Originally posted by Shing Nien Fong:

So…
1. taking photo of the decklist for sideboarding purpose is okay
2. referring to the said photo is okay before and after the match
3. referring to the said photo is NOT okay during the match and between games

All three above is true ?

2. I don't think so. According to the new rule, once you sit at the table, electronic devices are banned. The rule does not specify a duration but I guess it's safe to assume a player can safely use his phone or microwave oven once the slip is filled out.

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

The remedy would simply be to educate them about the rules and ask them to put their phone away. If they do it again, we're into failing to follow a direct instruction territory (which is now USC-Minor and a Warning).

Major/Game Loss actually.

Thomas, the latest updates in IPG include a change in this infraction.
Failing to follow an official instruction is not USC-Major anymore. Now
it's UC-Minor and it's penalty a warning. Paul is right.​

The new rule basically bans electronic devices “because they can be used to do shady to illegal things”. One can very safely argue that pen and paper (use of illegal notes), sleeves (marking cards), dice and coins (improperly determine the winner) can also be used that way.

I'm curious to understand what's been judged different here that we (the Judges) can't just stay on the watch for them like we do for other bad (to very bad) behaviours. Wasn't the Regular REL clause enough (maybe with a tweaked wording)?

Like:

“Informations delivered by devices used during a match other than brief personal calls must be available to all players.”

Ref MTR 2.12 (bold by me for comparison):

At Regular Rules Enforcement Level, electronic devices are permitted, but players may not use them to access information that contains substantial strategic advice or information about an opponent's deck. Device use during a match other than brief personal calls must be visible to all players. Players wishing to view information privately on electronic devices during matches must request permission from a judge.

I'd suggest everybody to read Toby's posts and spend some time thinking about the explainations he gave: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/
For example, Andrea, the answer is here:
“We tried having a policy to define what could be done with devices, but it was out of date with regards to the capabilities of devices almost immediately, and exploitable loopholes kept surfacing. We had the choice of writing a complex and ever-changing policy, or taking the cleaner route of disallowing them entirely during matches. The latter seems like a safer course.”
Paper, pen, sleeves, dices and coins technology don't change on a near-monthly basis. We can give rules about those accessories and stick to them for years.

I actually read Toby's blog post before posting anything here. I understand what he says but I believe “safer course” is very different from “better course”.

As this is a rule to prevent shady things from happening, letting someone's opponent see what he/she sees and ear what he/she ears would enforce what everyone is already doing when playing Magic, mutual control.

Btw it's also strange too see a difference in RELs here, as it is related to “shady behaviours” something JAR and IPG treat similarly (generally unwanted behaviours and TE-OA respectively) with the only difference represented by a preliminary caution in the JAR.

I also and more importantly need a clarification on the matter. Do rules in the MTR fall under the “exceptional clause” in the IPG (see below)?

Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines. The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Andrea Mondani <
forum-9771-aa1c@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I also and more importantly need a clarification on the matter. Do rules
> in the MTR fall under the “exceptional clause” in the IPG (see below)?


​No. The MTR applies to all RELs, the IPG only applies to Competitive and
Professional REL. ​


//David

Would smart watches fall into this category as well? I can see a lot of players being surprised at being asked to remove their watch for the duration.

Any digital watch is an electronic device.

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

Any digital watch is an electronic device.

In my opinion, this is not what we're talking about when it comes to electronic devices. I would sincerely hope that people aren't going to be accosted by judges and asked to remove their watches.

Those Pebble smart watches on the other hand are definitely on their way to veering into this territory. A random run-of-the-mill digital watch is not.

Strictly speaking you could ask someone to remove their digital watch, or flashing shoes, or pacemaker, but I'm sure we can all exercise reasonable judgement here.

Unless it's one of those bluetooth smart-watches, I'd have a hard time asking someone to remove their Timex, while another player gets to use their wind up.

On the other hand, a resurgence of pocket watches would be pretty sweet.

Originally posted by Paul Ellis:

Would smart watches fall into this category as well? I can see a lot of players being surprised at being asked to remove their watch for the duration.

Interesting point here. So what do we consider as eletronic device? Asking all players to remove theyr Smart Watch sounds really weird.

On the other hand i understand the concern about using eletrtronic devices. If we look at what devices were capable 3+ years ago compared to know, i wouldnt be surprised to find some sort of super computer inside a watch (ok i admit thats a lot of pie in the sky). But still, a MRT that needs to be updated with almost every device that hits the market just to make sure everything is covered sounds like a impossible thing.

Maybe i'm just overreacting and people will think “Gosh what is this guy talking about” ;-)

I think something I learnt from a deckchecks TL regarding marked sleeves (I think it was Shawn Doherty but I may be wrong) applies here. All sleeves are marked if you look hard enough. The question is if the player can take advantage of the marking. If we need to hold the deck up to the light and look at it form a specific distance and angle to see the markings, it will be pretty evident when the player tries to obtain that information during a game.

If a player starts noticeably reading information off their smart watch and scrolling on the screen of the watch, then we might have a problem. If they are casually glancing at the time or not even checking it at all then I don’t think we should care that the watch has the potential to store a text file.

Each day more *everything* is an electronic device.

What Federico said, absolutely. And that comment about “exercise reasonable judgment” from Adam.

Keep in mind that the policy doesn't mention the existence of electronic devices; it disallows the USE of those devices. I hope I never hear a story of a judge instructing every player to remove their watches…

I'm so glad to hear that electronic wheelchairs, hearing devices and pacemakers are still allowed ^^