1494572:

Also are you really saying that if Matt's opponent had said "hey judge, let's just let him destroy his shield and get on with the game" you wouldn't let them do that?

Do you really want to give people the ability to overrule their opponent's penalties?

I can think of about 50 bad situations that will create just off the top of my head. A judgment is a judgment is a judgment, it's not something the either player gets any control of once it goes to the judge. Let's leave this box closed, please.

---

IYPCSTSOYMRT

I could have sworn that Thoros has 3 arms.......

On a more serious note, both uniqueness violations were total carelessness on my behalf.  The first warning was an absolute joke, as I was snowball and weldon locked out of attacking.  Stuart can verify this.  The second time it happened, the game was over and burying the shield had no impact on the game.  Legrow can verify this.

I am not claiming that the warnings should not have been given.  I believe they should have been. (Who doesn't appeal a game loss, anyway?)  My only point here is to make sure that people do not think these uniqueness violations were malicious.  They had no impact on either game.

I suppose that the game loss wasn't "fair" given the game state, but honestly, the less discretion needed to issue penalties, the better.  Penalties may not always seem fair, but after a few thousand penaties issued, *most* will be fair.  And they will get to the cheaters who deserve them.  If the judging staff felt I was purposefully violating the uniqueness rule, they should have dq'ed me (which they have the power to do). 

Overall, I was upset at the time, but I believe the judges acted appropriately.

On a side note, anyone who thinks that an opponent will physically intimidate their opponent into rescinding a penalty needs to rethink this situation.  Physical threats enter a COMPLETELY different area of human behavior.  I agree that opponents should not be able to cancel judges' penalties, mainly because it creates a strange situation where collusion and other unsportsman-like behavior would be encouraged. 

-Matt

---

1406143:

1494572:

Also are you really saying that if Matt's opponent had said "hey judge, let's just let him destroy his shield and get on with the game" you wouldn't let them do that?

Do you really want to give people the ability to overrule their opponent's penalties?

I can think of about 50 bad situations that will create just off the top of my head. A judgment is a judgment is a judgment, it's not something the either player gets any control of once it goes to the judge. Let's leave this box closed, please.

I really don't see anything wrong w/ the 2 players finishing out the game if that's what they both want to do. Obviously it is still a warning and still tracked. As a player in that situation I could see myself wanting to finish the game out in certain circumstances.

1291311:

On a side note, anyone who thinks that an opponent will physically intimidate their opponent into rescinding a penalty needs to rethink this situation.  Physical threats enter a COMPLETELY different area of human behavior.

I don't think physical threats are necessarily what is implied here. More along the lines of a 13 year old may end up playing a 30 year old, 6'5" 350 lb half-grizzly half-man and could simply feel a completely natural and unintended level of discomfort saying "no" when asked nicely to waive a penalty.

---

IYPCSTSOYMRT

1292276:

1494572:

The sleeves were beyond marked. Is this really something tolerable at a DMF level event?

Are you arguing that the penalty guidelines should account for just how heavily marked the card is? The penalty should be higher if it's more obvious?

If so, why should it matter? If the player is able to distinguish the card it doesn't matter if it's a tiny divot in a specific spot or he wrote "Myriam Starcaller" on the back of the card with a Sharpie.

Just because the judge doesn't see a noticeable pattern to the cards doesn't mean it isn't there.

So, we should always assume that there is a pattern and give the higher infraction?

Matt gets a game loss for committing an infraction that hasn't benefitted him in the least bit.

Are you saying that judges should account for the strategic advantage of an error when deciding penalties?

Also are you really saying that if Matt's opponent had said "hey judge, let's just let him destroy his shield and get on with the game" you wouldn't let them do that?

I believe that's exactly what he's saying and I agree with him. It's not up to the opponent to decide if an infraction occured or what penalty should be given. If we allow that then you introduce inconsistency in your rules enforcement.


I think you're making some statements without thinking about the logical end of where they lead.

Yes, the degree to which they are marked should matter. If I heavily marked a set of 60 cards then I could conceivably memorize the markings on every one of them and take it to a tournament. If no one called me on it I could gain a huge advantage this way. You wouldn't be able to notice any pattern.

If you take no care to ensure that your deck is unmarked then you should be punished.

I'm sure judges often take into account strategic advantage when deciding a penalty. If I skipped my draw on turn 1 of a game would you give me the same penalty as if I skipped my draw on turn 40 when I was in danger of deck'ing out?

I think you are making assumptions about me when you don't know me at all. I *always* think of logical ends.

1494572:

Yes, the degree to which they are marked should matter. If I heavily marked a set of 60 cards then I could conceivably memorize the markings on every one of them and take it to a tournament. If no one called me on it I could gain a huge advantage this way. You wouldn't be able to notice any pattern. If you take no care to ensure that your deck is unmarked then you should be punished. I'm sure judges often take into account strategic advantage when deciding a penalty. If I skipped my draw on turn 1 of a game would you give me the same penalty as if I skipped my draw on turn 40 when I was in danger of deck'ing out? I think you are making assumptions about me when you don't know me at all. I *always* think of logical ends.

Even easier than memorizing all the patterns, make sure that the marks on your heavily scuffed cards are even numbers for quests, odd mulitples of 3 for allies, etc.

If the sleeves are badly damaged there are plenty of ways to mark them without them being obviously marked.

On a lighter note, this discussion reminded me of a funny experience...

At DMF Chicago in a side limited tournament, I play out an absolute teeth grinding game 3 into overtime.  My opponent had such a dominate board position, I couldn't believe I was able to squeek out the victory.  As the match concluded a spectator leaned in and commented on my opponent's board: I don't think it's legal to wield a Twig of the World Tree and the Draconian Deflector.  Doh!

1406143:

More along the lines of a 13 year old may end up playing a 30 year old, 6'5" 350 lb half-grizzly half-man and could simply feel a completely natural and unintended level of discomfort saying "no" when asked nicely to waive a penalty.

Hmmm, other than the fact that I'm not 350lbs, you sound like your describing every match between Joey and I.  I don't think Joey has an discomfort in pointing out my errors.  To the contrary I think he enjoys it...  :)

But now you've given me an idea.  I could do what Phil Laak did last year at the 2008 WSOP where he played in costume as a 90 yr old man.  Hmmm... if you don't see me at Nats, I might be that 350lb half-grizzly, half-man your playing against.

I'm sure judges often take into account strategic advantage when deciding a penalty. If I skipped my draw on turn 1 of a game would you give me the same penalty as if I skipped my draw on turn 40 when I was in danger of deck'ing out?

Whoa, are you saying that when someone forgets to draw a card I can call a judge over and get them warned and possibly get a free game win from them if they had also forgotten to draw earlier in the tournament?  Ive had people forget to draw against me countless times over my years playing this game. So many game wins I've missed out on.

Time to make some new players cry at upcoming tournaments - rar!


Seriously, there is NOTHING wrong with judge discretion when giving out rulings at a tournament or else you get jerks who will rules lawyer people into game wins. Is that really what we want? I don't want to get a match loss against Lankybrit because I tap my resources before playing my cards...

---

1494572:

Also are you really saying that if Matt's opponent had said "hey judge, let's just let him destroy his shield and get on with the game" you wouldn't let them do that? All because you feel his opponent might have been intimidated into doing it? Don't you think you'd notice if there's was intimidation going on?

The reason you don't let them do it is because that is against the rules; it would be a violation on the judge's part. A judge is supposed to represent UDE's ruling policy, and policy states that opponents may not waive or substitute penalties. If you want to change that, petition the head honchs, but don't expect judges to pioneer independent changes. It's not their job!

1494572:

Yes, the degree to which they are marked should matter. If I heavily marked a set of 60 cards then I could conceivably memorize the markings on every one of them and take it to a tournament. If no one called me on it I could gain a huge advantage this way. You wouldn't be able to notice any pattern.

If you take no care to ensure that your deck is unmarked then you should be punished.

Your example assumes the round one opponent is brain-dead enough to not call a judge and make you change the sleeves (which would gain you zero advantage). Judging policy cannot be based on whether or not a given player is too stupid to call for a judge.

1494572:

I'm sure judges often take into account strategic advantage when deciding a penalty. If I skipped my draw on turn 1 of a game would you give me the same penalty as if I skipped my draw on turn 40 when I was in danger of deck'ing out?

In the example above, you are forgetting that judges may alter penalties based on intent. If intent to violate a rule is present for a clear advantage, it's the difference between a procedural error and cheating. The penalty would obviously not be the same, because the violation would not be the same one. This involves zero discretion with regard to penalty (because deciding which violation has occurred and deciding the penalty for it are two separate aspects of a ruling).

Once a judge knows what violation has occurred (which was clearly easy in Matt's case, since both players alleged accident), the penalty is chosen from those considered appropriate. In this case, a game loss was among those possibilities, and the HJ chose it because he believed that was appropriate. If I were the HJ, I'd have done it for sure; I am not a fan of allowing repeat violations because of the room for abuse.

I hope what I said made sense, it's a bit late.

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion

I didn't forget "intent" at all. Aragorn implied that strategic advantage is not taken into account when deciding penalties. So skipping your drawing of a card should be the same penalty regardless of the situation, no? Obviously I agree with you that this is ridiculous.

I say there's more room for abuse in allowing marked sleeves to be only a warning than not upgrading penalties. It's a lot easier to cheat by marking sleeves than it is to hope your opponent doesn't notice your hero doesn't have 3 hands.

To answer your question Dalton, yes the penalty for skipping a draw should be the same on turn one as on turn forty under the assumption that both are accidents making them both Procedural Errors.  If the second person deliberately skips drawing with the intent of not decking himself, then that's cheating not a procedural error which carries a much heavier penalty. 

---

The thing is, a judge is not assessing the strategic advantage of a violation, only if it is purposeful. Similar to what BLyons said: if a person could be proven to have purposefully skipped drawing a card on turn one, then it's cheating, and they'll receive the same penalty as someone cheating on turn 40 (despite the dubious strategic advantage). Intent is all that matters.

For the record, I have definitely caught people doing this, and they are generally trying to make it look like you drew an extra card and/or laid an extra resource. So cheating is a pretty fair assessment!

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion

How do you judge intent without looking at strategic advantage? Are you a mind-reader? You can tell me the purpose of someone doing something without looking at the game state?

Are you implying that someone would never purposefully break a rule unless there was a blatant advantage to it? Because that's a) no true and b) not the point. I think the "story" usually is a lot more important to assess intent than a judge's assessment of the game state. That's why they ask each player what happened. Think about the last judge decision you saw; did they examine the board quietly, thinking about how the game has, is, and will play out? I don't think I've ever seen that. Again not to be a jerk, but in a complicated matchup or position, not many judges would be able to.

Generally, I see this. The judge reads the cards to be sure he knows their wording. He asks the players and witnesses what happened (admittedly, players often volunteer any possible strategic advantages here, as their opinion regarding intent. Obviously, these are heard with a grain of salt). Once he decides what did happen, he explains the ruling. Then he explains any repairs and/or penalties.

None of the above involved a judge assessing strategic advantage. If there's a blatant case, like your decking example, it may factor on the scales, but that's the minority of most cases. It's not the judge's job to determine how "effective" their cheating will be, only whether or not it was cheating. You don't assess penalties for cheats based on the possible advantage; once it's cheating, the penalty is clear.

---

Glenn Jones
Contributing Editor - WoW TCG and WoW Minis

Coverage Writer Extraordinaire
The War Wagon @ www.starcitywow.com
One Card at a Time @ www.wowtcg.com

Season 2 Feralas Realm Champion