To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.
To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.
Originally posted by Tim Boura:When investigating, a judge doesn't need to prove they believe an opponent cheated, they just need to believe they have enough elements to think it's the most likely scenario. You can find multiple ressources on investigation on the judge blog, one of my favourite being this three parts serie.
Yes, playing on without calling a judge would clearly be cheating but nearly impossible to prove.
Originally posted by Emilien Wild:Originally posted by Tim Boura:When investigating, a judge doesn't need to prove they believe an opponent cheated, they just need to believe they have enough elements to think it's the most likely scenario. You can find multiple ressources on investigation on the judge blog, one of my favourite being this three parts serie.
Yes, playing on without calling a judge would clearly be cheating but nearly impossible to prove.
- Emilien
Originally posted by Scott Marshall:
Tim, this was covered in a very recent thread. In that thread, I answered your question, I believe:To me, the dividing line between ruling GRV with Failure to Maintain Game State (FtMGS), or double GRV, is this: if the AP and NAP are both taking actions to resolve an effect, and it's not done correctly, it's double GRV. If NAP doesn't actively participate in the error, but they don't stop it from occurring, it's GRV & FtMGS.
If anyone missed that thread, it might be beneficial to ensure your notification settings alert you to new threads. Yes, that might be a lot of e-mail, but only a few electrons are ever harmed in the making of millions of emails…
d:^D
Originally posted by Tim Boura:This is not really the topic at hand here, and I strongly suggest reading up the existing ressources or starting a new discussion on investigation techniques, but for example things that will tilt your judgement one way or the other are previous behaviour in similar situations, how badly the offending player needed the offense to happen to win or not lose the game, any effort made to conceal the offense before, during, or after it was commited, how cooperative the play was the player during the investigation, etc.
Sure, but unless there is a pattern how do you tell the difference between “OP drew despite Narset and I noticed the following turn” and “OP drew despite Narset and I never noticed”?
Originally posted by IPG:
If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the opponent controlling the continuous effect modifying the rules of the game that led to the Game Rule Violation or a player taking action based on another player’s instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.
You must be registered in order to post to this forum.