Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

“Could have verified” can mean a lot of things.

Very true.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

What's the burden on each player for making an effort to verify when it was only an option, rather than a requirement?

I have been thinking about this a lot today. My opinion is “If you can verify the legality of an opponents action, you have the obligation to verify the legality of your opponents action.”

The main reason I believe this is the philosophy of GPE-FTMGS. Also, scenarios like the one we discussed “Thoughtseize out of a non-exiting Swamp” could and should be avoided.

In our scenario after playing act of treason Player B had the right to information he/she could have used to verify the legality of the morph. So, in my opinion player B has the obligation to verify it is legal. If B doesn't is not A's responsibility.

Regarding the vagueness of “could have verified” a more clear way to express what I was thinking would be:
"An error that an opponent never had the right to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded"

???
I don't know.

Originally posted by Ronny Alvarado:

What about if you activated Smoketeller and chose not to look at the face down card?

I realize smoke teller and lens of clarity are different however the scenario states it WAS activated. Had it never been activated I feel the upgrade would be fine.

Originally posted by Ronny Alvarado:

You know, we had a good discussion at GP San Antonio about this.

Tell me, what if you were to choose not to look at the face down creature when you have a Lens of Clarity in play? What about if you activated Smoketeller and chose not to look at the face down card? What if your opponent had 2 cards in hand and his only face down creature was bounced to his hand and he didn't reveal it and when the judge was called, he revealed his whole hand revealing 3 morph cards?

Think about it.

-Ronny

If you have a chance to verify the legality before the error, even if you choose not to, you had the opportunity to with legal in game methods to do so. Note the effect has to have happened not had the potential to happen, so if you didn't activate an ability then it doesn't apply.

If you have to take an action not supported by the rules of the game or require a judge to clarify the legality, say returning a morph to a hand full of morphs, then your opponent was unable to verify the legality there for I would upgrade.

There was something in an earlier draft of my first post that got cut because I couldn't figure out how to state it the way I wanted to:

The IPG specifically says “An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded.” Let's emphasize the use of “can't” here. I Act of Treason a face down creature and don't bother looking at it because I'm tapped out and swinging for the win. After damage, my opponent scoops it up without revealing. Can I verify the legality issues related to this error? No, I can't do that. The card is gone from the battlefield and mixed in with my opponent's other cards. Should we really go back in time and evaluate the non-mandatory actions I could have taken over the ones I actually did?

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

Should we really go back in time and evaluate the non-mandatory actions I could have taken over the ones I actually did?

If by “non-mandatory actions” you mean physical actions such as lifting a card to look at it then, Yes.

If by “non mandatory actions” you mean game actions such as activating smoke teller's ability then, No.

I don't think it is reasonable to penalize Player A because Player B didn't bother to check. It would give players motivation to not pay attention in hopes that any penalties against their opponent will be upgraded. They “can't” verify.

IMO as soon as a player has rights to information they are considered to have that information. Whether or not they bother to physically obtain that information is on them.

If “can't verify” is meant to mean “can't currently verify and had no previous opportunity to verify”, then the documentation needs to be revised to make that clear. The latter doesn't follow from the former.

Does the ‘If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position’ section not cover the do not upgrade. The information was uniquely identifiable by the opponent due to being under their control. Or am I reading to much into that wording?

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

Does the 'If the information needed to verify the legality was ever in a uniquely identifiable position' section not cover the do not upgrade. The information was uniquely identifiable by the opponent due to being under their control. Or am I reading to much into that wording?

The next part of the at quote is something like “after the error”. That is, after the game ended and they failed to reveal.

The thing in question here is whether the upgrade is whether this is an error that the opponent “can” verify the legality of his opponent's action. I would be fine not upgrading post-act of treason or post-lens of clarity, because the opponent had the ability to verify legality.

I must say, this has had an extraordinary life span for such an odd corner-case. Mostly, I'm surprised that debate continues on this, since some ‘O’fficial source already said…

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

However, the upgrade clause is specifically for an “error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of”. If the opponent could have verified the legaltiy, the upgrade should not be applied - even if the opponent failed to verify the legality.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I must say, this has had an extraordinary life span for such an odd corner-case. Mostly, I'm surprised that debate continues on this, since some ‘O’fficial source already said…

On one hand, some people think the IPG should be more clear, on the other hand, some people are not seeing it.

That doesn't matter for an ‘O’ ruling. An ‘O’ ruling is an authoritative ruling, that may be used to shore up an unclear point in the written policy, or to even change policy until a new document can be issued. We follow the ‘O’ ruling until we get an indication that we should do otherwise.