My understanding is that prior to the addition to the IPG of the confirmation of card draws, this would simply be a GL no ifs, ands, or buts. I believe this confirmation clause was added to help prevent gaming the system. I don't believe this was added to provide a universal get out of jail free card for making a Game Play Error.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

… opening up the downgrade path.

I really like Toby's wording here. It feels like we're debating between two equal paths for determining the penalty. However, the paths aren't equal. The downgrade is the exception, and only opens if specific criteria are met. The circumstances here are pretty darn close, but close doesn't cut it.

Simply put, Amanda made a Game Play Error and earns a Game Loss.

Originally posted by Adam Zakreski:

However, the paths aren't equal. The downgrade is the exception, and only opens if specific criteria are met. The circumstances here are pretty darn close, but close doesn't cut it.

Simply put, Amanda made a Game Play Error and earns a Game Loss.

Agreed; under current policy, this is a fairly cut and dry DEC GL.

However, I think Mark has a fairly solid point that this feels a lot like a “leave my main phase” linguistic trick, and I think the logic behind disallowing those tricks also applies here.

We don't allow players to bypass the “Combat?” shortcut through clever wording because doing so effectively negates the shortcut entirely–if we did, players would start using the clever wording all the time, and then we're right back with the problem the shortcut was intended to solve. If we allow people to use clever wording to bypass DEC's confirmation exception, then we're in the same boat. Allow the bypass, and all of a sudden the exception is useless because nobody will ever confirm their opponent's draw–why would they? They'll just confirm the resolution of whatever spell or ability is causing the card draw.

So yes, under current policy this is a GL, but I think it's worth a good long look by the HLJs to see if we really want it to be this easy to bypass the confirmation exception.

Originally posted by Callum Milne:

However, I think Mark has a fairly solid point that this feels a lot like a “leave my main phase” linguistic trick, and I think the logic behind disallowing those tricks also applies here.

Norin's ‘linguistic trick’ is not really the issue here. Had Amanda - the primary actor here - done any of what is actually required to avoid a GL, we would not be in the situation. That's an enormous difference. Shortcuts almost always protect the secondary player.

Here's my problem with this case in a vacuum: It takes out the human variable. I'd look at both player's penalty histories in the game. Was Amanda missing a lot of triggers? Was Norin calling judge a suspicious amount of times? I'd need to hear and see more of the actual investigation, including body language and tone of voice. I'd need to see if Norin displayed the type of cognitive skills to, within a few turns while having to focus on a tournament and other ongoing things, to have the thought: “If I don't say anything I will win.” A lot of what we're arguing seems to be “intent,” which is impossible to deem without further information.

In terms of penalty and philosophy: What Toby said.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Norin's 'linguistic trick' is not really the issue here. Had Amanda - the primary actor here - done any of what is actually required to avoid a GL, we would not be in the situation. That's an enormous difference. Shortcuts almost always protect the secondary player.

Isn't that requirement merely saying “Draw?” instead of “Draw trigger on the stack?”

At the very least, I feel Norin should receive a TE-CPV penalty, because he expected Amanda to draw the extra card. This is very close to misrepresenting derived/free information. The information he is misrepresenting is Amanda's inability to draw cards for the rest of the turn.
If he did not expect her to make the illegal action, I would say he should receive no penalty and the GL for DEC should stick; but because he expected the illegal action with his choice of words, he should receive the penalty for TE-CPV and Amanda's penalty should be downgraded. There does not seem to be enough here to determine USC-Cheating, so I would not DQ. I would want to have a conversation with him after the match explaining why clear communication is important.

Myles, while I understand and respect the opinion you - and others! - have expressed, please understand that Toby's replies are, in his capacity as a Forum Moderator (as well as THE Policy Guy), an explanation of the correct stance on this situation.

Again - like so many judge debates - this just isn't going to happen, not to 98% of us, anyway. But it's important that your takeaway includes an understanding that - in this unusual example - Norrin has not committed an infraction.

I think we've covered pretty much everything that needs to be covered, here. If someone can think of a good reason, I'll re-open this topic - but, for now, it's done.