Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:Here, I am not so much interested in what is desirable than in what is legal, thus my question was about legality: can a player remain silent, or refuse to confirm a draw (or any other game action), or is he compelled to take time to analyze the game state anytime his opponent requires confirmation?
Is “the best way to be playing is to never talk with your opponent” really what we want?
Joshua FeingoldHe is not refusing to communicate, he is refusing to take care of the game state for his lazy opponent. In the same way that, if that opponent asked him: "what is the power of your Tarmogoyf?“, he would answer: ”find out by yourself!“ You might call him a jerk, but I don't care if the players whom I judge behave in such a non-sportive way (it is the role of the so-called ”community", isn't it?), I only care about Unsportive Conduct and Player Communication Policy, which was the intent of my previous questions: would a player, who remains silent or who refuses to confirm a draw, commit an infraction (which one?) or would it be a legal behavior?
he is actively being a jerk by refusing to communicate.
Joshua FeingoldYou may be right, but that's not my problem, it's that player's problem if he wants to behave like what you call a jerk. My problem is: if I am called at a table by such a player's opponent who complains: "this player is a jerk, he refuses to confirm my draws!" then what shall I do? To compel that player to answer truthfully? Or to let it be, and give a DEC to that opponent if he draws illegally despite the (silent or explicit) lack of confirmation?
Over the course of a day, a player who is honest and communicative will accrue fewer infractions of any sort because he and his opponents will just resolve their little errors instead of calling a judge constantly.
Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:I'll have to disagree with this. If a player asks “so can I draw now?”, then what you're saying is obviously true. If he's asking “so I draw 4, correct? can I draw now?” or really anything that includes the number of cards he wants to draw, he's asking much more than just “does my draw resolve?”
By asking for confirmation the player is simply asking “does my effect that draws me X cards resolve?”
Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:
He is not refusing to communicate, he is refusing to take care of the game state for his lazy opponent. In the same way that, if that opponent asked him: "what is the power of your Tarmogoyf?“, he would answer: ”find out by yourself!“ You might call him a jerk, but I don't care if the players whom I judge behave in such a non-sportive way (it is the role of the so-called ”community", isn't it?), I only care about Unsportive Conduct and Player Communication Policy, which was the intent of my previous questions: would a player, who remains silent or who refuses to confirm a draw, commit an infraction (which one?) or would it be a legal behavior?
Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:
You may be right, but that's not my problem, it's that player's problem if he wants to behave like what you call a jerk. My problem is: if I am called at a table by such a player's opponent who complains: "this player is a jerk, he refuses to confirm my draws!" then what shall I do? To compel that player to answer truthfully? Or to let it be, and give a DEC to that opponent if he draws illegally despite the (silent or explicit) lack of confirmation?
Judges are neutral arbiters and enforcers of policy and rules. A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating. Judges don’t stop play errors from occurring, but instead deal with errors that have occurred, penalize those who violate rules or policy, and promote fair play and sporting conduct by example and diplomacy. Judges may intervene to prevent or preempt errors occurring outside of a game.
Edited Brian Schenck (Feb. 24, 2014 03:01:03 PM)
Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:I hold out a Brainstorm and say “Brainstorm. Draw 3?” with a Spirit of the Labyrinth in play.
My problem is: if I am called at a table by such a player's opponent who complains: “this player is a jerk, he refuses to confirm my draws!” then what shall I do? To compel that player to answer truthfully? Or to let it be, and give a DEC to that opponent if he draws illegally despite the (silent or explicit) lack of confirmation?
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:
The number of cards a player is supposed to draw is derived information. Whether my opponent is passing priority to allow the spell to resolve is not.
Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
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.
Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 24, 2014 03:42:17 PM)
Edited Philip Ockelmann (Feb. 24, 2014 04:08:17 PM)
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:In fact, the way the comprehensive rules use the word “action”, resolving a spell or ability does not seem to qualify as an action.
The basic game action here is just “Resolve Brainstorm.”
701.1. Most actions described in a card’s rules text use the standard English definitions of the verbs
within, but some specialized verbs are used whose meanings may not be clear. These “keywords”
are game terms; sometimes reminder text summarizes their meanings.
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:
How this action is actually performed (and how that action is different than usual) is the result of characteristics of other objects on the battlefield and their Oracle text.
Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 24, 2014 05:04:28 PM)
Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:Would the following be considered permissible answers? “Your spell resolves.” / “No response.” / “OK I pass.”
I hold out a Brainstorm and say “Brainstorm. Draw 3?” with a Spirit of the Labyrinth in play.
the following is a permissible answer:“Your spell resolves. I am not required to assist you in determining the number of cards you are supposed to draw.”
Brian SchenckI see a major difference between asking my opponent a confirmation about the legality of my own actions, and asking him if he wants to take an action himself before I perform them. The latter is good communication between players, the former is either laziness to analyse the game state, or fear to be responsible of my actions and the will to share this burden with someone who is neither supposed nor willing to carry it. It is the difference between "I am about to draw, do you have any response before I do it?“ and ”I am about to draw, is it legal? you must help me to know it, even if you don't want to! It's in the IPG!"
Asking your opponent to confirm actions you are about to take, or otherwise simply moving through your turn, isn't about “laziness”. It's about making sure you can proceed with your turn without simply cutting off your opponent from taking an action, or assuming something resolves without giving your opponent a chance to respond.
Edited Loïc Hervier (Feb. 24, 2014 07:50:56 PM)
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.