Tolarian Academy – My Extensive (Dis)qualifications
Posted by Eric Levine
November 22, 2009 | 
46 comments
Hey folks, and welcome to another exciting edition of Tolarian Academy, where… well, where real life has sadly been getting in the way of writing! I’m sure my roommate is happier that I’ve been spending time looking for new apartments (we got one!) instead of writing articles, but I suppose you don’t really care. (Unless my roommate is reading this. Hi, Leo!) This is the part where I would say "Let’s get to your questions!" if I were actually answering your rules questions this week.
Alas, that is not to be. Renowned internet writer (renowned for what, I have no idea) Josh Silvestri and level 2 judge Ben Bowers have both exhorted me to write an article about some of the disqualifications at Worlds. The most controversial of these disqualifications seems to have been the one involving Charles Gindy, and that’s really the one people seem to want me to write about. To both of them, I said "I don’t really think that will help. What can I say about the Gindy disqualification that I haven’t already said in article comments?" Like most of us, I wasn’t there, and like almost all of us, I am not Sheldon Menery. Just like everyone who is not Sheldon, I don’t have the information necessary to assess whether or not Gindy should have been DQed, nor will I ever have it. As I’ve said before, I trust Sheldon and believe that he made the right decision, but from an objective standpoint, I can only say "I wasn’t there."
What I do want to talk about today is disqualifications in general. It has become clear to me that many players have misconceptions about how disqualifications work and the philosophy behind their issuance, and I’d like to help out by making some information accessible to those players. Since Riki Hayashi, the #1 player education advocate, is no longer writing, I figure I might be able to provide some assistance in this area. Let me address a few general concerns I’ve seen online as well as ones I’ve heard in person.
Concern: Should a player who is not aware of rules and tournament policy be disqualified for violating said rules and/or policy?
This is an understandable concern. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been through the Comprehensive Rules a few times myself, and that document is not short. The Magic Tournament Rules, while they are not quite as long, have a certain density of information that doesn’t make them much of a fun read. So how can we disqualify a player for willfully disobeying a rule that he doesn’t know exists?
The answer to this is simple and can, shockingly, be found within the Magic Tournament Rules in Section 1.10: Players. This section contains a list of player responsibilities, which includes, "Being familiar with the rules contained within this document." That means that players are responsible for knowing the rest of this same list of responsibilities. One of the listed responsibilities is "Maintaining a clear and legal game state," which is a responsibility that I think is the crux of most of the "But what if I do this?" scenarios I’ve seen posited on the Internet recently.
Concern: That responsibilities list does not include "Helping to ensure that opponents play good Magic." Why, then, am I responsible for making sure they remember abilities?
Magic is designed to be a skill-testing game. Abilities with "may" in their text are frequently worded in that manner because they’re intended to test a player’s ability to remember their trigger condition or a player’s ability to decide when to use or not use said ability. Things without "may" (generally) must happen. That was the intent of the folks in R&D, and the rules of the game and of tournaments were designed to make sure cards are played in the way they intended. Once again, you, as a player, are responsible for maintaining a clear and legal game state, and part of that responsibility includes things like pointing out that your opponent has not put a Wolf in play from his Master of the Wild Hunt trigger. This is not "helping your opponent;" this is keeping the game state legal. If your opponent in chess moves his knight incorrectly in a way that is advantageous to you, that’s cheating. The same logic applies here; if your opponent plays with his cards incorrectly in a way that’s advantageous to you, that’s cheating.
Concern: Okay, but I still feel like I’m held responsible for making sure my opponent makes good plays. Let’s say I have a 5/5 and a 3/3, and my opponent plays Flametongue Kavu and says "Go." Why is it wrong for me to assume that my opponent dealt damage to the 5/5? That’s the only legal scenario here that doesn’t result in the death of a creature, so shouldn’t I be able to assume that?
You are correct that you have indeed maintained a legal game state. In this case, however, you have not maintained a clear game state. Specifically, it is not clear whether your opponent targeted the 5/5 or forgot about the trigger. Assuming that your opponent targeted the 5/5 does not qualify as maintaining a clear game state, so in this particular case, you need to ask your opponent about the [card flametongue kavu]FTK[/card] trigger or call a judge. Yes, the fact that you have to remind your opponent about the FTK trigger will likely result in the death of your 3/3, but if your opponent remembered, would they really be stupid enough to target your 5/5? I submit that this is an unlikely scenario.
Concern: Doesn’t this encourage players to "play dumb" about abilities? If, in the Flametongue Kavu scenario, I were to tell a judge "Oh, I thought it was a ‘may’ ability," wouldn’t I be able to get out of it without penalty, even if I actually was trying to cheat?
Part of being a judge is knowing how to investigate a disqualification. In a situation like this, I’d pull you aside and ask you questions about Flametongue Kavu. If, in my estimation, you were being truthful, I’d give you the missed trigger penalty, and if I thought you were trying to pull a fast one, I’d disqualify you for Fraud. Will I be right every time? Nope. I’m human. I’d certainly consult with my floor judges and talk extensively with you and your opponent before disqualifying you, but I won’t get it right 100% of the time. I’d say that it’s likely you’ll get disqualified if you lie to me or any DCI judge.
Concern: What about the player who is responsible for the missed ability? What if I forget my Flametongue Kavu ability on purpose to try to get my opponent to mention it later so I can get him DQed?
Again, that’s Fraud, and if I can be reasonably sure that you’re intentionally trying to pull a fast one, I’ll disqualify you. This is not what we in the business call a "positive EV play;" if you miss your trigger on purpose to fish for a DQ for your opponent, odds are good that you’ll get booted.
Concern: What kinds of questions will you be asking in this situation? You might not ask the right ones…
I am human, and I might not always ask the right questions. In this situation, I’d ask things like… hey, wait a second! You’re just trying to prepare for my DQ investigation! I see what you’re doing! None of that, sir or madam. I’ll keep my questions to myself, thank you very much.
Concern: Shouldn’t players in high-level competition be held more accountable for not knowing what their cards do than players in a PTQ?
DCI rules and regulations apply equally to all players. We have different rules enforcement levels (RELs) at different tournaments because some tournaments are more of a "big deal" than others. However, missing a trigger by accident in a Pro Tour top 8, for example, carries the same penalty as it would if one were to miss the same trigger by accident in round 1 of a PTQ. Why? Well, I’d say that the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide sums things up nicely: "Triggers are actions that the game asks players to take as a result of an event occurring. Because the representation of these triggers is invisible, players will miss them on occasion." Why, that seems to be a blanket statement about all players! Any player of any skill level is capable of missing a trigger by accident, from the new player at your FNM all the way up to someone like David Ochoa. (That guy is on a tear!) When an experienced player in a top 8 of a PT misses a trigger, this does not automatically mean they are a cheater. I have seen plenty of intelligent and experienced players make technical mistakes, especially in high-pressure situations. Anyone is capable of missing something invisible.
When a DCI judge thinks someone might be cheating, he or she will start an investigation, ask questions, and consult with other judges at the event. We’re good at gathering information, as a rule. We’re good at asking the right questions, interpreting vague answers, and figuring out whether or not people are lying. Being a DCI judge is not easy, but neither is becoming a DCI judge. I know I’ve covered things in this article that weren’t covered in previous comment threads. If you have questions about DCI policies or about the content in this article, please post them in the comment thread. If you have specific questions about recent disqualifications, those will not be answered. (I did try to cover situations that were different in specifics but similar in philosophy to recent issues, however, so if you do have questions about those recent issues, extrapolate a little bit and you just might get the right answer.)
Join me next week when I return to my regularly scheduled rules column! Please send your questions to ericlevine@channelfireball.com for a chance to win $5 store credit!
46 Comments Leave a comment
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Retail Store Hours
- Mon to Thu: 5:00pm - 10:00pm
Fri: 3:00pm - 11:00pm
Sat to Sun: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Copyright
Matt T says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Excellent article. You address the vast majority of questions circulating the Internet, and your answers should be satisfactory. People need to put this event behind them, and this should help facilitate that.
Jim Varney says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
You’re flat out wrong about may triggers. They aren’t in there to test the “skill of remembering things.” They’re made to avoid precisely what you’re article is about, illegal game states. We don’t want people to get penalties because they forget a trigger that is beneficial to them, like gaining a life, or drawing a card.
The disqualification seems to me to have been a case of someone on a power trip. I think the article the guy wrote about his EDH choices was pretty revealing on the matter. He essentially wrote that a bunch of thing sshouldn’t be allowed because they violate his completely subjective concept of fun.
jake says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
This is why at higher up events than fnm if an opponent misses a trigger that would very much change an outcome, like the 5/5 vs 3/3 example I am more apt to call a judge, so now they are reminded of the trigger and I don’t feel penalized for making sure my opponent remembers to kick my ass, lol. This is why I would like them to put a lot more mays on cards. It would remove what happened more, like if Master said they opponent MAY hit your creature back then its entirely their fault they didn’t do it and not 1/2 yours for not reminding them. And losing the legal game state.
Stephan Mercatoris says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
I think my biggest question on the issue would be to draw a comparison to the PT: Austin Top 8 when Brian Kibler’s opponent (I can’t remember his name) put an Angel of Despair into play without declaring a target for the CIP ability (missed trigger). Neither opponent saw, it however (i believe) it was noted by the announcers, and nothing was done about it (I don’t know how the judges missed that one :X). In the interview with BDM and Randy after Kibler had won the pro tour, they asked him about that play and, too which he responded that he had missed it (he seemed surprised that such an error had happened). He obviously knew what the card did, but he could have thought it was a may ability or both players just missed the trigger entirely. This would clearly appear to be a mistake on the part of both players, not really warranting a DQ. In this case, we can also view the play as many times as we like, being that the videos are posted online for everyone’s viewing pleasure.
Now, we can probably relate this to the Gindy situation. Being that there are misconceptions about the actual game-state that the call referred to, it’s hard to actually say, but it seems that Gindy could have just misunderstood the situation and not have intentionally attempted to gain an edge from it (similar to what I could view to be the case with Brian Kibler at PT:Austin).
I’m not really disagreeing with you, more so that I would just like a clarification relating to another example.
Thanks!
catsfanuk87 says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
I hope this article will make people realize that the crux of this issue isn’t the LEGALITY of the game state, and is more about the CLARITY. Intentionally creating an unclear game state IS illegal, even if the game state is not illegal.
Chet M says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
@Jim Varney
Sheldon’s EDH commentary were coming him as a player, not as a judge. I have never met the man and can be reasonably sure that he is capable of separating his opinons as an EDH player from his Head Judge position at worlds. I don’t think he would be a level 5 if he could not do this.
Blind Fremen says: November 22, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Wizards isn’t going to print more “may” effects, since that would compromise the flavor of the cards.
Ziege says: November 22, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
I’m pretty sure the reason they make some beneficial triggers non-optional is so I can Shelter my Quirion Dryad in response to your Flame-Tongue Kavu and force it to kill itself. But that’s just me and my nostalgia talking.
Eric says: November 22, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
Very nicely done.
Clearly, the DQ came as a result of an investigation, not a particular game state, but rather how the player in question handled the game state, or how he preceived the game state.
CN says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:10 am
”
You're flat out wrong about may triggers. They aren't in there to test the "skill of remembering things." They're made to avoid precisely what you're article is about, illegal game states. We don't want people to get penalties because they forget a trigger that is beneficial to them, like gaining a life, or drawing a card
”
I’m actually fairly sure he’s mostly correct. R and D doesn’t make all ‘may’ or all ‘must’ triggers for a number of reasons, at least one of which is that it keeps design and play space open for interesting interactions. A previous poster already mentioned the cute interaction of pro-red with FTK. I’m fond of forcing ppl to draw their last card with Jace and would be rather annoyed if his first ability was ‘each player MAY draw a card’.
Jeff G. says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:18 am
Great article Eric. This really helped me to understand the relevant rules related to the disqualification. It is obvious from your article that there is tension between playing to win and maintaining the integrity of the game.
It reminds me of players taking dives in soccer/futbol. If players are trying to manipulate the rules of the game to win, then it is distracting from them actually playing the game as it was intended to be played. Soccer is a beautiful game, and it would be much less fun to watch and play if players spent all their time trying to draw fouls. Obviously you don’t want the opposite situation where players feel obligated to try to “play through” fouls because that would give advantage to the players committing fouls.
I think my analogy is a bit weak, so allow me to re-iterate: it sucks to have to point out your opponent’s sloppy play, but it also sucks when all players are trying to maximum their opponent’s rules mistakes rather than focusing on play skill. Neither extreme is desired, and it would be better if rules mistakes never got made, but some sort of balance has to be struck. When considered in this light, I think the DCI’s policy stands on solid ground.
whatisfgh says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:19 am
Question: Say an opponent does miss a mandatory trigger, but our hero does not. How long should he wait before in forming a judge? Is informing a judge even the correct call here?
It seems like the best way to maintain a correct and clear gamestate, without your opponent not being held accountable for there mistakes (ie if they do it 6-8 times a tournament over a few tounametns the dci steps in {if I recall this happened to someone{)
I’m not suggesting anything as extreme as
http://strategy.channelfireball.com/featured-articles/the-riki-rules-%E2%80%93-call-a-judge/
but it would be nice to be able to hold sloppy players accountable for their actions without a) continually having to hand them your diminishing life total on a platter and b) annoying overworked and stressed judges
whatisfgh says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Bleh.. should have proof read that… I think you’ll understand though.
Eric Levine says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:50 am
Just a quick note:
Under the second concern, I say:
“If your opponent in chess moves his knight incorrectly in a way that is advantageous to you, that's cheating. The same logic applies here; if your opponent plays with his cards incorrectly in a way that's advantageous to you, that's cheating.”
It should say:
“If your opponent in chess moves his knight incorrectly in a way that is advantageous to you *and you don’t inform him*, that's cheating. The same logic applies here; if your opponent plays with his cards incorrectly in a way that's advantageous to you *and you don’t inform him*, that's cheating.”
Endorfin says: November 23, 2009 @ 1:20 am
I had a situation at GP Prague, where I, at 6-2, was playing for day 2 in the last round. In the deciding 3rd game, my opponent plays Lurking Predators. Reading the card, I realize that the trigger is not a “may”-trigger. But my opponent is playing sloppy, to say the least… After reminding him 3 times in a row, I get pretty annoyed, and it’s hard to refrain from taking advantage of my opponents sloppiness. I know that calling a judge would be the right play, but time was ticking and the drawn out game was about to go to time…
Is it possible to get a “missed trigger” warning handed to my opponent, without me getting one too? (since I’m supposed to remember them too)
Trackback MTGBattlefield says: November 23, 2009 @ 1:22 am
Tolarian Academy – My Extensive (Dis)qualifications…
Your story has been summoned to the battlefield – Trackback from MTGBattlefield…
Richard says: November 23, 2009 @ 3:32 am
@ Endorphin:
You should be calling a judge whenever that situation occurs. After 3 missed triggers *that you catch*, he should be getting upgrades to official warnings and stuff. If you are catching them, and noticing, judges will be aware, and it’s likely that they could lead to more stringent sanctions against your opponent.
Dartarus says: November 23, 2009 @ 5:03 am
Endorfin – Even if you both miss it, because he’s the controller of the trigger, he’s the only one who gets the Missed Trigger penalty. You get a Failure to Maintain Game State – and that’s typically waived if you’re the one who called us over right after your opponent missed it.
Missed Trigger penalties do escalate over time, while FtMGS does not.
Rick says: November 23, 2009 @ 5:26 am
Just so we have the actual relevant piece of rules here:
Section 3.10, Failure to Maintain Game State:
"This infraction is committed by a player who has allowed another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and has not pointed it out it before he or she could potentially gain advantage. If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players' illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating – Fraud."
It’s not that the miscommunication happened. It’s that it happened, Gindy knew that it benefited him, and chose not to say anything right away. Had he said something to clear up how the damage was assigned right away, it would have been no problem, at most a warning. Instead, he chose to wait because it was strategically advantageous.
Nick Ayd says: November 23, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Over this past summer in a PTQ for Austin (standard) I was playing 5cc against a Goblin deck. He had tapped out for a Knucklebone Witch (he had two lands, but I didn’t put it together immediately that he tapped both to play it. His lands being I believe mountain and graven cairns) I looked at his lands to see what he had left untapped (none) and I responded with Broken Ambitions for one. He responds “I’ll pay it”. I say “wait! You didn’t announce that you had any mana left floating. That became a manditory rule with the M10 rules change.” So I call a judge over, I explain the situation to him and believe it or not he didn’t believe what I was saying was true that I had completely made up that rule and I was fishing for a warning. I told him “You are wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about go get your head judge and check the rules change.” Five minutes later he came back with the head judge who proved me right because that most definitely was a rule change. After the head judge had told us to rewind the game to where he was casting the Knucklebone Witch, they gave both of us a warning. I received one for “not maintaining a clear gamestate” or whatever. I was really angry because I feel I did not deserve it. The second the error came to my attention I called a judge over, but he said sense I didn’t notice it immediately and tried to respond that I violated the rules.
Should I really have gotten a warning? I feel that the judge was just angry that I was right and he was wrong.
Bink says: November 23, 2009 @ 8:46 am
I feel for the arguments and think Gindy’s dq was right but there is also: the Kibler factor.
I think at least we can all agree that the Kibler missed trigger in Austin was one of the most embarassing things in all of magic & pro tour history. Here we are competing at the highest level for $40K with 2 judges watching and webcast and the game and eventual winner gets decided by a blatant rules-violation. (To me it was a genuine error by both players, not worth a dq or penalty but in a deciding moment the Mtg rules were broken for the angel having to trigger)
So here we have the DCI getting tougher. Not saying they did it to save face, but at least somebody told them to never ever let anything like it happen again. Because things like it completely undermine the game itself and the money put into these events. Because all in all the PT exists because of the marketing and legitimacy it gives magic.
Robin says: November 23, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Just curious: how do judges (at least those that you know) feel about the current state of affairs regarding maintenance of game state, and the requirements placed on them when investigating missed triggers?
The current system works most of the time, but there are many flaws in it. Is there a feeling that despite its flaws this is the least of all evils, or do judges have some ideas about where the system could be tweaked (or completely overhauled) for the better.
THAT is an article I would love to read.
Aten says: November 23, 2009 @ 9:03 am
“You are correct that you have indeed maintained a legal game state. In this case, however, you have not maintained a clear game state. Specifically, it is not clear whether your opponent targeted the 5/5 or forgot about the trigger.”
This seems to me to go way too far. Do the rules really require a player to create ambiguity between a clear legal game state and any number of possibly illegal alternatives, then resolve such ambiguity to his own detriment? Per your logic, an opponent who takes his turn after I open Mountain, Jackal Pup has failed to maintain a clear game state because he didn’t confirm that I wasn’t trying to cast the Pup during my combat step or something.
Jim Varney says: November 23, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Yes, the reason some triggers are mandatory is because making everything a may trigger eliminates design space, i.e. you couldn’t do negative triggers (like lose a life, discard a card, sacrifice a creature, etc.)
Still, R & D has said this numerous time, they make triggers may because they don’t want people beign punished for forgetting to do something beneficial to them.
MH says: November 23, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Your point about the DQ rationale being clarity and not illegality is a sound one, and thanks for that. I did learn a lot, and I now believe that Gindy was right to be DQ’d.But one part of this article stuck out like a sore thumb: your FTK example.
You are right that the FTK’s opponent shouldn’t assume that the FTK dealt four to the 5/5, but the judge should. Let me explain.
I don’t know what the judging rules say you should do, but this feels VERY VERY wrong – in fact, I would say this is a straight-up injustice. A judge should never make decisions based on what he thinks a player would have done if the player had been smart. If you do that, I would seriously consider a complaint about you to the DCI for giving play assistance to my opponent. If the judge makes us back up so far as to let my opponent re-choose a target, that’s punishing me for my opponent’s mistake.
In this situation, my opponent clearly indicated that he wanted a game state where nothing went to the graveyard, and since that was an available (if stupid) option, the judge should force him to repair to the closest legal option (4 damage on the 5/5, nothing dies), not enable him to save/load scumm his way back into the game.
I find this equivalent to the following scenario:
Mike attacks Jim with a morph and a 2/2. Jim blocks the morph with Mindless Null and the 2/2 with his Giant Scorpion. Then Mike flips the morph into Cabal Executioner. At this point and not before, it is realized by both players that Mindless Null is not eligible to block. If the game moves back to declare blockers and Jim gets to reblock, having gained the knowledge of what the morph is, that’s ridiculous. The fairest option is to amend the game state to the closest legal option: simply remove the Null from combat and let the morph go through unblocked. Obviously Jim is not happy about this, but it’s the lesser of two injustices – giving Jim the opportunity to block knowing the identity of the morph is simply more unfair.
Same with the FTK example: giving my opponent the opportunity to damage anything is simply handing him too much assistance, given that there is a similar, legal option.
Alex says: November 23, 2009 @ 9:53 am
@Bink – I’ll put it at “third most” embarrassing in the PT top eights I’ve watched, at most. The takebacks for Billy Moreno at LA and the untapping under Yosei for Mori at Worlds 2005 both feel way worse to me.
John says: November 23, 2009 @ 10:01 am
@MH-
In the case of the FTK, the judge shouldn’t be assuming anything. They should ask some questions like “Was anything targeted by this Kavu when it came into play? Were there legal targets?” The answers to that will probably make it clear that the trigger was missed, and the fix for a missed trigger caught within 1 turn cycle is to put it on the stack (unless it has a default mode like losing to an unpaid pact or choosing “no” on a may trigger). It isn’t assisting your opponent, it is just making sure that he does the thing the game rules require him to do. No mention of which creatures can be targeted even needs to be made by the judge, just that something has to get flame-tongued.
In the case of your morph example, it is only the head judge that rewinds things, and the HJ should only do so if rewinding can be done completely and simply. Since a full rewind is going to be fairly complex here (barring someone with a memory eraser gun), warning to the player who illegally blocked, failure to maintain game state to the player who let the illegal block happen, blocks stand as they are.
Whenever there is a rules violation, there is probably going to be some advantage gained or lost by the players. The philosophy of judging is to have consistent fixes that work in the majority of cases to re-rail the game. Allowing deviations from the prescribed fixes except in truly exceptional circumstances means that the results are even more related to judge whim.
Rick says: November 23, 2009 @ 10:05 am
“Should I really have gotten a warning? I feel that the judge was just angry that I was right and he was wrong.”
Yes, you should have. Not saying anything about the floating mana once priority is passed is failure to maintain game state for both players. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, the example you give is cheating and at the very least, unsporting conduct: you intentionally abused the ambiguity of a game play error to rules lawyer your opponent into a warning.
Finally, if that’s what you treated your judge like, you’re lucky you didn’t get booted from the tournament. You could have just said, “I don’t agree, please get the head judge.” Instead, you decided to insult him both there and here.
Personally, I’m wondering where this conspiratorial talk of power-mad judges comes from. I’ve never once been to a tournament where I felt a judge was out to get *anyone*. If someone has, I feel bad for them, but that’s no reason to be a dick to any other judge or the system at large. Judges and opponents are people, too. You don’t have to be their best friend, but you don’t have to be a jerk, either.
sti says: November 23, 2009 @ 10:41 am
You wonder where it comes from really?
People who think zero judges do it for the power are living in a perfect world full of pixies. The fact that most judges judge for good reasons doesn’t mean oyu can pretne all judges are perfect.
Robin says: November 23, 2009 @ 10:43 am
“Yes, the reason some triggers are mandatory is because making everything a may trigger eliminates design space, i.e. you couldn't do negative triggers (like lose a life, discard a card, sacrifice a creature, etc.)”
You could do negative triggers in a “may” only world.
Imagine:
Hurtful Beatstick – BR
creature – Beast
4/3
“When a land comes into play under your control your opponent may have you discard a card.”
There – a negative “may” trigger.
I don’t think the current problem necessarily calls for eliminating mandatory triggers though, the above template is fine for tournament play, but could cause some problems in a multiplayer environment.
What I don’t understand is why the evil of letting someone get their cheat on by intentionally missing mandatory triggers is worse than making a third party try and decide whether that was the intent!
Players are already jointly responsible for maintaining the game state – so players are already supposed to be making sure that both players take all actions. *At the highest level of play* we should simply do away a player’s responsibility to correct an opponent’s misplay if it is in their favor. Obviously is questions come up about what is required then a judge is called. If both players are on the ball and communicating well then this results in a clean game. If not then at least the player who knows what should be going on isn’t going to be forced to help his opponent play correctly.
Obviously this comes down to a value judgment, but I feel it is totally unfair to ask judges to get inside player’s head in the way they are currently asked to.
If you really want both players to be responsible for the game state than make them live with the consequences of screwing it up.
MH says: November 23, 2009 @ 10:52 am
@John: Thank you for taking the time to answer me. You’re right, I shouldn’t have said “assume,” I meant that that was how I thought the judge should “rule.” I also didn’t know that only the HJ can rewind, so I learned something today if nothing else. But I’m still not clear on some points.
If a judge can overrule a Mindless Null that explicitly says it can’t block, I don’t see why the judge can’t overrule a FTK that says it must deal 4 damage to something.
I understand the need for objective, consistent rules fixes, but that doesn’t imply anything about what those fixes should be, and if the current prescribed fix allows the FTK player to go back and re-choose, then that’s a bad prescription and it should be changed.
Why should the judge allow the FTK player to go back and do “the thing the game rules require him to do”, but allow the Null player to do something the game requires that he NOT do? It makes no sense and is very self-contradictory.
Fenaris says: November 23, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Regarding the umpteen number of “bad play,” and, “assumed bad play examples,” it’s not an issue of the correct play, it is a situation of a clear game state.
If at any time you assume a missed mandatory trigger is ‘played poorly’, ask yourself this question.
“If we were both separated and asked where that trigger affected the game state, would I be confident my opponent would give the same answer I did?”
If you can’t honestly say yes to that question, then the game state is ambiguous, and therefore illegal. If you could honestly fool yourself to think your opponent would say, “I put 4 damage on the 5/5,” instead of, “I forgot about the trigger and didn’t deal damage,” you earned your own penalty.
Usually one missed trigger penalty is enough to get an opponent to pay attention. Is it really worth risking a Fraud DQ to get a cheap advantage over your opponent? (No matter what you may have fooled yourself to believe, cheesing a mandatory trigger this way is VERY cheap) If it is, perhaps you need to check your insecurities at the door and learn to win without shortcutting your opponents.
Rick says: November 23, 2009 @ 11:44 am
“You wonder where it comes from really?
People who think zero judges do it for the power are living in a perfect world full of pixies. The fact that most judges judge for good reasons doesn't mean oyu can pretne all judges are perfect.”
And so this condemns all judges to be evil bastards who care nothing about the players’ suffering?
Also note that I didn’t say that every judge is made of sparkles and candy. The fact that you turned my argument into an either/or statement clearly means you didn’t read the whole thing. Which clearly means you don’t care what I had to say anyway, so why say anything at all?
Alex says: November 23, 2009 @ 11:52 am
@sti – But I do think a lot of players personalize things. I’ve never had the feeling that any of our judges locally have an ax to grind or are out powertripping, but I’ve seen some players be awfully angry when things go against them, and subsequently convert that into saying that the judge is doing just those things. Part of the problem is the same thing Brian Kibler has faced vis-a-vis his Austin QFs – people read genuine errors as malfeasance. Thus, people assume Brian cheated, and people sometimes assume a judge’s bad call was an intentionally bad call, instead of an error. This is one reason I appreciate judge columns that talk about those “oops” moments, as it lets players know that (1) maybe that judge /was/ actually wrong when you thought they were wrong and (2) maybe that wasn’t part of their evil scheme to keep you from winning.
There’s a big issue of narrative going on when we consider these things. The narrative of “the DCI is making an example here” comes about because Gindy happened to be on the U.S. team, so his DQing took the team out of contention. At the same time, there hasn’t been nearly as much discussion about the multiple DQs due to people /looking at fellow player’s cards/ during the draft rounds, because it lacks narrative similarity to the Angel of Despair missed trigger /and/ because it only took the Canadian and Turkish teams out (apparently their fan bases aren’t as vocal). If I controlled the narrative here, I’d be much more interested in those DQs, since they seem crazy to me. Looking at cards? Really? Who does that at a draft at a PT where there’s a judge right there calling the draft?
Alex says: November 23, 2009 @ 11:55 am
As an addendum to my previous comment, I don’t think anyone should cheat, ever. I am simply bonus astonished that someone would try to cheat with a judge literally standing right there.
But then, there’s that famous picture of that one dude leaning over to stare at Zvi’s cards, so I guess cheating and cleverness do not move in lockstep.
Amarsir says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I fault not the decision, but the rules that make such a decision necessary.
The judge must in such a case play Lie Detector. And not in a broad “he says I drew a card, I say I didn’t” way. You have to take a guy who, by definition, was confused. And determine that even though he misunderstood the whole, he did understand all the necessary components sufficiently to violate them. I would never trust a single person to reach that conclusion with such certainty, including myself. I have to give “benefit of the doubt” to the accused, as with Kibler in Austin.
This is going to keep coming up until players learn to never ask their opponent “why didn’t you …?” Or until the rule changes.
Aten says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
"If we were both separated and asked where that trigger affected the game state, would I be confident my opponent would give the same answer I did?"
This is just astonishing. What you are saying here is that, where a sequence of plays leads either to a single clear legal game state or to any number of hypothetical ambiguous states, the burden is on the proponent of the clear legal game state to retroactively establish the intent of an opponent who by now has figured out his mistake and gets to argue in the alternative. There’s no bright line here, and if there is this sure ain’t it.
Robin says: November 23, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
“there hasn't been nearly as much discussion about the multiple DQs due to people /looking at fellow player's cards/ during the draft rounds, because it lacks narrative similarity to the Angel of Despair missed trigger /and/ because it only took the Canadian and Turkish teams out (apparently their fan bases aren't as vocal).”
I’m glad someone brings this up again.
I think that a lack of information to parse through is of greater cause for the silence regarding Canada and Turkey than nationalism – but maybe I am just optimistic.
Wizards did not provide any information to “argue” over in regards to those other DQs. This was probably what they should have done (from a crisis containment standpoint if not from a custom service one) with Gindy’s DQ.
I feel that in both cases the DQing of the national teams while a alternate was ready is terrible, and should be addressed in the future.
Jekster says: November 23, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
I really don’t enjoy the idea that someone gets DQed out of a tourney because their opponent didn’t know what a card does. If they don’t know, they shoulder reach across the table and read the freaking card. It’s a game, you should know the rules and the equipment (cards) you’re playing with at all times.
I don’t think you should ever have to put someone in a position where they must hurt themselves and their ability to win because their opponent is too lazy to read and understand a card. It’s preposterous and I do think it dumbs down what is supposed to be the “highest level” of play.
Rick says: November 23, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
“This is going to keep coming up until players learn to never ask their opponent ‘why didn't you "¦?’ Or until the rule changes.”
It’s going to keep coming up until players learn to ask “Why didn’t you do that thing that you were required to do?” when they’re *supposed to* instead of *at the end of the game*, when it’s cheating. As I (and other people) have stated, Gindy’s mistake was not bringing up the error when it came up. The obligation is on *both players* to maintain a proper game state.
The thing about the “never say anything to your opponent” argument is that it’s advocating cheating, when the rule is in place specifically to keep people from abusing an ambiguous or illegal game state. It’s there to *facilitate* conversation, not *stifle* it.
As far as the draft DQs, there’s nothing to argue, really. Being a nosy goblin is being a nosy goblin: either you were looking at cards or you weren’t. The Gindy situation has just enough gray area–thanks to lack of official information and the presence of supposedly reliable (but not really reliable without credible attribution) information–to let people argue against the DQ on the grounds that there’s not sufficient proof *for them*. They might as well just say “Sources tell me that Sheldon Menery may have raped and murdered a girl in 1990–why won’t he address these accusations?!”
Alex says: November 23, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
@Rick – You’re right, of course. There’s no real grist for arguing about the draft DQs. I guess I tend to be far more struck by DQings for blatant cheating than by “Oh, you made a sketchy and foolish choice” DQs, which is what I tend to think of the Gindy DQ as. I guess I can understand the process behind a player making this kind of (wrong) “crime of opportunity” decision, but things like Gaetan Lefebvre keeping six cards IN HIS LAP just strike me as insane, and I want to be able to ask folks who try those shenanigans just what they were thinking.
(Just so I’m not confusing anyone, the Lefebvre DQ is from PT Berlin 2008. I think it’s the craziest PT-level cheating DQ I’ve read about.)
Mark Conkle says: November 23, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
@MH: Letting blocks stand and declared is NOT overruling a card. Mindless Null as a blocker with no vampires out is a legal gamestate — it was simply ARRIVED AT through illegal methods. If you call a judge because your opponent’s Ancestral Recall is in play with a Skullclamp equipped to it that is an illegal gamestate and will be fixed. Mindless Null being in play blocking another creature with no vampires out is legal — it could have been arrived at by the mindless null being turned face down with Ixidron, blocking, and then having break open cast on it, or more realistically by blocking with a vampire out and then the vampire dying, or any number of scenarios. Only illegal game states NEED to be fixed. Legal game states that were arrived at illegally will often stand, after penalties are handed out – it just depends on the situation.
Greg B says: November 24, 2009 @ 2:08 am
I’m pretty sure the mindless null would not be allowed to keep blocking since it’s very easy to reverse the gamestate until before blockers were declared. Yes, you would be somewhat screwed since you have now revealed your morph, but this is only because you committed a Failure to maintain Game State Infraction. It’s also more or less impossible to try to cheat like this since if your opponent calls a judge when you block with mindless null you will get a warning the first time and a game loss the second (or DQ if they think it was intentional).
KK Michael says: November 24, 2009 @ 4:40 am
I think the point Eric and some other people have tried to point out but many seem to be missing is that Gindy probably messed up the investigation interview. When a judge calls you over to talk to you about anything official, your job is to present the facts clearly and as precicely as possible. Especially in something like cheating, the judge is looking for shady behavior. If you present the gamestate and then change it around or get confused as more questions are asked then that seems shady. If you present a clear understanding of the gamestate and are able to answer questions about the issues without things getting jumbled up then you will be in a much better position.
For the record, I dont know exactly what happened. I was not there. I do know Sheldon and have judged with him. I understand what he looks for in judging situations and I am sure he made the correct decision given the facts that he had. I have also played with and judged tournaments with Gindy playing in them. Gindy is a good guy and I dont believe he intentionally cheated. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve to be DQ’d. He probably made what he thought was the good strategic play. I would guess that in recounting the problem with multiple judges his story changed slightly or he seemed really nervous or couldn’t keep things straight.
It is truly unfortunate that a great player and a great judge have each been raked over the coals for this so many times.
Eric says: November 26, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
I am certainly not saying Gindy blew the interview. I am just saying I was not there.
NovatotogaT says: August 31, 2010 @ 5:01 am
[url=http://www.es5.com][img]http://www.Blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/images/styles/blackngold/logo.gif[/img][/url]
Greetings! Need some help [url=http://www.verifiedfile.com][img]http://verifiedfile.com/images/smile.gif[/img][/url]
My boss and I are really really wondering to try and see if [b]Black Hat Search Engine Optimization[/b] work for Yahoo & Bing traffic? Some friends suggested using a Blackhat SEO forum or blog
Lately, we’re studying increase online income. Has anyone gain SEO rankings using [url=http://www.es5.com][b]Blackhat Tool[/b][/url].
Would really enjoy reading your thoughts