Originally posted by Marcelo Goes:

Theres no mention if the event is competitive or not

Actually there is. :)

Philip Böhm
Ahmed plays Norbert in a competitive event

We're also in the Competitive subforum. ;)


2014/1/13 Piotr Łopaciuk <forum-7834-4cdf@apps.magicjudges.org>

Merfolk means merfolk. Fish means fish. If he meant merfolk he should have said merfolk. Otherwise, as someone else posted earlier, how's the opponent to know if he just named Fishfolk or Fishfish? I'd hold the player to what he stated irrespective of the opponent's clarifying question.

It's a lousy time to learn this lesson, but you can be sure he'll never do it again.

PS. Congrats Marcelo. Welcome to the family!

EDIT: I'll just add, whether it's a commonly accepted term should be irrelevant. If a brand new player shows up at the tournament and we allow the opponent to name “Fish”, it's not like we're going to turn to the new player and say, “Sorry bud, you shouldn't play Legacy until you study all the secret codewords.”

Edited Adam Zakreski (Jan. 13, 2014 11:08:01 AM)

Originally posted by Glenn Fisher:

I think the ruling boils down to one critical question: Was Norbert *certain* that his opponent meant for his Cavern of Souls to be naming Merfolk?

If Norbert knew his opponents archetype (i.e. this was game 2, or a T8 match with shared decklists), I would be hard-pressed to believe that he had any legitimate confusion and be quite okay ruling that Fish=Merfolk. However, in a game 1 scenario against an unknown opponent while I'm certain Norbert thought that Ahmed was probably playing Merfolk, I would believe that some uncertainty existed.

Incorrect. Consider the following:

You are playing the Merfolk mirror. In the Merfolk mirror, you board in Llawan, Cephalid Empress to bounce your opponent's board and lock them out of casting creatures. You don't want your Llawan countered, because sometimes it just wins the game on the spot, but it costs 4 so Vialing it in is awkward (I've done it, but it was awkward). However, not every build of Merfolk plays Llawan (particularly now that Merfolk is not a Tier 1 deck anymore), so you can't really “expect” Llawan.

Based on that information, if I play Cavern of Souls and name “Cephalid”, do I really mean “Cephalid” or do I mean “Merfolk”? I have maximum 2 Cephalids in my deck and 20+ Merfolk, so what is “legitimate confusion” in this case?

The only difference here is the word used, i.e. “Fish” vs. “Cephalid”. The same situation can easily arise, where you board in a creature with type “Fish” for a specifric matchup, but because the opponent doesn't know how you sideboarded, espercially if your sideboard plan is techy, this can cause confusion.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 13, 2014 11:27:30 PM)

EDIT: Double-post. I think there's a bug in the forum coding that's causing errors.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 13, 2014 09:47:07 PM)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The only difference here is the word used, i.e. “Fish” vs. “Cephalid”. The same situation can easily arise, where you board in a creature with type “Fish” for a specifric matchup, but because the opponent doesn't know how you sideboarded, espercially if your sideboard plan is techy, this can cause confusion.

I like this explanation a lot. I often try to think of these situations from the players' perspectives. When “fish” was named, Norbert could have been thinking anything from “What a dingus! Can't wait to catch him” (which to me is some bad feels, but I like to remember that these players are playing for prizes as well as fun and that the MTR allows players be jerks“) to ”What kind of sideboard tech does this champion among men plan to blow me out with?“ He's not necessarily the min-maxing villain, but even if he were, I would rule no differently. While Magic is ”not a game of gotcha," it is a game of skill and part of the skill of the game is knowing what creature types are in your deck and knowing not to tell your opponent not to make bad plays.

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game. Regardless of anything else, players are expected to treat their opponents politely and with respect. Failure to do so may lead to Unsporting Conduct
penalties.

Incorrect. Consider the following: …

You are again bringing in a different hypothetical scenario then the one presented. And again, just because you would rule a certain way in a similar hypothetical does not mean you have to rule the same way in the one presented. In the situation you presented, it seems that I would want to investigate to see if the Cavern player was deliberately trying to create ambiguity. Likewise, if my investigating leads me to believe that is the case in the original scenario, then I would address that through the appropriate penalties outlined in the MTR, NOT try to impose and in-game “punishment”.

…it is a game of skill and part of the skill of the game is knowing what creature types are in your deck…

So are you suggesting that Ahmed did not know what creature types were in his deck? There is nothing in the originally presented scenario that suggests that. You are suggesting that we try to impose an in-game punishment for an out-of-game issue: the use of a potentially confusing nickname. Given that other parts of the MTR explicitly allow such things to be used in other cases, it philosophically does not make much sense to try to punish a player for it here.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

In the situation you presented, it seems that I would want to investigate to see if the Cavern player was deliberately trying to create ambiguity. Likewise, if my investigating leads me to believe that is the case in the original scenario, then I would address that through the appropriate penalties outlined in the MTR, NOT try to impose and in-game “punishment”.

Ahmed named “fish”, and then confirmed this choice.

If investigation shows he was trying to create ambiguity, then we must consider an appropriate penalty for that.

If investigation shows he was not trying to create ambiguity, then there is no penalty. But there is also no reason to allow him to change his choice, which was “fish”. Holding a player to a decision they made - even if it was not the decision they meant to make - is not a “punishment”, it's just how the game is meant to work.

It's a mistake on Ahmed's part, but making people play on after their mistakes is normal practice. It's unfortunate for Ahmed, but that's the way it is. We don't let people who realise they put down an island last turn when they meant to put down a plains go back and change it, and if someone plays Pithing Needle on Jace, Architect of Thought when they meant it to be on Jace, Memory Adept, sorry but that was your choice (of course, if one is playing Pithing Needle and can't remember the name of the Jace one wants to hit, one can always say “That Jace that mills for 10” and thus get the correct one. Similarly, when asked to confirm, Ahmed could have said “those fishy guys in my deck, like Lord of Atlantis” and been fine. But he didn't. He said “Fish”.)

Quoting Adam, who I think said it best:

Adam Zakreski
Merfolk means merfolk. Fish means fish. If he meant merfolk he should have said merfolk

It's a lousy time to learn this lesson, but you can be sure he'll never do it again.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Jan. 14, 2014 11:35:35 AM)

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

Incorrect. Consider the following: …

You are again bringing in a different hypothetical scenario then the one presented. And again, just because you would rule a certain way in a similar hypothetical does not mean you have to rule the same way in the one presented. In the situation you presented, it seems that I would want to investigate to see if the Cavern player was deliberately trying to create ambiguity. Likewise, if my investigating leads me to believe that is the case in the original scenario, then I would address that through the appropriate penalties outlined in the MTR, NOT try to impose and in-game “punishment”.

Because I don't understand, how is the situation I suggested different from the one presented, except in the name of the creature type used? If there is no other difference, it is not different at all, because as judges we are not allowed to use privileged information (of players' hidden zones, decklists, etc) to make our rulings. That's simple basic policy.

Also, how is forcing a player to conform to the communication policy a “punishment”? You said something, you meant what you said, now you deal with it. That's basic communication policy enforcement. If the player wanted to mean what they said, they should have said what they meant.

…it is a game of skill and part of the skill of the game is knowing what creature types are in your deck…

So are you suggesting that Ahmed did not know what creature types were in his deck? There is nothing in the originally presented scenario that suggests that. You are suggesting that we try to impose an in-game punishment for an out-of-game issue: the use of a potentially confusing nickname. Given that other parts of the MTR explicitly allow such things to be used in other cases, it philosophically does not make much sense to try to punish a player for it here.

In my estimation (WARNING: personal opinion incoming), it is as much a skill to know what creature types are in your deck as it is to know what triggered abilities are on your side of the battlefield. It's your cards, you ought to know what they do. <playerhat> my #1 pet peeve when I play Magic is when my opponent doesn't know how their cards work and I have to explain it to them. I shouldn't have to take my time to explain to you how your cards work, especially if I'm going to lose the game because of it. If you don't know what your cards do, you deserve to lose, because you're not as skilled of a player as I am, and Magic is a game of skill. </playerhat>

Regarding the use of “potentially” in that quote, I'm not sure we are in agreement over the meaning of that word. The simple fact that this is a 4-page-long thread bears witness to the fact that this nickname is not “potentially” confusing; it IS confusing. And when a player is unclear about the game state and uses confusing language, that is undesirable behaviour in tournaments, punishable by CPVs, or UC - Cheating in serious cases.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Jan. 15, 2014 08:42:11 AM)

On the alternate scenario - you're right that it is fairly similar, save for a few details. But those details can be relevant and make a difference. In our line of work, there's a lot of things that work on a case-by-case basis. This is why bringing up alternate scenarios is explicitly forbidden on some of the learning forums, like the FB Judge Study Group. In this case, “Fish” is commonly used slang for a deck name, “Cephalid” is not, hence why that difference can matter.

As far as the actual scenario - whether or not communication is a skill tested by the game is the exact question I'm getting at. Policy does not explicitly define communication to be a skill Magic tests, as it does with rules knowledge. It's pretty obvious that the player wanted to the Cavern to go with the creature type properly named “fish”, and messed up in communicating that. If you believe that communication is not a skill the game tests for, then it doesn't make sense for him to get an in-game disadvantage as a result of that. Instead we resolve such issues by handing out penalties like warnings or game losses.

On the other hand if one believes it IS a skill that the game tests for (as Lyle stated), then sure, having him keep it at Fish makes perfect sense. Given that Uncle Scott seems to believe “Fish” it is, then that would imply this is in fact the case. But we have to understand there is a limit on how and where we are ok with players getting in-game advantages or disadvantages as a result of our rulings; over in the Reg REL forum there's a pretty good example of something that's not ok. Understanding why a ruling is a certain way can be just as important as simply knowing the “right answer”.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

If you believe that communication is not a skill the game tests for, then it doesn't make sense for him to get an in-game disadvantage as a result of that. Instead we resolve such issues by handing out penalties like warnings or game losses.

It may not make sense to hand out an in-game disadvantage for it, but that's not what we're doing anyway. He chose “fish”, so we're not giving him a disadvantage by holding him to that - we're leaving the game exactly as it is. Allowing him to change it would be giving him an advantage.

I think perhaps that the main difference of opinion here is what the current state of the game is:

• some of us are saying that he chose “fish”, and it would be giving him an advantage to let him change it
  
• others are saying that he chose “merfolk”, and it would be giving him a disadvantage by holding him to his “verbal mis-click”.
  

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Jan. 15, 2014 09:50:29 AM)

You're absolutely right on that distinction. I tend to believe that it is the 2nd - he verbally “misclicked”. However, I also think its perfectly legitimate to state that Magic tests your abilities to not verbally misclick, and let him eat the consequences in-game as a result.

Which, like many of these discussions, basically boils down to:

- What the player intended (“merfolk”)
- What the opponent received as information to work with (“fish”)

Which of these you want to protect the most determines where you fall in the discussion.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

- What the player intended (“merfolk”)
- What the opponent received as information to work with (“fish”)

Well, to be fair, as written, we only know what the player said, not what they intended. Maybe in person it would be easier to get a sense of what they really meant. (Then again, maybe it would be harder because we're injecting our own personal biases).

There is quite a bit of room for judgement call here on intent for both sides. And there's plenty of ways for the situation to be abused.

It may be my newbishness to judging and to the Legacy format as well, but when there's that much room for squishiness and when the words all have very well defined meanings within magic, I default to “follow the written rules”. Unless I can pretty clearly tell if one player is trying to shark another.

He named a thing. That thing was legal.

While the game isn't intended to test communication skills, I think there is a base level involved, and knowing which word describes the core creature type for your tribal deck doesn't seem like that high of a requirement to me. This is competitive REL.

This seems similar to someone calling Pithing Needle on Underworld Connections, even though they knew they should have called it on Swamp (which Connections was attached to). Their brain just misfired briefly, and they said the wrong card name, even though both players knew what he was trying to do. We'd likely still hold them to the bad call though.

So, I'm inclined in both cases to keep Cavern on “fish”, and count that as a lesson for Ahmed to be more careful about naming his types in the future.

I tend to attack from a more simple viewpoint. What is the opponent's onus to understand the situation?

In the case the opponent had enough knowledge to hypothesize that “Fish” might be problematic, so he asked a clarifying question. I believe that that's ALL we can ever hold him to. When AP confirmed “Yeah, Fish” that's it.

Opponent has done well to:
a) identify a problem, and
b) ask about it

You can argue lots of things about intent or what “Fish” means, but for me the opponent has done EVERYTHING we should expect him to do. If this isn't enough to get Fish as the creature tyoe from this conversation, then you will have to demand more of the opponent. And I don't think that is AT ALL fair, considering that he didn't cause the problem and that he tried to fix it.

Many are focusing on the AP's actions and intents… Maybe instead focus on what opp's responsibilities are, especially when AP does something non-standard. Then it becomes easy. “Fish” becomes Fish here.

Eric Shukan
Boston, MA USA
—– Original Message —–
From: Toby Hazes
To: eshukan@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Cavern of Souls on Fish (Competitive REL)


Which, like many of these discussions, basically boils down to:

- What the player intended (“merfolk”)
- What the opponent received as information to work with (“fish”)

Which of these you want to protect the most determines where you fall in the discussion.

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/528030/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7834/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7834/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit