I note the deck registration error as TE-DDP. We know that we can potentially downgrade the GL penalty if it's an obvious clerical error where the error cannot be used to gain an advantage in the tournament.

If within the deck and sideboard:
* red/black are the only colors
* Temple of Malice is the only Temple of
* no “use other player's cards” cards (such as Nightveil Specter)
are found, I would find the registration of Temple of Malady to be an obvious clerical error that can gain the player no advantage. I don't like needing that test of contents, but it does seem appropriate.

If and only if the deck passes the above test, I would propose the following to the Head Judge:
* We pull the player aside
* We ask them to confirm their land base verbally
* We downgrade to Warning if they indicate that they are playing 4x Temple of Malice or the “B/R scryland”

I would then apply the decided penalty, with the additional fix being allowing the player to update their deck registration.

I just wanted to say for the most part I agree with everything being said, but I mostly wanted to ask a question. Would the presence of nightveil specter in the decklist change your opinion on the option to downgrade? I am a rather new level one and I have not been the head judge of a comp REL event yet. I feel like if the deck had nightveil specter in it that would sway my decision on whether to downgrade or not.
In summary: I agree this is a deck/decklist problem with an optional downgrade by the head judge if he determines the temple to be a clerical error. I am just wondering whether nightveil specter in the deck would change everyone's opinions as a potential to abuse or if you are literally just looking for green mana symbols.

I would say that the inclusion of the Specter could be a determining factor - a slamdunk if the land in question was a Mana Confluence, but I digress.

I will say that initially I read the OP differently and in my mind the GB were in the deck and the RB was on the list. BUT regardless, I would definetely talk to Aardvark in order to determine if I felt anything ‘quirky’ going on.

Well, the original scenario specified that Aardvark is playing Rakdos Aggro. The chances of Specter appearing in his deck at a competitive tournament are tiny.

So yeah, the Specter would change the situation, but I'm really not expecting it to be there. If it were I expect the scenario would have been written differently.

Before reading other posts: I would give GL for TE-DDP and as fix, because Temple of Malady is legal card in format, I would give him a chance to repleace Temple of Malice for Malady or basic lands for his choice and alter decklist of necessary.

After other post (and additional look at Annotated IPG ;) ): I would still give GL for TE-DDP but because he's not playing any other temples nor any green spells I would correct decklist to reflect player intentions.

This is a TE-D/DP

Malice/Malady is probably a clerical error, and the potential for advantage is quite small, and depending on the contents of his deck, nonexistent.

I would look over the decklist and determine if he could gain an advantage from pulling a switch and also confirm with him he is playing 4 Temple of Malice. I think I would likely downgrade the penalty to a warning, but it depends on the outcome of the investigation. (For instance lack of Nightveil Specter would eliminate all potential for abuse I can see.)

To whoever mentioned playing off color scrylands, it's true, but only after you play a full set of on-color scrylands :)

I liked the idea of whoever mentioned confirming with the player verbally. If we ask “So what lands are you playing?” and the player says something like “The red/black scryland” we can further confirm “…and what's that called?” If he says “Temple of Malady?” or something like it, it's pretty clear he just got the name wrong on his cards. (Even if he says “Temple of Malice” it opens the door for the clerical downgrade because what he thinks he's playing and what he wrote down don't match.)

All that being said, if I'm the HJ, I probably downgrade here. If I'm not, I'll ask permission for the downgrade, but totally understand if a different HJ upholds the Game Loss. It's pretty cut and dry that the deck doesn't match the list, and whether it's an “innocent” mistake or not isn't nearly as obvious.

After reading Toby's checklist here:
* http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2014/05/27/of-course-they-do-it-must-be-obvious/
, I believe that my original response was too lenient and that this is TE-DDP with no option to downgrade.

Interesting. I now read the downgrade option as being very narrow and probably generally inapplicable.

Originally posted by Zach Robinson:

After reading Toby's checklist here:
* http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2014/05/27/of-course-they-do-it-must-be-obvious/
, I believe that my original response was too lenient and that this is TE-DDP with no option to downgrade.

Interesting. I now read the downgrade option as being very narrow and probably generally inapplicable.

Good point. If we have to check the decklist to see whether he splashes green or plays a Nightveil Specter (and think of this criteria before of course) we need more than a couple of seconds and I think nobody can argue that Temple of Malady is played in the format.

Besides the annotated IPG lists 'if any other cards that could be represented with that name are frequently played in the format' as a point to consider while determining whether you should downgrade and ‘Temple of Malady’ not only could represent a card in the current format, it really is exactly referencing to a other card in the format.

With this information a downgrade seems only possible if he would have written something like ‘Temple for Malice’ and not in this scenario.

We had this exact situation last saturday but with the Temples reversed. At the time neither me nor the head judge had seen that checklist and so it was downgraded to a warning based on no red cards in the deck and the player when questioned “blindly” answered that they played the Temple of Malady, but I have to agree that after reading through that checklist I would not have recommended downgrade (of course it's still the head judges decision).

The infraction, as others have said, is clearly TE - Deck/Decklist Problem, for which the penalty is typically a Game Loss.

Although it feels like it could be just a simple error, Temple of Malady has seen play in the format, so I'd probably stick with the Game Loss penalty.

Hi, everyone, and thanks for participating in this week's Knowledge Pool.

Aardvark has committed a Deck/Decklist Problem infraction, the penalty for which is a Game Loss, to be applied to the current match (the situation involves a start-of-round deck check).

As was the general consensus, we cannot downgrade the penalty for this infraction. The direction we have on downgrading this infraction is as follows:

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they are discovered. The Head Judge may downgrade the penalty for an ambiguous name or obvious clerical error if they believe that the error could not be used to gain an advantage in the tournament.

We do not have an ambiguous name (“Temple of Malady” can be exactly one card), nor do we have an obvious clerical error. The distinction here is between “probable” versus “obvious” - yes, he is probably playing Temple of Malice, but we cannot tell that from the decklist alone. We would need to confirm that by doing a deck check; which in Toby Elliott's blog post he eloquently points out that it is not obvious if you feel the need to do so. Please note that the inclusion of Nightveil Specter should not sway your interpretation of ambiguity or obviousness.

Regarding the fix, please remember that in situations such as this, we fix the decklist to reflect the deck, and not the other way around. We do not force the player to play the Temples of Malady; we do not make choices for the player. René Oberweger really hit this nail on the head, well done.

Thank you to all participants, and stay tuned for the next edition of the Knowledge Pool, coming soon!