This incident came up at GP Portland. I was playing in the event at an adjacent table, and was just an observer for this judge call. While I had access to most of the details of the event, I had to fill in a couple gaps from second-hand accounts and am operating from day-old memory, so please treat the following as a pseudo-hypothetical:

Ashnod is at 7 life. Her opponent, Nefarox, is at 9 life and tapped out. The board is a mess of green and white creatures on both sides, including Paragon of Eternal Wilds, +1/+1 counters and some tramplers. Relevantly here, the various P/T modifiers made it take some time for the players to calculate and resolve combat damage.

Ashnod attacks with several creatures, one of which is a 6/6 Siege Wurm which gets blocked by another 6/6 Siege Wurm. Ashnod casts Titanic Growth on her own Wurm. Both players agree to go to damage. After some counting, Nefarox says “Looks like seven damage gets through,” and glances at his life pad “I'm at seven.” Nefarox then goes through one more time, calculating the P/T of the various creatures and confirms “Yep - seven damage. You got it.” before picking up his cards.

While shuffling up for game 3, Nefarox notices that he was at 9 life, and it was Ashnod who was at 7. Ashnod confirms that, and Nefarox calls a judge.

During the judge call, players agree on the following facts:

• Nefarox was at 9 life
  
• Nefarox's own life pad showed he was at 9 life
  
• Nefarox verbally announced that he was at 7 life about 30 seconds before picking up his cards
  
• Ashnod neither confirmed nor denied Nefarox's announced pre-damage life total
  
• Ashnod confirmed that seven damage was going through, but neither mentioned that it would put Nefarox to 2, nor made any claims or insinuations that it was lethal damage or that the game was over
  

Ultimately, the responding judge explained that there's no way to return to game 2 after the cards had been picked up, so the result (Nefarox conceding) had to stand.

Ashnod went on to win game three. After the match ended, there were some heated words exchanged, wherein Nefarox bluntly told Ashnod that what she did was cheating.

At this point (my match had finished), I stepped in to talk to Nefarox while Ashnod grabbed the results slip and left.

Nefarox was reasonably familiar with the MTR, had at least indirect knowledge of the IPG, knew that his opponent was cheating and thought that she should be DQ'd. He was also concerned over what he could or couldn't say to the judge who handled the situation. Specifically, he was concerned that mentioning a prior disqualification incident would be seen as demanding a penalty for his opponent and could get him into trouble. He also wasn't sure if he could even appeal a ruling when the only thing he could really appeal for was a penalty for his opponent.

I gave him the advice that it's okay to express these concerns to the judge, but it's probably safest to be polite and use questions directed at the rules rather than his opponent. For example “Isn't it cheating to not correct a life total discrepancy? Please help me understand when it's okay to let your opponent work with incorrect free information.” rather than “Didn't she cheat? I think that's supposed to be a DQ.”

In retrospect, this may have been the wrong advise. Being circumspect is the most polite option for the player, but if they don't clearly make their point then it doesn't do much good. As a judge, I'm going to have a much easier time responding to a directly stated grievance than an indirect one, Something like “The tournament rules document says that noticing a discrepancy in life totals, but not pointing it out right away is cheating. It seems to me like that is applicable here.” gives me a very clear understanding of what the player thinks I am missing. Since a statement like that says what the supposed infraction is (USC - Cheating) but isn't demanding a penalty (Disqualification) I think it avoids being construed as USC - Minor. If i were to give the advice again, I might go with “Be polite and calm. Feel free to clearly tell a judge exactly which infraction you think your opponent may have committed and why, but don't mention penalties. Avoid using ‘should,’ ‘need to’ or speaking in the imperative.”

Coming away from this incident, there are a few questions I'm still mulling over:

• Was this Cheating? The MTR explicitly says that it is Cheating, but the IPG requires “The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.”
  
• What was the best advice I could give to Nefarox about how to stand up for his interests during a judge call without crossing the line into inappropriate behavior?
  
• If, as a player, I hear a ruling at an adjacent table that I think might be incorrect, what should I do? Tell the judge what I think went wrong? Suggest to the player that I think he should appeal? Keep to myself, finish my match, and discretely talk to the judge between rounds?
  

Edit: Formatting

Edited Glenn Fisher (Aug. 12, 2014 01:59:46 PM)

As you pointed out, total lifes are free information (MTR 4.1).
Even though, to see if MTR 4.1 had been violated we should see what it says
about them.

• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
For what you said, lifes were clearly written on the life pad. Still,
Nefarox says something wrong about his lifes, when saying “I'm at seven”.
That IS a missrepresentation of free information, and therefore a violation
of the MTR 4.1, which translates into a TE-PCV,
But his opponent said nothing about this because he would take an
advantage from that.

And that brings us to the IPG.
Unsporting Conduct - Cheating (IP 4.8)
A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a
tournament official, or *notices an offense *
*committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call
attention to it.*

The situation described is clearly this case. The point you argue, though,
is whether or not he knows it's illegal.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.
Maybe this point is the least clearer of all. First of all I'd like to
point out a think:
Players are expected to know the game’s rules—but not to a technically
detailed level—and be familiar with the
policies and procedures (IP 1.1)
So in case of doubt I'd assume he knows what free or derived information is.
Therefore, unless during the investiagtion it's really clear that he
thought he was doing something legal, I'd DQ him for Cheating.



About what to do in this situations, during the tournament you are a
player, not a judge. That gives you the possibility to stop a match if you
see something being done wrong and speak to a judge. In this case what I
think you should do (or at least what I'd do) is asking to stop it and
speak with the judge about what you think, and he'll decide how to act. I
wouldn't directly invite the player to appeal.


2014-08-12 6:55 GMT+02:00 Glenn Fisher <

The question here is whether saying something to yourself, like in this case, is considered violating MTR 4.1.

Do I have to stop my opponent if he says “Oh my Tarmogoyf is 2/3 (it really is 4/5), I guess I won't block your 3/3 then”?

Hello,

For me, there is missing the most important piece of information: did Ashnod notice the discrepancy between what was written on his lifepad (“Me:7, Opponent: 9”) and what Nefarox said (“I'm at seven”)? There is no way we can tell from here. An investigating judge on site could have maybe found out…

BTW, it may be also worth noting MTR 2.14:

2.14 Life Totals
At the start of a match, each player must indicate how he or she will keep track of his or her life total. This method must be visible to both players during the match. A shared method is acceptable as long as all players in the match have access to it.

A change in a player’s life total should be accompanied by a verbal announcement by that player of the new life total.

If a player notices a discrepancy in a recorded or announced life total, he or she is expected to point it out as soon as the discrepancy is noticed. Failure to do so will be considered a Unsporting Conduct – Cheating penalty.

Jernej: the Tarmogoyf's P/T is a derived information, does it make any difference? What does “represent” mean in MTR4.1 “players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly”? I would say, that as long as you actually do not say anything about the Tarmogoyf's P/T, letting the opponent with his thought process, it is not GPE-CPV. Not sporting, but…

As we can find this in the IPG, I do not believe we differentiate between free and derived information as long as it comes to representing it incorrectly, therefore the original case and Tarmogoyf example should be equivalent.

Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.

I think your quote 2.14 is very essential here, since it proposes we have a different way of dealing with life total discrepancy. For me, the original post clearly fits this part of MTR and should result with DQ.

As far as the appealing the ruling and USC - Minor: IPG states that you have to inappropriately demand that your opponent recieves penalty. If a player simply states what he/she thinks should be suitable penalty and states the reasons why, no judge will be issuing USC - Minor. If you simply appeal to head judge, that can also never hurt.

As for a player whitnessing all this: I think that sentences like “You looked very displeased with this ruling. Do you know you can appeal to head judge if you are unhappy?” and talking to the judge giving the ruling and explain what do you think he/she missed can ever hurt.

Very interesting scenario.

First of all, regarding that USC-Minor: If a player asks me something like “My opponent just did X, shouldn't that be penalty Y because of IPG section Z?”, I wouldn't give him/her a USC-Minor. I don't think something like that fits the description for it. From the IPG: “B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty”. Even if it might be inappropriate, I certainly don't think this qualifies as “demand to receive a penalty”. So as long as this player accepts a “no, because…” answer, everything's good.

As for the cheating question: Life totals are free information, so a player is not allowed to lie about it, or refuses to give free information to his or her opponent. However, as Milan has pointed out, there's a section specifically for Life Totals in the MTR, which clearly states that a discrepancy in life totals has to be pointed out as soon as it is noticed.

So the real question is: Did Ashnod notice that Nefarox was wrong when he said “I'm at seven”? Or did he notice after the game, when Nefarox realized it after the game and asked Ashnot for confirmation? I would question Ashnod about this, but he would need an explanation why he didn't notice it in such a long time (seriosly, 30 seconds?). I would lean towards USC-Cheating.

I write down life totals for my games, I would say it´s very unlikely for me to not know on what life total I have my opponent, but especially when I am attacking with several creatures, some with trample and got a +4/+4 trick I am sure I at least checked if I could just kill him.

I would say the real question is, did Ashnot know that he had to correct his opponent, that said “I am at 7”, maybe he thought if his opponent did a mistake he mustn´t help him, unless it´s a GRV.

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

I would say the real question is, did Ashnot know that he had to correct his opponent, that said “I am at 7”, maybe he thought if his opponent did a mistake he mustn´t help him, unless it´s a GRV.

Actually, even if Ashnod expressed that he thought he didn't need to point out opponent's error, it would still be UC - Cheating. Each participant of a competitive tournament is supposed to know Magic Tournament Rules document (which includes the aforementioned rule 2.14). Remember that famous DQ of Jackie Lee?

The wording in 2.14 seems somewhat confusing. For USC - Cheating players need to be aware that they are doing something illegal (as mentioned by Glenn in the first post) and they must be trying to get an advantage.

Most the time I would lean towards the USC - Cheating, but what if I really believe the player didn´t know that he had to inform his opponent about the discrepancy of life totals? The IPG would ask me to verify that the player was aware, if not, it´s not cheating. The MTR says apply USC - Cheating.

Do we always consider players remembering every part of the MTR and therefor we don´t investigate here and just apply USC - Cheating as told in MTR 2.14 or are players able to not know every part of the MTR and therefor sometimes be unaware that they do something illegal?

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Aug. 12, 2014 11:24:08 PM)

Milan, being expected to know the rules and knowing when you're breaking them are different. The IPG very explicitly states that UC - Cheating requires two things, in addition to an actual rules violation.

IPG 4.8, Unsporting Conduct - Cheating

Definition: A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it.

Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

If all criteria are not met, the offense is not Cheating and should be handled by a different infraction. Cheating will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error, and must be investigated by the judge to make a determination of intent and awareness.

The only real comparison that can be drawn here to the Jackie Lee incident would be the fact that we're discussing a life total discrepancy. Any further discussion of that case is largely moot as the circumstances here are different. (I could offer my opinion about the JL case, but it is not pertinent to the present topic and the only information I have is second hand.)

Regarding the OP's situation, some investigation would be required here, and certainly would be warranted. While it is true that we can't really repair the game that was ended by Nefarox picking up his cards (the fact that he has conceded there remains accurate), that doesn't preempt the need for investigating Ashnod's actions; if it can be determined that he both intentionally let Nefarox misrepresent the life totals and knew this was not allowed, then we could certainly be in DQ territory. But I have heard of plenty of accounts of situations that could easily be read as blatant UC - Cheating offenses that, upon investigation, turns out the player(s) had no idea were actually illegal behaviors.

As far as advice to offer someone who feels like a judge has it wrong or missed something, I think you've got the right of it, Glenn; if you know the technical rules at play here, it's totally fine to point them out as a source for your concern. Often times players parse similar-but-different-by-policy as identical and it leads to the sort of puzzled looks and demands that are unnecessary. If you can point out technical, actual policy reasons why something seems off, you're at least more likely to get the judge's attention and get them thinking about it.

I think where we got to a point where combo of MTR and IPG are a bit ambigous and can be understood either way.

It would be nice to get a clarification from HL Judge before we come to a conclusion.

If you don't want to read the whole topic, the current unclear thing is:
If you notice discrepancy in life totals but you are not aware you have to notify your opponent, are you cheating?

The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

Because of this phrase, and the necessity to investigate, a lot of this discussion is going to lead nowhere.

The other sticking point is “expected to point it out as soon as the discrepancy is noticed” - it kind of sounds like that's what actually happened - as soon as they both noticed, they called for a judge. Unless, of course, during the investigation you decide that Ashnod knew all along, or noticed before Nefarox scooped. But when the discrepancy was noticed is another intangible that makes this a difficult scenario to productively discuss.

Keep in mind also that REL and even the nature of the event (say, GPT vs. PTQ vs. GP day one) can influence the investigation. Shouldn't players at Professional REL be held to higher standards, re: their knowledge of rules and what they can or can't do? Shouldn't we be tolerant of people playing their first Comp REL event (as is common for the local GPTs), and educate as much as possible? (I'd answer “Yes” to both - in fact, I think they're rhetorical questions…)

Originally posted by Jernej Lipovec:

If you notice discrepancy in life totals but you are not aware you have to notify your opponent, are you cheating?

Adding my own emphasis - that's the point of investigation. Do you convince me that you really didn't know such a fundamental rule? Perhaps, if it's a side event, your first GP, etc. Probably not, if it's day two of a GP or a PT. But that's highly speculative, and - clearly - impossible to tell in this scenario.

* * *

I do want to confirm that asking for a penalty - even if you don't know the rules that support your claim - is not what we mean by “inappropriately demand”. An example of that clause would be “Judge, my opponent sat down late” (actually pulling out the chair to sit as the HJ said ‘you may begin’) “so you have to give him a Game Loss!” - and then insisting on it, repeatedly, after being told No.

d:^D

MTR 2.14 Life Totals
At the start of a match, each player must indicate how he or she will keep track of his or her life total. This method must be visible to both players during the match. A shared method is acceptable as long as all players in the match have access to it.

A change in a player’s life total should be accompanied by a verbal announcement by that player of the new life total.

If a player notices a discrepancy in a recorded or announced life total, he or she is expected to point it out as soon as the discrepancy is noticed. Failure to do so will be considered a Unsporting Conduct – Cheating penalty.

According to the MTR, it's UC - Cheating even if the player didn't know it was illegal to not point out a discrepancy. Does the MTR overrule the IPG here? Or do we say, “This should be UC - Cheating, but the IPG says that they player has to know it's wrong, so it's not.”?

Obviously, we need to investigate to find out if/when Ashnod noticed the discrepancy, but the question is, do we use the MTR, saying it's cheating, or the IPG, saying it might be cheating?

It is not cheating if the player is unaware that it is wrong. This is an important qualification to have before you remove someone from your event for cheating. Please investigate before conclusions are jumped to.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

The other sticking point is “expected to point it out as soon as the discrepancy is noticed” - it kind of sounds like that's what actually happened - as soon as they both noticed, they called for a judge. Unless, of course, during the investigation you decide that Ashnod knew all along, or noticed before Nefarox scooped.

I probably could have been more clear on this, but Ashnod knew all along that Nefarox was at 9 when he said he was at 7. She admitted that knowledge when asked by Nefarox, and that is when he called the judge.

The big unknown is whether Ashnod knew about MTR 2.14, or thought that her silence on the matter was actually acceptable. (And I'd agree that we'd be going nowhere by speculating on that.)

—

Jernej Lipovec
I think where we got to a point where combo of MTR and IPG are a bit ambiguous and can be understood either way.

Having reflected on this a bit, I have a running theory:

The conflicting information between the MTR and IPG exists because we expect players to read the MTR. As such, an “it's okay to do this, so long as you can convince a judge you didn't know any better” clause would only better inform angle-shooters. Also, going into the minutia of how infractions are delivered would be wordy, and go beyond the scope of the MTR.

It would be useful to get confirmation from one of the MTR/IPG architects that the IPG guidelines take precedence, and that the MTR is intentionally incomplete. While that seems like a logical inference, the conflict is still a bit confusing.