You are HJing a Modern event at a local game store, and your event is in Top 8. Adam and Nate are playing, and Peter has won their Top 8 match and is watching Adam's game. Nate is on Mono Blue Tron. In the middle of the match, Spencer comes up and then asks “What makes Mono Blue Tron different from RG Tron.” Before you can stop him, Peter answers that “Mono Blue Tron doesn't play Karn.” At that point, what do you do? Assuming you do an investigation and that you know no players are lying to you, how does your answer change based on what anyone says?

This was a real call and I'll share what I did in the near future, I just want to get some uncoloured responses first.

Edited Darcy Alemany (June 4, 2014 08:45:11 PM)

Not very sure to which extent it could fit into TE-OA, as it's not exactly hidden information or strategy/play advice. But I don't see any other infraction that fits :)

I'm imagining it was a fairly casual conversation, devoid of signs of artificially signaling that sparks thoughts of cheating or trying to give outside assistance.

Speaking information about what is commonly played in that kind of deck is a little different from revealing what was actually played in his specific deck. So I think there's room to avoid calling it Outside Assistance and not awarding a match loss to Adam.

I think I'd just pull them aside and remind them that there is a match going on, so discussing cards and decks is really appropriate. If they give a believable “oh man, I wasn't thinking” kind of response, I'd consider letting them observe the game still. But otherwise I'd ask them to leave the area until next round.

There's quite a bit of “you had to be there” here, because I'm probably going to be trying to read reactions to my questions more than the answers.

This comment is coloured blue and green, sorry.

If this is to be considered OA, then we have to consider this phrase from the IPG: “Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.” One of those two conditions has to be met in order for that penalty to apply. So the question is: “Is discussing the meta of a deck composition of a deck in play within earshot of a match either play advice or revealing hidden information?”

I just tell them to please be quiet or take their conversation elsewhere. I don't feel that either player was giving specific play advice or strategy to the players involved in the match. Not OA. They were within earshot of the players who could use the information in the current match. However the information was not specific about Adams deck and/or the exact list he was playing. It was a general statement about those archetypes.

If you or the players in the are not happy with the spectators you can/should ask them to find something else to do while this match completes.

I don't see any other infraction that fits :)

perhaps there isn't any infraction, then?

I pretty much agree with the “remind them that spectators should be seen and not heard” approach. They can continue their conversation out of earshot, or they can continue to watch - silently. Simple choice…

d:^D

Agree with Scott, though one clarification from a comment made earlier in this thread…

"

So I think there's room to avoid calling it Outside Assistance and not awarding a match loss to Adam.

As a reminder, in the case that two spectators are having a conversation next to a match which does lead to Outside Assistance, it is the spectators who would get Outside Assistance - not one of the players minding their own buisness in the match, assuming that they had not solicited it in any way.

Right! I meant Peter, since he was the one going into a later match, so he's very much care about that match loss. I just got a little lost in the names.

Before the Top 8 begins, you might consider directly addressing the dozen or so spectators left.

“Spectators are welcome but are expected to remain silent and passive. Yes, that means no whispering. If you need to have a conversation or ask a question, take it over there (point far away). Due to the high stakes here and the potential for an errant comment to significantly impact the match, anyone who violates this will, at a minimum, be asked to leave the area immediately. Thank you for your cooperation, lets play some Magic!”

Since no specific information about Adam's deck or play advice is given, there is no need for an OA penalty, especially since it is being discussed with another player not involved in the match. I would pull both Peter and Spencer aside and caution them about discussing possible deck compositions within earshot of an active match. If either player in the match complained, I would clear everyone from the area around the match.

So I'm going to propose a situation that didn't actually happen, but is relevant. What if, at this point in the match, Adam asked the question to Peter and Peter responds the same way?

Edited Darcy Alemany (June 4, 2014 03:59:46 PM)

If by Andrew you mean Adam, the player, that seems likr pretty cut and dry
OA. Requesting information from a spectator. Unless I misread/misunderstood
the question.

Edited Trevor Nunez (June 4, 2014 04:13:51 PM)

Originally posted by Darcy Alemany:

So I'm going to propose a situation that didn't actually happen, but is relevant. What if, at this point in the match, Adam asked the question to Peter and Peter responds the same way?

That's textbook OA for both of them :)

If we agree that Adam asking the question instead of Spencer is textbook OA, then I feel that Peter's answer has to also be OA. If we look at the relevant parts of the definition of OA:

“A player, spectator, or other tournament participant does any of the following:
• Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others once he or she has sat for his or
her match.
• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.”

To me, it's clear that if Adam is asking for that information, he's committing outside assistance. He is seeking information on the likleyhood that Karn Liberated is in his opponent's deck, which is hidden information. However, the second part of the definition of OA deals with the same kind of information (“play advice or hidden information”) that the first part does, which means that the spectator who answered this question within earshot of the players also committed OA. That's how I ruled in this situation.

In your scenario: Adam and Nate are the ones who have sat for their match. Peter and Spencer are talking about the differences between the two Tron decks in general.

I agree that play advice can be extracted from the conversation between Peter and Spencer, but unless I got the sense one of them was trying to make sure Adam heard the answer, I don't see it as an infraction.

I think it's about context and intent, since I read “provide” as an active word. I'm not going to assess OA against someone who walks by the match and accidentally drops their deck which happens to be the same archetype as one in the match, allowing the opponent to see some of what's in it. (Assuming I believe it was actually accidental). Similar here. Though I do definitely want to shut that conversation down, or ship it somewhere else.

I can understand wanting to rule as OA, and I think the written policy can be interpreted to support your ruling, and I'm curious to hear if I'm reading it too loosely… but I see “provide” as a more active intentional word.

derp: I meant “give” where I said “provide”. It shifted in my memory since is uses provide towards the end of the OA philosophy section of the IPG which I looked over before posting this.

Edited Chris Nowak (June 10, 2014 12:23:21 PM)