Meddling Mage

[Chiz]

I play a Meddling mage and say Juggernaut (there wasnt any in play at that moment). We played a couple of turns... I attack with my meddling mage And I realize that I sayd Jugg with it and he had a Jugg in play and attacked me with it twice...

What happen!?

[Roxas]

Did he cast it?  Maybe he put it into play with Goblin Welder, which can be done under Meddling Mage.

[Jebus]

First, I crack both of your skulls for not paying attention to the game state.

Then, I try to repair the game state.  I can't give a definative answer, since there are far too many unknown variables.

At the least, you both get warnings for procedural error.

[Gabethebabe]

In case the state can not be repaired (e.g. someone cracked a fetch and shuffled his lib) I would upgrade the warning for the person who made the error to a game loss.

Sure, the other player should have noted that a play error was made, but dammit, you shouldn´t be able to get away with this that easy, because there is the possibility of significant advantage out of this play error.

You could even try to do it intentionally (which of course, is very difficult to prove, players can be sloppy, even various times).

I would tend to protect the most innocent and hand out unequal penalties.

The DCI rules are not really clear about this, so I assume it is the judge´s responsibility how to handle erach case individually.

[Chiz]

Did he cast it?  Maybe he put it into play with Goblin Welder, which can be done under Meddling Mage.

Yeah, he did cast it, he had no welder into play, nor in any graveyard...

Yeah, I should've noted that a play error was made, but I didn't realize it...

So the rules aren't clear about this issue...

[Jujulautre]

So the rules aren't clear about this issue...

In the situation, your opponent broke the rules; how would you be more clear than that?

[epeeguy]

Yeah, he did cast it, he had no welder into play, nor in any graveyard...

Yeah, I should've noted that a play error was made, but I didn't realize it...

So the rules aren't clear about this issue...

I would probably leave the game state alone, if I believed that the game did not need to be ended and a new one started, and simply give both of you Warnings for this issue (him for playing it, and you for not reminding him about your Meddling Mage).  Note: unless anything about this appeared intention, then it's a whole different story.

I'm not inclined to return the Juggernaut to his hand, or undo the damage, as spells and abilities were likely played with consideration given to what the game state was; nor would I put it in his graveyard (since there's no reason for it to be there).  So, the only real course of action is to let the game continue from this point, or not continue at all (and that would depend on an individual judge's assessment).

[ProZachar]

In the situation, your opponent broke the rules; how would you be more clear than that?

The rules aren't clear:
1)  because the penalities for Procedural Errors are somewhat subjective; each judge is going to have a different estimation of how badly the game has been compromised.
2)  because it has happened that players will deliberately let their opponents get away with accidentally breaking the rules, and then call a judge later in hopes of the opponents getting game/match losses.

[Demonic Attorney]

unless anything about this appeared intention, then it's a whole different story.

You could even try to do it intentionally (which of course, is very difficult to prove, players can be sloppy, even various times).

because it has happened that players will deliberately let their opponents get away with accidentally breaking the rules, and then call a judge later in hopes of the opponents getting game/match losses.

How exactly can a judge determine a player's subjective intent in making or allowing a procedural error?  What about the game state or the players would prove to any extent that a play that already happened was intentional or accidental?  It seems to be that this would not be difficult to determine, it would be impossible.

[epeeguy]

How exactly can a judge determine a player's subjective intent in making or allowing a procedural error?  What about the game state or the players would prove to any extent that a play that already happened was intentional or accidental?  It seems to be that this would not be difficult to determine, it would be impossible.

Well, firstly I have to suggest that you get away from the notion that intent is something that is subjective.  Intent is more an absolute than it is anything else; either the player knew what they were doing, and knew it violated the rules, or they did not know what they were doing and did not realize it violated the rules.  So, to further clarify, I draw your attention to the following definition of "intent":

1 : the act or fact of intending: as a : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act called also criminal intent —compare KNOWLEDGE, MENS REA, MOTIVE, NEGLIGENCE b : the purpose to commit a tortious act having consequences that the actor desires and believes or knows will occur.

Now, clearly, this is a legal definition, much more common to a court of law.  But, given that they can reasonable establish intent in a court of law (that is, whether someone intended to kill someone, or it was truly acidental), it is simply a question of evidence.  And that can range from any number of different things that a judge would have to gather and then evaluate.

Suffice it to say, there is no "definitative" list of things that would make this case, and there's no way to make it comprehensive enough.  But, it is not an easy task (though it is certainly not impossible).

[Demonic Attorney]

Intent is perhaps the most subjective concept one can conceive of.  Your use of a legal definition of intent especially causes me to wonder where you would get a different idea.  There are probably tens of thousands of pages of legal writing on the problematic nature of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt, because it is necessarily subjective.  How can you prove what went on in my head?  How can you prove what I meant to happen?  You can't.  The most you can hope to do is show through a preponderance of the evidence what my likely frame of mind was given the circumstances and the nature and results of my actions.

However, doing that in cases of murder or assault is one thing.  There's physical evidence, witness testimony, and other forms of proof to suggest to a fact finder what the actor likely intended.  In a game of Magic, you've got a bunch of cards on the table, and two conflicting stories.  The cards can't tell you anything-- the Juggernaut would be in exactly the same area of play if the player had intentionally cheated than if they hadn't.  So how do you prove the act was intentional, when the physical state of the game and every other objective circumstance would be the same if the error was intentional or not?

[epeeguy]

How can you prove what went on in my head?  How can you prove what I meant to happen?  You can't.  The most you can hope to do is show through a preponderance of the evidence what my likely frame of mind was given the circumstances and the nature and results of my actions.

And that's all I would be trying to do.  That, based on the evidence I do have available to me, that a player's actions were intentional or not.  Again, I didn't say it was easy, just that I have to draw a conclusion based on the evidence I have in front of me and any interview I would likely conduct.

So how do you prove the act was intentional, when the physical state of the game and every other objective circumstance would be the same if the error was intentional or not?

As I said, there's a number of pieces of evidence that a judge would use in determining this.  It isn't simply limited to any one thing, but rather a number of different things.  Beyond that, there's no one single thing that is going to "prove" it.  This is no different than a murder case; while certain things may be common between cases, there's still a number of factors to consider in each instance.