swamps listed. Maybe he pulled the land out and just ran out of time to sort the rest while registering the deck (I bet he showed up near the start time?). But there's enough weirdness here that maybe he was trying to get one past us (not likely, but worth thinking about), but I wouldn't rate that as a high likelihood absent other factors.

Thinking about it practically, in order to confirm the decklist, I think we'd pretty much need to make up a new one for him ourselves (I wouldn't trust a second one he gave me to match, so we'd need to check anyway), so I'm not sure I'd ask him to re-write it as well. If I'm doing the work anyway to validate, we're probably better off not potentially delaying the tournament by having him do it himself on top of all this.

Assuming no cheating: Rewrite the list, deck check against that. Assess penalty for the error (GL), fix the deck and the list. (Looks like he's going to be running 20 swamps now) And have a meaningful discussion about what an appropriate decklist looks like. Create a post on Judge App =)

What stands out to me is that the SB is done in the usual X Card Name format while the MD is not (except for basic lands)

Other information on the deck registration sheet, “Not Portland” "Me: Not " also stands out to me.

Those things are not illegal or wrong in some way, but something that peaks my interest.

Judges are tasked with making sure the tournament is ran in a timely manner, and deck lists like this certainly hinder that.

The deck contains 58 cards
The deck and/or decklist contain an illegal number of cards for the format

The deck list includes 5 x Rakdos Shred-Freak
The deck and/or deck list contain an illegal number of cards for the format

If this list was caught when it was turned it, which it should have been, then allowing the list to be corrected (60 cards, cards listed in an X - Card Name Format) and turned back in would be ideal. Its an easy thing to do and enhances customer service by checking deck lists quickly when turned in. Making sure the obvious stuff is all there: name, full card names, etc. If something is amiss, educating the player and having them fix it makes for a much better experience than hitting them with a GL later on for something simple and easily caught.

If the list was caught after round 1 had started, I would talk to that player at the start of round 2, ask him some questions, then instruct him how to fill out deck lists in the future and why it matters, then assess a GL for TE - D/DL.

Originally posted by Jonathan Gildersleeve:

The deck contains 58 cards

It actually lists 60 (assuming 1-of for each on the left), which is kind of a nagging question for me.

If the deck were otherwise legal, do we care about the number not matching? (the rules talk about the cards, not so much the other information). So I wouldn't think so.

The fact that he wrote 58 and played anyway does ring bells though. I'm curious to know why he's playing with what he thinks is a 58 card deck, when I'm sure he knows 60 is the requirement.

Is it cheating if you intend to cheat but accidentally don't? (I think intent it what matters) An answer of “I knew there were 60 in my deck, but the list only counted to 58 when I looked, and I didn't have time to fix the list” would pretty much explain it in a non-cheaty way. An answer of “I was in a rush and just hoped nobody would notice” is more problematic.

Originally posted by Jonathan Gildersleeve:

If something is amiss, educating the player and having them fix it makes for a much better experience than hitting them with a GL later on for something simple and easily caught.

How does that work practically? I usually see lists picked up during a player meeting or during Round 1 (for small events). If it's during the player meeting, do we delay the start of the matches so he can finish his list? Start matches and count him as tardy for his match and hope they finish without needing the time extension? Or just give that table the time extension required to rewrite the list (and hope they don't actually need it).

Everything on the left is a 1-of. I did my best to take a picture and not get the player's name on it.

The player can write 20 cards in their main deck; we don't actually hold them to it. I'll sometimes use it as a guideline (they are actually playing 61 cards for example and write it down as 61).

Originally posted by Jonathan Gildersleeve:

Judges are tasked with making sure the tournament is ran in a timely manner, and deck lists like this certainly hinder that.

Are there any penalties that would fit this description?

Originally posted by Jonathan Gildersleeve:

If the list was caught after round 1 had started, I would talk to that player at the start of round 2

The list was caught after the beginning of Round 1. Our priority was Collect -> Alphabetize/Confirm no missing lists -> Verify Legality.

Originally posted by Jeffrey Higgins:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gildersleeve:

Judges are tasked with making sure the tournament is ran in a timely manner, and deck lists like this certainly hinder that.

Are there any penalties that would fit this description?

If during opening announcements you asked the players to review their decklists and make sure there are at least 60 cards in it and they wrote 58, wouldn't that fall under failing to follow instructions?

Ignoring the 5x Rakdos Shred Freak issue (which is clearly a D/DLP):

I'm intrigued by a few things. Obviously first by writing each card out individually in the MD, yet not doing so in the SB. Secondly, writing 58 as the number of cards in the MD, whether or not that is accurate. If I saw this during the first round pass of decklists, this is definitely one I would set aside and discuss with its owner. I want to talk about why he chose to write his decklist this way, both to investigate potential cheating, and to educate the player if he had no ill intentions.

If I weren't the head judge, I would bring it to their attention. It certainly could be innocuous, but I feel suspicious enough of this that HJ intervention may be required.

Please carefully read the entire section, Applying Penalties - 1.3, I think? - to understand the concept of failing to follow a direct instruction. Also please understand that this is intended for instances where a Tournament Rule is broken, but no specific infraction exists. Educate the player why it's an unwanted behavior, then provide a direct instruction not to repeat.

Really, that idea of UC Major for “failing to follow” is blown way out of proportion; it's there in case you have a player who refuses to behave safely and sanely. Without that phrase in that section of the IPG, you'd have no real tools to resolve the situation.

And, finally: that deck list is annoying, and there's 5 Shred Freaks listed. One of those two things IS an infraction … not both. I think y'all know which is which! :)

I'd be willing to bet that one of the Rakdos Shred-Freaks is supposed to be a Rakdos Cackler. Not that it changes anything on the penalty front or explains any of the other weirdness. But there are 3 Rakdos Cacklers and 5 Rakdos Shred-Freaks and I still can't tell the cards apart at first glance.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'd be willing to bet that one of the Rakdos Shred-Freaks is supposed to be a Rakdos Cackler. Not that it changes anything on the penalty front or explains any of the other weirdness. But there are 3 Rakdos Cacklers and 5 Rakdos Shred-Freaks and I still can't tell the cards apart at first glance.

That's a good catch, and I would say very likely the source of the D/DLP. You can go into the discussion with that information if you're in a crunch and want to solve this problem quickly. A thorough check of the entire deck sorted is best practice, but not necessarily one we can always accommodate if we have a bunch of problem lists between rounds.

I'm also curious why they wrote it out this way, and it'd be worth the “why” question on 2 education points:

1. He's trolling- That's annoying, please don't do that again. It slows down the deck check process. They need to re-write the list now, and that's their “punishment.”

2. They don't know better- Educate that sorting the deck and listing the numbers next to each card helps them prevent registration errors and the easiest way to avoid a Game Loss for D/DLP. It's easier for both parties to identify errors in the list. Surely he knows that he's playing 4 of each Rakdos card and would identify this if he had listed them as 4-of next to each card. Good customer service!

Edited Evan Cherry (Feb. 24, 2014 10:44:22 AM)

I have seen such decklist before. Reason was that player started to write it down with too little time before tournament was going to start. So he thought that it will be much faster for him to write the cards down 1 by 1 as they are currently in the deck.

About half the time I see a list like this I find out later that it's a
joke list that a player sneaked into the pile and the player name isn't in
the tournament.

Always worth checking if it is a real player :)


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Varga <
forum-8616-641a@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I have seen such decklist before. Reason was that player started to write
> it down with too little time before tournament was going to start. So he
> thought that it will be much faster for him to write the cards down 1 by 1
> as they are currently in the deck.
>
> —————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/52987/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8616/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8616/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
>


–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

You joke Gareth, but anyone who sets out to deliberately waste a judges time like this deserves a stern talking too. There's enough work to do without having to chase phantom players.