Great article. One of the best you've done.

I also like it, but it brought up a question.

"If i see a game error in process, is it acceptable for me to verbally call for a judge in such a way as the competitors understand that a judge is being called to their game?"

I would hesistate (actually, i wouldn't but people with social graces might) because if they can hear, they may stop play and actually ask why a judge is being brought , leasing to a possible delay of game.

Personally, I'd just say that i thought i saw a game error and am asking for a judge to explain to me, but thhen my being vocal may be considered to be an intereference in the game. WWTSD (what would the source do?)

Man, i love judging debates.

GREAT ARTICLE KERGY! Way to stick to your guns on this extremely controversial topic.

Absolutely. You call verbally call for a judge. In "that other game", the procedure is to simply raise your hand and yell judge. You don't even (as a player) leave the table. I think the same would be appropriate for spectators as well. The whole point is to get the right result.

One thing to point out...

Apparently, reporting a misplay *after* the game does not carry any weight. The article references the possibility of the player being DQd if the judge found out the misplay after the game. I don't think that would happen, and here's why.

At PCLA, one of my teammates was playing in the draft portion about 3 rows deep, away from the spectators. I was watching, but it was difficult from that far away. I hear at one point something about Green Goblin (5 drop) and a pause in the game...then the game continued. My teammate lost the game eventually, and when he came over to chat I asked him about the Green Goblin. He said his opponent told him that Green Goblin's ability worked 'during the combat phase.' I told him that that is not the case, his ability only works during his attack step. We thought about it for a moment, and decided to tell the head judge.

After an explanation of what happened, he told us in no uncertain terms, that there was absolutely nothing he could do after the game was over. When asked what could have been done if he had been called during the game, but after the misplay (if it had been noticed at that time), he told us "I don't know."

So, I agree one should call a judge in any situation. I did not because I was unsure of the conversation, since the game was so far away. The situation is not completely analagous to the one mentioned in the article, but the occurance of a misplay, and the reporting after the game (which the article claims may get you DQd), occured, and resulted in no penalty/no investigation/no nothing, simply because it was after the game.

The situations are not the same. While it is true we can not fix an error that was made in a completed match, that does not apply to cheating. IF the guy cheated, it doesn't matter how long after the fact it is, he can still be DQed.

The situation you described with the HJ of PCLA is assuming the mistake was an error, and not intentional cheating.

Then why is the situation at the PCQ described in the article assumed cheating and not a mistake? Both situations give an obvious and large advantage to the player making the *mistake*. If a judge never bothers to find out the actual details from both sides, but instead dismisses the situation as being reported 'too late', then how is he to know it was a mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation of the game state?

It comes dowen to this, it easier to believe that someone misplayed a single card verses someone who thinks they can recuit, lay a resource, and recruit again with less resource points than needed.

Also, we are talking about a limited event where people are playing cards they are not used to. It easy to see someone making a mistake or misplaying a card.

It is a different stroy when it is constructed and you completely butcher the turn sequence. What Alex was saying, it would be easier to believe the 2nd guy was cheating.

Ya, I understand...but at the same time, you are looking at a day 2 Pro player vs a random PCQ player.

I have known people who know the rules, but get a plan in their head counter to the rules b/c their thinking is just a little off. Heck, in a local last night I played Doom, and on turn 6 needed to draw into a Doom. I was sitting there thinking to myself for just a second "ok, I have 10 outs here...2 Faces, 4 Dooms, 4 Boris to get the Faces..." <--- Obviously wrong. But, someone could continue down that same path and end up blatently violating the rules, and it not be on purpose.

On the other hand, a day 2 PC player misrepresents a card, and the misrepresentation benefits him greatly.

I understand the situations are different. I even said they are not completely analagous. But, in both situations, something occurred outside of the rules that greatly benefitted a certain player. I don't understand how, sitting at a computer or even as the judge on the scene, someone can really have much comment on the *intent* to cheat of either the PCQ or the PC player.

I would think, at the very least, a judge would verify that the misrepresentation (or phase massacre) took place, and log it as a warning or some other note, as to be able to track that player's behavior. Otherwise, a player can take advantage of any situation where the judge might 'understand the misplay' in order to cheat, and never get caught b/c such instances reported to the judge do not get logged or tracked in any way.

Bravo, Ben. Bravo.

*calls a judge over on Ben* :devious:

yea i have seen people make that mistake before and ffrankly the game should pause if the player who did wrong is still going through with the turn he is making the mistake and should lose the 1st match i know im harsh but ya know i went to the DC-superman pre-release tourny and we were all playing with new cards there were so many mistakes and misunderstandings but in the end i pulled it out and walked home proudly with a quite devious look on my face and a superman t shirt in one hand and 6 packs for winning in the other so i know what its like lol:) :)

In Player Management, judges are to assume that any "misplays" are unintentional unless otherwise evident. Not being at that match, there would be no way for a judge to know after its completion. And it would be very hard to assess some type of penalty based on heresay.

I think the more important point is this:

Even if the intent of the player was to mislead, all the other player had to do was read the card. At the Pro level, if you don't know what the cards do... that is more of a disadvantage than an opponent who misleads you about what a card does.

That's fine, and I agree to a point. But, it is rather off issue. My point is, why would a judge assume an unintentional misplay in that circumstance, and not in the PCQ example written in the article. And why would a judge 'assume' anything ever without at least a surface investigation?

And about your shot at my teammate, he'll tell you in a heartbeat it was his fault for not picking up the card and reading it. However, that is really irrelevant to the conversation at hand. If you hold him to a higher standard because he is at a PC, then you must hold his opponent to that higher standard as well.

"You should know what the cards do" is just like saying "You should know the phase rules" It's difficult to mislead or misrepresent the game if your opponent knows all the rules and all the cards. In any situation like the one described in the article and the one described by myself, both players are responsible for the integrity of the game state. However, only 1 player is responsible for performing the action that benefits themselves, and can be construed as either a 'mistake' or a 'cheat'.

Thanks to all for your kind words =)

Cascade: There is a huge difference here. Your friend had 2 options: read the card, and if he wasn't sure that was how it worked, call a judge. Or take his opponent's word.

He chose to take his opponent's word, and lost because of it.

In this scenario, it is impossible to tell if cheating was involved, because the opponent may have purposefully mislead him, or may have been mistaken himself. In the Superman sneaks locally, we all misunderstood Bernadeath and were playing as though he ability was for the entire turn, not just the phase. An entire group of us at the sneak peak tourneys. None of use were cheating, we simply screwed up.

On the other hand, he may have been cheating. But in this situation there is no tangible proof. An investigation won't tur anything up but a misplay, and it would be too late to correct it. If the judge were too investigate, it woud most likely end up in a warning to both players, with a potential game loss to both players if the judge was extraordinarily strict. It wouldn't be worth it.

In the other case, a player potentially cheated in his play, and there is tangible evidence. Because he recruited, searched for a specific to use as a resource, which acyivated the potential for Signal Flare, and allowed him to find his drop and recruit again, there is a more obvious question about willfully violating the rules.

It is less cloudy than your friend's situation, because it is an entire stream of events that are necessary, one after the other, in order to achieve the end result. It's harder to rationally explain that as a simple misinterpretation or misreading of the cards/rules than it is your friend's situation.

I agree with Kergillion that in that story it "sounds" like cheating, but it's seems to me that the Judge _did_ assume it was an honest error. Otherwise he would have given a game loss instead of a "simple" reset of the game state.

-Mike