Thick-Skinned Goblin and Echo

[Nazdakka]

This is a variation of a situation that came up at my prerelease (a judge was never called, player B just said "I'm being nice, but you wouldn't get away with that at a PTQ.")

Thick-Skinned Goblin is in play under Player A's control, and he casts a random creature with echo (say Avalanche Riders, for the sake of arguement). Player A passes the turn. Player B draws a card and passes. Player A untaps and procedes through his upkeep without specifying that he is paying to upkeep the Riders. Player B says that Player A should sacrifice the Riders, because he didn't explicitly say that he was paying , but Player A argues that he did pay, but that no action was necessary in order to do so and so he didn't say anything.

Should the Echo creature stick around? Player A's clear intent was to pay the upkeep, or otherwise he would have sacrificed the Riders. He isn't gaining any advantage from his carelessness. However, he didn't explicitly say anything, and as I understand things, the general ruling on Echo is that if payment is forgotten, the creature dies.

Thoughts?

Wordings:
Echo: Echo is a triggered ability. "Echo [cost]" means "At the beginning of your upkeep, if this permanent came under your control since the beginning of your last upkeep, sacrifice it unless you pay [cost]." See rule 502.19, "Echo."

Thick-Skinned Goblin
1R
You may pay 0 Mana rather than pay the echo cost for permanents you control.
R: Thick-Skinned Goblin gains protection from red until end of turn.
2/1

[LotusHead]

Player B says that Player A should sacrifice the Riders, because he didn't explicitly say that he was paying ,

(a judge was never called, player B just said "I'm being nice, but you wouldn't get away with that at a PTQ.")

Thoughts?

This is lame, especially for a Pre-Release event.

 If Player A was a hard core tourney player, Player A should call a Judge and get a ruling on if Player B WAS really being nice. After all, the tweaked Echo Rules are 1 day old. Then get a ruling on if he would get away with it at a PTQ, so both players would know.

Then, both players should thank the judge and apologize for wasting time in a pre-release event.

[Nazdakka]

Player B says that Player A should sacrifice the Riders, because he didn't explicitly say that he was paying ,

(a judge was never called, player B just said "I'm being nice, but you wouldn't get away with that at a PTQ.")

Thoughts?

This is lame, especially for a Pre-Release event.

 If Player A was a hard core tourney player, Player A should call a Judge and get a ruling on if Player B WAS really being nice. After all, the tweaked Echo Rules are 1 day old. Then get a ruling on if he would get away with it at a PTQ, so both players would know.

Then, both players should thank the judge and apologize for wasting time in a pre-release event.

I only actually heard about this incident second-hand, but I thought that going on about how you were 'being nice' under those circumstances was a bit rude. I'm really interested to know what the official answer is, because I've asked around and noone has a clear one yet (#mtgjudge was quiet). By the letter of the law, it seems to me that A's creature should die. However, to me it's a case for a judges to use their own intelligence and go by player intent - if A wanted to not pay the echo for some reason, he obviously would have sacrificed the creature. Thus his failiure to do so implies that he was paying the echo.

FWIW, I really hope the answer is in A's favour. Forcing people to pointlessly say 'I pay 0 to echo my guy' whenever you use Thick-Skinned Goblin's echo-nuking abilty is not terribly productive for anyone.

[Scrappy Kid]

I only actually heard about this incident second-hand, but I thought that going on about how you were 'being nice' under those circumstances was a bit rude. I'm really interested to know what the official answer is, because I've asked around and noone has a clear one yet (#mtgjudge was quiet). By the letter of the law, it seems to me that A's creature should die. However, to me it's a case for a judges to use their own intelligence and go by player intent - if A wanted to not pay the echo for some reason, he obviously would have sacrificed the creature. Thus his failiure to do so implies that he was paying the echo.

I think that modern judging is supposed to work along these lines, and would be ruled in player A's favour. And probably B deserves a warning for unsporting conduct as well.

A quick look through the article titles on the DCI judging pages found the following:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=judge/article/20041220a

[Khahan]

I only actually heard about this incident second-hand, but I thought that going on about how you were 'being nice' under those circumstances was a bit rude. I'm really interested to know what the official answer is, because I've asked around and noone has a clear one yet (#mtgjudge was quiet). By the letter of the law, it seems to me that A's creature should die. However, to me it's a case for a judges to use their own intelligence and go by player intent - if A wanted to not pay the echo for some reason, he obviously would have sacrificed the creature. Thus his failiure to do so implies that he was paying the echo.

I disagree here. I feel the failure to do anything at all implies that he forgot out the trigger. And since it is a 'may' action, forgetting to do it is equivalent to not doing it.   When we play T4, we always announce that we are paying echo or upkeep costs and if we don't, the creature is sacrificed.  End of story (of course, since its a casual game, we can say something along the lines of, "I intend to pay this every upkeep." and let it go at that..but an announcement of intent was made).

But there are 2 very plausible reasons why a player would not announce he is paying (0).  I feel its on the controller of the object to make his 'intent' clear.   Even if he said something somewhat ambiguous when he first played the echo card, like pointing to the thick-skinned goblin and saying, "his echo is 0," that at least gives some indication he is aware of the costs and not just forgetting about it.   But notice the goblin does not say, "You may ignore echo."  It says you may pay 0 mana.  There is still a game action there.

Also note, thick-skinned goblin does say, "You may pay 0...."  which implies you can pay the actual cost if you wish.

At a pre-release, I would still be inclined to 'give it' to the guy w/ the thick-skinned goblin. Its a new mechanic for many and the pre-release is a low level 'learning' event. But I see no reason to start  handing out penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct.  At a higher level event, I think I would agree that the echo cost was not paid and the creature should be sacrificed.

[Harlequin]

Theres a few things going on here.  It really matters exactly how the play went down. 

Example1)

Player A says "Draw for turn?" and waits for his opponent to respond...
Now Player B says "Sure"
Player A draws a card, and player B says "your guy is dead."

This would probably be a Procedural Error for both players (and likely a caution).  As a participant in the game, BOTH Players are responsable for makeing sure the game procedes correctly.  Player B was aware of this trigger, and player A asked him if it was ok to procede onto the next step.  If Player B says, sure draw your card... then it could be argued that both players have agreed at 0 is being payed, and the creature is remaining in play.  If Player B really had doubts about weather or not the creature was being paid or not, he should have asked right then.  The fact that he didn't is a procedural error, and if he now trys to retroactively assume that the creature is not paid for... he should probably get a conduct warning.


Lets take this the other way:  Example 2:

Its my turn.  and I sloppily look at the top card of my library as my draw.  Lets say its balance.  Now I say... oh umm... I never said that I pay 0, so I sac my Echo creatures.  Should this be legal?  no.  befor I had knowledge of the Balance, It is logical that I would want creature in play.  I now have advanced knowledge about the game...  So I can't go back and say "oh yeah thier all dead now"

[Toad]

that no action was necessary in order to do so and so he didn't say anything.

This is wrong. You still have to pay .
The Goblin actually does not make all Echo costs equal to . It allows you to pay instead of the CC of the card if you decide to use his Static ability, which is optional.

In that situation I would consider that the player chose not to pay or the regular CC of the card, since paying is optional and he didnt clearly announce his intention of paying the Echo cost. This is Magic we are talking about, not Portal.

Player A's clear intent was to pay the upkeep, or otherwise he would have sacrificed the Riders.

There is no intent here, and nothing that could actually tell you that the intent of the player was to pay for the Echo. Just a player that made a sloppy play by forgetting to pay an optional cost to save one of his creatures. Intent should not be used to protect players from being bad players.

it could be argued that both players have agreed at 0 is being payed

Not really. A's question is translated as "I have the intention of doing nothing during my Upkeep step, so can we use a shortcut and move to my Draw step, unless you want to do something?".

Its my turn.  and I sloppily look at the top card of my library as my draw.  Lets say its balance.  Now I say... oh umm... I never said that I pay 0, so I sac my Echo creatures.

You will really have to find a good excuse to explain why you remembered that you do not want to pay the Echo for your creatures right after seeing you were going to draw Balance if you want to play Magic for the next few years in sanctionned tournaments.

[Nazdakka]

that no action was necessary in order to do so and so he didn't say anything.

This is wrong. You still have to pay .
The Goblin actually does not make all Echo costs equal to . It allows you to pay instead of the CC of the card if you decide to use his Static ability, which is optional.

In that situation I would consider that the player chose not to pay or the regular CC of the card, since paying is optional and he didnt clearly announce his intention of paying the Echo cost. This is Magic we are talking about, not Portal.

Yeah, but you do seem to be the meanest judge in the known Universe with respect to this sort of stuff...

What would you be willing to consider for intent? How about that Harrow example in the WoTC article? There were 3 choices here - pay full cost, pay 0, or sacrifice it. Given no mana was tapped and the creature is still in play, which play do you think he intended to make?

For ruling by intent to be the correct call, two conditions must be met:

   1. The intention of the player at the time when he could legally have made the decision must be clear.
   2. A player may gain no advantage because of his sloppy play.

You should use the intent philosophy only if both conditions are met.

Both conditions are met here. 1) is established because the Riders are still in play, because you, the judge, have a brain, and because you can ask the player. 2) is met because he hasn't recieved any extra information since he 'made' the choice.

Now, I'm not advocating all that leniant a stance here. If we replace those Riders with a Firemaw Kavu which A actually wanted to sacrifice to kill something, then I would still make him keep them in play because of condition 2) - he has now drawn a card and there's a possible advantage.

[Khahan]

Yeah, but you do seem to be the meanest judge in the known Universe with respect to this sort of stuff...

What would you be willing to consider for intent? How about that Harrow example in the WoTC article? There were 3 choices here - pay full cost, pay 0, or sacrifice it. Given no mana was tapped and the creature is still in play, which play do you think he intended to make?

I'm assuming, as is most often the case, he simply forgot about it.  If you forget echo, guess what...all the intent in the world doesn't matter.  Its not a mandatory payment. If you advance through upkeep without paying it, you lose the creature.   In this case, there is clearly a decision to be made and a clear outcome to not choosing to pay.  There is no ambiguity in the wording of the cards. 

But, even for the intent purposes, if he intended to pay it and just passed priority w/out  mentioning it...its his own fault for not being cautious.  Sorry, but this is Magic. Not go-fish.

However, again, given the tournament was a pre-release, I would say, "You need to announce this in the future to avoid any misunderstandings. But this is a pre-release and its a new mechanic for most. Keep the creature because you told me now what your intent was, but please don't make this mistake again, because the next ruling won't go in your favor."

[LotusHead]

I'm assuming, as is most often the case, he simply forgot about it.  If you forget echo, guess what...all the intent in the world doesn't matter. 

Paying 0 can easily be assumed to be "of course I pay zero for my beatstick". Player A probably said nothing because it was 0 he "paid".
I know I personally have forgotten to deal with "Free" Stuff under my control.  Namely Drain Mana. My fondest memories of Vintage are playing against Webster or LSV and I draw, Go, and they say (burn for 2 scribble scribble life total). Doh! That's a case of forgetting free stuff. If I remembered, I would have gained an advantage, but I forgot, so I paid the price and burned for 2.
Player A wouldn't be gaining an advantage, he would just be maintaining what he thought the gamestate was.  Remember, this is Prerelease, but obviously for "free upkeep costs" we want to know how this plays out.

You may pay 0 Mana rather than pay the echo cost for permanents you control.

Echo costs in the future are likely going to be other than mana costs.
(ie Mogg Bob
BR1
Echo: BR1,Lose 1 life.
Do Bob Stuff. Sacrifice Mogg Bob: Mogg Bob deals 1 point of damage to target player or creature.)

[Harlequin]

Example 1: I have lethal damage on the board but all my creatures have Echo 0.  I draw my card without announcing "I pay 0."  -- do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

Example 2: I have 3 creatures in play with echo 0, you have 3 darksteel colosuses in play, I have no cards in hand.  I draw my card without anounceing "I pay 0" and the card I drew is balance.  do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

How are these examples different?

Are the floor rules intended to DIRRECTLY punish me for being hasty?  Should the rules be judged differently depending board possition? 

[Khahan]

Example 1: I have lethal damage on the board but all my creatures have Echo 0.  I draw my card without announcing "I pay 0."  -- do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

Example 2: I have 3 creatures in play with echo 0, you have 3 darksteel colosuses in play, I have no cards in hand.  I draw my card without anounceing "I pay 0" and the card I drew is balance.  do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

How are these examples different?

Are the floor rules intended to DIRRECTLY punish me for being hasty?  Should the rules be judged differently depending board possition? 

Simple answer: Don't do it.  Proceed through the upkeep with care and simply don't miss it. If you do, call a judge. The fact is, each judge will make a different decision based on the factors you listed among others. The other factors may be the rules enforcement level, have you been warned before for the same thing, does the judge know you or your opponent to be new or be an experienced and technical player?  There are a lot of other criteria they'll take into consideration. You can throw all the scenarios you want at us and we'll each answer differently and we'll each fill in any blanks you left our own way.

And the floor rules are not intended to punish you for being hasty, but they don't 'not apply' if  you are hasty.

[parallax]

You need to be careful when dealing with "ruling by intent". Ruling by intent only means that if the intent is obvious and easy to determine, you should go by that, not that any and all mistakes are forgiven. "Ruling by intent" applies to cases like when a player plays Into the North and puts it into the graveyard before searching. Technically, the card isn't put into the graveyard until it has finished resolving, implying that the player declined to search for anything. In this case, it's obvious that the player still wants to search his library. In the case of a echo cost, it is not obvious whether the player wanted to pay the echo cost, or if he forgot. And in this case, he has gained new information (drew his card for turn) which might influence his decision. "Ruling by intent" does not apply here.

As far as topdecking Balance v. topdecking Overrun or something, it should not affect the ruling of the judge. Either the creature is sacrificed in both cases or it stays in both cases. The judge is not supposed to determine what is most punishing for the player involved when making a ruling. As long as the judge is consistent in both cases, neither player can gain an unfair advantage. The judges job is to enforce the rules, not to punish players for making mistakes. The penalties applied to players are there to prevent abuse, not to "punish".

Now, for a couple of the scenarios presented.

Player A says "Draw for turn?" and waits for his opponent to respond...
Now Player B says "Sure"
Player A draws a card, and player B says "your guy is dead."

Player A has commited a Procedural Error -- Major (possibly Minor). But Player B is clearly Cheating. He intentionally chose not to remind Player A about his upkeep trigger. Both players are responsible for maintaining the game state. You are not allowed to let your opponent forget his abilities to try and gain an advantage.

Its my turn.  and I sloppily look at the top card of my library as my draw.  Lets say its balance.  Now I say... oh umm... I never said that I pay 0, so I sac my Echo creatures.  Should this be legal?  no.  befor I had knowledge of the Balance, It is logical that I would want creature in play.  I now have advanced knowledge about the game...  So I can't go back and say "oh yeah thier all dead now"

If you draw Balance and then try to say "I forgot to pay echo, my creature should be dead.", then you are probably cheating. The only thing you should do in this situation is call a judge.

All these arguments only apply if this is the first echo creature to be played after the Goblin came into play. If any previous echo creatures have been cast, then they would set a "precedent". For example, if you had declared that you were using the Goblin's ability for all previous echo creatures, and failed to do so on this one, then you would sac the creature. If you hadn't mentioned the echo for any previous creatures and your opponent let you keep them, they cannot force you to sac a creature later. It would also be sufficient if you announced when playing the Goblin, that you would choose to pay for all echo creatures in the future unless you say otherwise.

[Apollyon]

You need to be careful when dealing with "ruling by intent". Ruling by intent only means that if the intent is obvious and easy to determine, you should go by that, not that any and all mistakes are forgiven. "Ruling by intent" applies to cases like when a player plays Into the North and puts it into the graveyard before searching. Technically, the card isn't put into the graveyard until it has finished resolving, implying that the player declined to search for anything. In this case, it's obvious that the player still wants to search his library. In the case of a echo cost, it is not obvious whether the player wanted to pay the echo cost, or if he forgot. And in this case, he has gained new information (drew his card for turn) which might influence his decision. "Ruling by intent" does not apply here.

As far as topdecking Balance v. topdecking Overrun or something, it should not affect the ruling of the judge. Either the creature is sacrificed in both cases or it stays in both cases. The judge is not supposed to determine what is most punishing for the player involved when making a ruling. As long as the judge is consistent in both cases, neither player can gain an unfair advantage. The judges job is to enforce the rules, not to punish players for making mistakes. The penalties applied to players are there to prevent abuse, not to "punish".

To expand on that, anyone who does the "I drew for turn, forgot to pay echo, sac my guys" will get the investigation to see if he's cheating. Forgetting upkeep effects is BAD. It leads to things happening that you might not like. So, please, if you are playing with upkeep effects, make everyone's life easier and don't forget them.

Now, for a couple of the scenarios presented.

Player A says "Draw for turn?" and waits for his opponent to respond...
Now Player B says "Sure"
Player A draws a card, and player B says "your guy is dead."

Player A has commited a Procedural Error -- Major (possibly Minor). But Player B is clearly Cheating. He intentionally chose not to remind Player A about his upkeep trigger. Both players are responsible for maintaining the game state. You are not allowed to let your opponent forget his abilities to try and gain an advantage.

Sure you are. You are under no obligation to tell your opponent how to play. B is most definitely not cheating.

Its my turn.  and I sloppily look at the top card of my library as my draw.  Lets say its balance.  Now I say... oh umm... I never said that I pay 0, so I sac my Echo creatures.  Should this be legal?  no.  befor I had knowledge of the Balance, It is logical that I would want creature in play.  I now have advanced knowledge about the game...  So I can't go back and say "oh yeah thier all dead now"

If you draw Balance and then try to say "I forgot to pay echo, my creature should be dead.", then you are probably cheating. The only thing you should do in this situation is call a judge.

Well, that's blatent cheating.

All these arguments only apply if this is the first echo creature to be played after the Goblin came into play. If any previous echo creatures have been cast, then they would set a "precedent". For example, if you had declared that you were using the Goblin's ability for all previous echo creatures, and failed to do so on this one, then you would sac the creature. If you hadn't mentioned the echo for any previous creatures and your opponent let you keep them, they cannot force you to sac a creature later. It would also be sufficient if you announced when playing the Goblin, that you would choose to pay for all echo creatures in the future unless you say otherwise.

In a situation like this, the judge should find out what previously happened to determine how to rule based on how echo was previously handled/said.

[parallax]

Now, for a couple of the scenarios presented.

Player A says "Draw for turn?" and waits for his opponent to respond...
Now Player B says "Sure"
Player A draws a card, and player B says "your guy is dead."

Player A has commited a Procedural Error -- Major (possibly Minor). But Player B is clearly Cheating. He intentionally chose not to remind Player A about his upkeep trigger. Both players are responsible for maintaining the game state. You are not allowed to let your opponent forget his abilities to try and gain an advantage.

Sure you are. You are under no obligation to tell your opponent how to play. B is most definitely not cheating.

You are obligated to let your opponent know there is a triggered ability still on the stack if he announces an intention to move to the draw step. If your opponent starts his turn and draws a card, there is nothing you can do, but if he says "Draw step?" or "Draw for turn?" then you must inform him of any mandatory triggered abilities. Anything else is intentionally misrepresenting the game state to gain an advantage. That is, Cheating.

[Apollyon]

The only mandatory triggered abilities that need to be announced are the ones that have a target.

By the player asking "Draw for turn?", he's saying "I'm going to pass priority and move to my draw step, passing priority unless you do something." It's the same vein as "Pass turn" meaning "I'm going to pass priority through all of my phases unless you do something." Shortcuts like that

By the other player saying "Sure", he agrees that the opponent can move to the draw step.

Since the players did that, the trigger resolves. He chooses not to pay for it, since he didn't pay for it. He then moves to his draw step.

There is no misrepresentation there. Player A forgot to pay for echo. Player B didn't remind him because he was under no obligation to help his opponent.

[Nazdakka]

Example 1: I have lethal damage on the board but all my creatures have Echo 0.  I draw my card without announcing "I pay 0."  -- do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

Example 2: I have 3 creatures in play with echo 0, you have 3 darksteel colosuses in play, I have no cards in hand.  I draw my card without anounceing "I pay 0" and the card I drew is balance.  do I sac all my creatures yes or no?

How are these examples different?

Are the floor rules intended to DIRRECTLY punish me for being hasty?  Should the rules be judged differently depending board possition? 

I like this point...

How about this one, a similar question to the original:

A controls a Thick-Skinned Goblin, B a 4-toughness creature. No other relavent cards around. A plays a Firemaw Kavu and passes. B draws and passes. A goes through his upkeep and draws without doing anything. He meant to sac the Kavu to kill B's guy, but forgot. Does A get to go back and make the play he intended to?

[Apollyon]

It depends on what was previously done in the match. If he had previous used TSG's ability, then he forgot. So when you've previously shortcutted not paying, then it's obvious that you made a play mistake.

Remember: judges aren't there to correct play mistakes.

[Nazdakka]

It depends on what was previously done in the match. If he had previous used TSG's ability, then he forgot. So when you've previously shortcutted not paying, then it's obvious that you made a play mistake.

Remember: judges aren't there to correct play mistakes.

Sure. How about if it's the first time using TSG?

I see it this way: To to be consistant with the arguments above that forgetting the 0 echo cost means that the echo is not paid and so creature should be sacrificed, you'd have to let him go back and fix it. In situations like this, surely the judge's job is to enforce the rules, not come up with the worst possible scenario for that player?

[etakspeelstae]

I think wth that last situation, it'd be more likely that the creature would be sacrificed and the player issued a warning, where in the first situation it's less relevent of a sacrifice.

[Apollyon]

Well, at that point, there are two ways to look at it, he paid the upkeep and didn't say that he was using TSG or he forgot echo entirely. It depends on what my investigation showed, but I'd most likely rule one of those two ways.

Either way, it's going to stay in play. At the point of him drawing, he's received more information than he should have had when he would have made the decision to pay the echo and what to blast.

[parallax]

I'm not sure which way a judge would rule, but one thing is clear: it does not matter what echo creature it is, what card you topdecked, or what the board position is. The judge's job is not to figure out what action would be most punishing and apply that. The judge would rule one way or another: either he rules that you forgot to pay echo and you must sacrifice the creature (whether this is beneficial to you or not is irrelevant), or he rules that you used a shortcut to pay for the echo and keep the creature. Alternately, he can also rule that the game state has changed too much since the decision would have been made, and leave the game state as it is, which is functionally the same as having paid the echo, but a different philosophy.

It would be necessary post on the judge list and get an

• fficial answer from the head judge there to know which of these options is correct.

[SiegeX]

The only mandatory triggered abilities that need to be announced are the ones that have a target.

It's not even that strict, you are not obligated to alert your opponent about ANY optional triggered ability regardless if it has a target.

[parallax]

The only mandatory triggered abilities that need to be announced are the ones that have a target.

It's not even that strict, you are not obligated to alert your opponent about ANY optional triggered ability regardless if it has a target.

You cannot allow your opponent to forget a Dark Confidant trigger and that has no target.

[ashiXIII]

The only mandatory triggered abilities that need to be announced are the ones that have a target.

It's not even that strict, you are not obligated to alert your opponent about ANY optional triggered ability regardless if it has a target.

You cannot allow your opponent to forget a Dark Confidant trigger and that has no target.

That's also a mandatory ability, not an optional one. You're under no obligation to remind your opponents of OPTIONAL triggered abilities. For something like Echo or Cumulative Upkeep, you can allow them to draw and then immediately tell them that they forgot to pay. Calling over a judge is a good idea here, but either way it's assumed they didn't pay and the card is sacrifced. It gets a bit more complicated with the 0 for Echo guy in play, and I think I'd have to make my decision on a case-by-case basis. I think more often than not it would be assumed that he didn't feel he needed to announce paying 0, but sometimes would be ruled the other way. This is definitely a case of ruling by intent.

[Harlequin]

At any rate, it really seems like a Warning/Caution.  Sure, he gets to keep his guys the first time.   But you might warn the player and tell them to inform his opponent that he intends to pay all 0 echo costs, when he plays the goblin.

Caution for Procedural Error on the first offence. thats what I say.  of course... I'm not a judge, so it doesnt matter what I say...

[Toad]

Caution for Procedural Error on the first offence. thats what I say.  of course... I'm not a judge, so it doesnt matter what I say...

Sanctions are not given based on opinions. There is a Penalty Guide for that. On higher REL, you cannot get a Caution for Procedural Error.

Ive discussed the Echo case with our French L4 and he would kill the creature too. Note that this is by no means an Official ruling from a Netrep.

As it has been mentionned before, you are not required to remind your opponent about his own optionnal triggers, even if they target. See Lightning Rift or Disciple of the Vault as recent examples of this.

[ashiXIII]

On higher REL, you cannot get a Caution for Procedural Error.

This is wrong, actually. Proc. Err. - Minor are cautions across the board.

[parallax]

I don't know if echo is an "optional" triggered ability. The key thing about Lightning Rift and Disciple is that one of the possible choices is "nothing happens". There is no "nothing happens" with echo (unless it is pay to keep your guy). Without the Goblin, echo demands that either mana is paid, or the creature is sacrificed. Therefore, you cannot move to the draw step until one of those things happens. Echo does not say "At the beginning of your draw step, sacrifice ~this~ unless you paid the echo cost during your upkeep.". If it is still the upkeep, no mana has been paid, and the creature is still in play, you cannot advance to the draw step, as the trigger is still on the stack. Thus, it is illegal to allow your opponent to move to his draw step. If your opponent draws his card without asking, then you can insist he didn't pay echo and his creature is sacrificed, but if he asks, you must point out the triggered ability on the stack.

[Toad]

This is wrong, actually. Proc. Err. - Minor are cautions across the board.

This is not really relevant since we are talking about a Major here. So no Caution.

Thus, it is illegal to allow your opponent to move to his draw step. If your opponent draws his card without asking, then you can insist he didn't pay echo and his creature is sacrificed, but if he asks, you must point out the triggered ability on the stack.

No, it is not illegal, and no, you are not obliged to point him the triggered ability on the stack.
This is not an opinion Im giving, but the current legal interpretation of the rules regarding optionnal triggered abilities.

It is similar with Upkeep.
FYI Cumulative Upkeep is NOT an optionnal trigger, since adding the Time counter is a mandatory action.